Sitting of 21 February 1989

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  HEALTH

    GPs (Practice Budgets)
    Mr. Ashley: To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether it is proposed that general practitioners who opt for a practice budget will be entitled to keep any savings that there may be for their own personal use.
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): No, Sir. The Government intend that savings generated within practice budgets should be spent on practice improvements and on offering more and better services to patients.
    Mr. Ashley: What would be the criteria for practice improvement expenses? If doctors improve their lifestyles with better suits, cars or holidays, will not patients be tempted to think that that may be taking the place of proper medical treatment? It is not the doctors' fault, but the fault of the Secretary of State for creating a system that replaces trust between patient and doctor with mistrust.
    Mr. Clarke: If doctors acquire better cars and suits it will be only because of the generosity of the pay awards that the Government have been implementing following the review body's recommendations. If savings are made on practice budgets we shall expect them to be ploughed back into improvements to the premises or new facilities so that services to patients can be made better. Financial and medical audits will ensure that that is done.
    Mr. Sims: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the reaction of some general practitioners suggests that they have either misunderstood or misinterpreted the proposals? First, will he confirm that this is a voluntary matter—that it is up to a group practice to choose whether it takes on the budget system? Secondly, would he care to spell out for their benefit the advantages of the scheme?
    Mr. Clarke: We are sending all GPs the working paper on the subject. I agree with my hon. Friend that the proposal is at first sight rather complicated, and I think that the working paper will improve understanding of it considerably.
    Certainly, only practices wishing to participate will have a practice budget, but I find that doctors are being tempted to consider the scheme seriously because they see that large quantities of NHS resources will be placed in
    820
    their hands for part of the treatment that they provide, and that they will have much more say in where and how their patients are served. That will enhance the role of the GP in a practice that has such a budget, and I believe that the more go-ahead GPs will be very interested indeed.
    Mr. Fearn: Section 16 of the Health and Medicines Act 1988 provides for funds to be given to certain practices through the family practitioner committees, especially in deprived areas. Will that still happen or will the budget knock it on the head? Will GPs still receive the cash to improve their properties?
    Mr. Clarke: The practice budgets will be set to reflect the social nature of the practice being served. The proposals in the Health and Medicines Act still stand, with the undertakings given by my hon. Friend the Minister when it was implemented. We shall soon be putting to the profession our proposals for a package on GP remuneration, and that will show how we intend to reflect the extra work that can be imposed on GPs in deprived urban areas.
    Mr. John Greenway: Is not the implication behind the original question that money spent on the Health Service can be spent more efficiently? Will my right hon. and learned Friend take this opportunity to confirm that any GPs taking practice budgets will not have any difficulty if they overspend, and that chronically sick and geriatric patients will not be turned away?
    Mr. Clarke: I can certainly confirm that. It is another misunderstanding that we should quash straight away. There is no question of a GP not being able to provide proper medicine or care for an elderly or chronically sick patient, or for anyone else. Nothing in our proposals gives rise to any such danger.
    Mr. Galbraith: Does the Secretary of State agree that his proposals for practice budgets and, indeed, for general practice overall, reduce both patient and GP choice? Has he read the Coopers and Lybrand health and management update report No. 22, section 8, which says that the Government's proposals will reduce choice for patients and GPs? Will he come clean and admit that, rather than increasing choice, the proposals will simply increase bureaucracy?
    Mr. Clarke: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's assertion, or with Coopers and Lybrand, if the report supports what the hon. Gentleman says. General practitioners who do not elect to have practice budgets will still have freedom of choice on referrals although they will have to work more closely with their district health authorities than hitherto in deciding on referral patterns from their areas. As I explained to my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims), a GP practice that elects to have a practice budget will have much greater choice for itself and the patients and much greater control than GPs have had in the past over quite large amounts of NHS resources.

    Abortion
    Miss Widdecombe: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of abortions at 25 weeks, 26 weeks and 27 weeks was performed (luring 1987 because the child was likely to be born handicapped.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Roger Freeman): The figures are eight out of 11, six out of nine and all three at 27 weeks, respectively. For the convenience of the House I shall publish in the Official Report a table which presents this information more fully.
    Miss Widdecombe: In view of the fact that even at the late ages of 25 and 26 weeks' gestation there are still some social abortions is my hon. Friend satisfied that his Department is complying with the spirit and the letter of the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929?
    Mr. Freeman: My hon. Friend is certainly right that based upon the figures that I have just given, six of the abortions in 1987 where the gestation period was above 24 weeks were for reasons other than the potential handicap of the child. If the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 were amended to insert "24 weeks" instead of 28 weeks, all 23 abortions would be called into question except where the life of the mother was endangered. My hon. Friend's Bill would call into question only six of the abortions.
    Mr. Frank Field: The pro-abortionists claims that there is no majority in the House to amend the Abortion Act 1967. Will the Minister speculate as to why that self-same group spends so much time adopting procedural devices to prevent us from reaching a conclusion on the matter?
    Mr. Freeman: As the hon. Gentleman knows, that is not a matter for me.
    Mr. Andrew MacKay: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the answer that he has just given to my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) confirms that, quite rightly, there are very few late abortions—
    Miss Widdecombe: Too many.
    Mr. MacKay:—and secondly, that nearly all of those take place when there is a very clear indication that the baby is likely to be grossly handicapped?
    Mr. Freeman: My hon. Friend is right. I repeat the figure of six late abortions—using my hon. Friend's definition of late as being over 24 weeks' gestation—where the reasons were other than for the potential handicap of the child.
    Mr. Alton: Does the Minister really believe that the possibility of something as trivial as a non-inherited skin disease represents a gross handicap? Does he not agree that amniocentesis and chorionic vilius sampling are increasingly used as the first part of a search and destroy mission, that far too much pressure is put on people to abort away handicap and disability and that that becomes a quality control on life and what is really needed is help for both the mother and the child?
    Mr. Freeman: The hon. Gentleman will realise that the certification of the cause involving the potential handicap of a child is not a matter for me but for clinical judgment.
    The information is as follows:
    822
    Notification of abortions which took place with a gestation period of 25, 26 and 27 weeks showing the number with a mention of ground 4 which states "there is a substantial risk that if the child is born it would suffer such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped"

    England and Wales 1987

    (a) All grounds

    (b) Ground 4

    (c) (b) as a percentage of (a)

    25 weeks

    11

    8

    72·7

    26 weeks

    9

    6

    66·7

    27 weeks

    3

    3

    100·0

    Total

    23

    17

    73·9

    Hospital Matrons
    Mr. Lord: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he proposes to examine the role of the hospital matron in the National Health Service.
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. David Mellor): Health authorities are already free to use the title of matron for the senior nurse manager in a hospital, and some do so. One of the key aims of the Government's new proposals is to give hospitals much more control over the running of their own affairs, and decisions on the roles and titles of senior nursing staff will continue to be made locally.
    Mr. Lord: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that there is widespread disappointment that the traditional role of matron does not feature more widely in the current review of the Health Service? Is he further aware that the role of matron was unique in that she could deal with consultants and doctors, understood nurses and patients well, yet at the same time as was able to control very carefully items such as bed linen and bandages and had a good overall view of the whole system? Bearing in mind that people rather than structures make organisations run smoothly will he reconsider reinstituting the traditional role of matron in our hospitals?
    Mr. Mellor: I recall that that paragon was usually played by Peggy Mount in the films. However, there is nothing to prevent a hospital that is seduced by my hon. Friend's arguments from calling its senior nurse manager a matron, as some hospitals do.
    Dame Jill Knight: I suggest to my hon. and learned Friend that it does not matter a row of beans who played the part of the matron in a film. Many people think that almost the biggest mistake ever made in the National Health Service was to get rid of the matron. If we had that particular figurehead, there is little doubt that she would be able to cope with the flood of thefts that is endemic in the NHS, that she would make the wards cleaner—many of them badly need to be made cleaner—and that she would manage the hospital with great efficiency, as she always used to do. Does my hon. and learned Friend acknowledge that apart from the fact that hospitals can bring back matrons, they ought to be positively encouraged to bring them back?
    Mr. Mellor: As I understand the argument in 1966, the feeling was that there were so many different sizes of hospital that one needed a more sophisticated profile for senior nurse managers to reflect the different sizes of units

    823
    that were being managed. It is important that senior nursing offices should be invested with all the powers that are required to do the various jobs to which my hon. Friend refers. If a hospital chooses to call that senior nursing manager a matron, so he it. We have no objection.

    Cervical Cancer
    Mr. Wray: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the latest figures for women affected by cervical cancer aged (a) 25 years or less and (b) over 25 years.
    Mr. Freeman: The latest information available is for 1984. In England and Wales there were 41 registered, newly diagnosed cases of malignant neoplasm of the cervix in women aged under 25. There were 4,002 cases in women aged 25 and over.
    Mr. Wray: Does the Minister agree that over 2,000 women a year are dying from cervical cancer? Why do the Government not spend the additional £20 million that would provide a 90 per cent. coverage? The hospitalisation bill is £15,000 per patient. That is equivalent to £30 million. The project to screen women once every five years costs £30 million. All the Minister needs to do is to spend £20 million and he would be £10 million in pocket.
    Mr. Freeman: I confirm that there are 2,000 avoidable deaths each year. If the policy of introducing screening for all women between the ages of 20 and 54 at least once every five years were introduced and if it covered all women between those ages, it would cut deaths by about 85 per cent. Our policy of screening women at least once every five years will enable us to reach more women and therefore to save more lives. To concentrate on a shorter frequency in the long run is, I agree, the ideal, but if we went for a shorter cycle we should inevitably reach fewer women.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my hon. Friend remember those who die of breast cancer? The numbers are now quite horrendous. Will he therefore expedite the provision of mammography for all women in the particularly vulnerable age group of 50 and older?
    Mr. Freeman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. She is absolutely right that the breast screening programme—which is new, unlike screening for cancer of the cervix, which commenced in 1966—is most valuable and saves the lives of many women. We are keeping that programme under close review, and I shall bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said.
    Dr. Moonie: Does the Minister agree that the latest date for which information is available is 1984 and that that is appalling? When will that be improved?
    Mr. Freeman: I share some of the hon. Gentleman's concern, but he ought to appreciate that the information that is collected by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys depends in part on figures that come from voluntary organisations. It is not, therefore, within my power to ensure that comprehensive figures are available for the most recent years, much though I should like to do so.

    NHS (White Paper)
    Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received on the recent White Paper on the review of the National Health Service.
    Mr. Dykes: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the response from members of the public and the various interest groups to his White Paper proposals on the future of the National Health Service, published on 31 January.
    Mr. Hunter: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his assessment of immediate reactions to the proposals contained in the White Paper entitled "Working for Patients".
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Reaction to the White Paper "Working for Patients" has been extremely positive. We have published a series of working papers outlining some of our key proposals in greater detail, and we shall be discussing the implementation of these proposals with interested parties in the coming weeks.
    Mr. Bruce: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his answer. In acknowledging that we have received a warm response from most members of the public and the medical profession, does he believe that the introduction of the White Paper's proposals ought to be fairly flexible? Does he agree that consultations with the medical profession and the consultative committees should take place so that we can provide the absolutely best possible deal for the National Health Service?
    Mr. Clarke: The proposals are complicated and go into details about how the service is managed and financed, which normally, as a patient, the average member of the public would not encounter, so understandably there is some public reserve about the proposals. A great deal of discussion is needed, particularly with those who are intimately involved with the way in which the service is run and financed. That is what we propose to embark on in the next few weeks—having published the working papers yesterday—and we are open to all constructive suggestions about how these proposals can best be implemented for the benefit of patients.
    Mr. Dykes: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that many of his ideas in the White Paper have been received warmly and positively? Does he agree that in principle it is possible for specialist national hospitals to consider opting out while remaining within the NHS system if they are threatened with closure or removal or both, provided that the scheme is viable and the funding properly organised?
    Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend about reaction to the proposals, and I am surprised that we have not had the bitter outpouring of opposition that sometimes comes automatically on any health service subject from a whole range of people. Only the Labour party and a few trade unions have responded in that way.
    I confirm that any hospital is potentially a candidate for being self-governing, if it can demonstrate the ability to be so. Some specialist hospitals could certainly be prime candidates. I put in a reservation about whether they are threatened with closure. If there is a place for that part of the service in the NHS—if doctors want to refer to that unit in that hospital—and if there is a continuous need for

    825
    that service, they are ideal candidates for self-governing status. Obviously, a hospital that is facing closure because its services are redundant or because they have been replaced by something better would find difficulty in establishing such a case.
    Mr. Hunter: With regard to general practitioners managing their own budgets, will my right hon. and learned Friend take this opportunity to clarify the precise mechanism by which practitioners will have spending power once their indicative budgets are used?
    Mr. Clarke: I am not sure whether my hon. Friend is questioning me about the practice budgets, about which we had an exchange a few moments ago, or about the indicative drug budgets which all practices will have.
    As for practice budgets, general practitioners will not be obliged to close down or to refuse medicine if they go over the budget that they have negotiated and had set for them, but if they overspend without good clinical reasons that they can demonstrate, they will be expected to recover the overspend. They can always apply for a budgetary review if it turns out that there are good clinical reasons for enlarging the budget.
    As for the indicative drug budget, that will be an indication of what a practice of that kind should incur by way of prescribing costs. If any practice overspends by a significant amount over that indicative budget, it will be exposed to advice from other doctors and some questioning from the family practitioner committee and will be expected to take some collective measures to make sure that it gets down to a reasonable level of prescribing costs.
    Mrs. Mahon: Will the Minister explain precisely who will be allowed to decide whether a hospital opts out? It is difficult to understand from the discussion documents just what the position will be. Indeed, the discussion papers are bizarre. May we be told in simple terms who will make the decision?
    Mr. Clarke: The hon. Lady refers to opting out. She may have been misled by her hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) into thinking that we are talking about opting out of the NHS, which we most certainly are not.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Not yet.
    Mr. Clarke: We are talking about NHS hospitals which will be run by their own managers, doctors and nurses and not be so subject to the district, region and Secretary of State in their day-to-day affairs. The decision as to whether a hospital which wants to become self-governing shall become self-governing will in the end be taken by the Secretary of State for Health after he has received a report and advice from the regional health authority.
    Mr. Loyden: The right hon. and learned Gentleman should speak and listen to the consumers of the NHS. Most people see this as the first steps towards privatisation. In that sense, are not the Government abrogating their responsibility for the health of the people of the nation?
    Mr. Clarke: If a significant proportion of the population believe that this is a step towards privatisation, they have been absurdly misled by the Labour party. There is not a word in the White Paper which makes it any
    826
    easier, or any more difficult, for any Government to privatise the NHS. It is obvious to anyone who reads the White Paper that its proposals have nothing to do with privatising the NHS, on which the Government have turned their back.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the Secretary of State acknowledge that although there are already reservations, greater reservations may arise when the discussion documents are examined? What place will be given to consumers in local committees, especially with the abolition of participation by councillors?
    Mr. Clarke: The various bodies in question—family practitioner committees, district health authorities, regional health authorities, and the boards of NHS hospital trusts—will have a majority of non-executive members; lay people as opposed to professional people. Obviously, we expect to find on all committees people drawn from the local community to represent the consumer interest in its widest sense. They will also be able to make a personal contribution to the management and development of the Health Service.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that rather than take into account the present situation in attempting to preserve the cumbersome bureaucracy of the Health Service—as the Opposition wish to do—one of the Government's most beneficial proposals is to allow hospitals to opt out of cumbersome district health authorities and into the hands of local management? Will he give an assurance that the determinant of opting out will not be the convenience of consultants but local popular demand?
    Mr. Clarke: I share my hon. Friend's dismay over the Opposition. I have been a Member of the House and in health politics long enough to recall that, over the past 20 years, the Labour party has opposed every proposed change to the Health Service. They vigorously fought the proposal to establish district health authorities in the form that they now have, and now oppose changes to reform them further. The Opposition opposed Griffiths and every advance in the Health Service, as long as anyone can remember. The acid test of a self-governing hospital, as of any of the reforms, must be whether it improves the service to the nation and makes it stronger and more effective in delivering care to the community. That must be the test which, above all, we apply to suggestions for implementing reforms.
    Mr. Robin Cook: Does the Secretary of State include among the positive responses to the White Paper last week's poll showing that of those members of the public who know of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's proposals, only 14 per cent. approve of them and 71 per cent. disapprove? Is that why the working paper published yesterday makes it clear that the Secretary of State will not risk a ballot on any proposal to opt out? If opting out is about local self-government, why is it that only the right hon. and learned Gentleman will make the decision on every single opt-out? If response to the White Paper is positive and favourable, why is the Secretary of State so reluctant to put opting out to the vote?
    Mr. Clarke: As I said a moment ago to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes), the reason for current public reaction is because the public does not yet

    827
    altogether understand the proposals' details. They are complicated proposals, and the average member of the public does not understand what is done by a family practitioner committee, for example, and how the Health Service is managed and financed. While discussing matters with staff, we must at the same time explain to the public how the proposals will work in strengthening the service. I have no idea who the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) thinks we should ballot. I presume that he asks for a ballot of trade union members in the hospital in question to determine the matter. We expect that when the proposals for self-governing hospitals are publicised and fully discussed locally, the decision will be made on the basis of whether that change will improve the ability of the Health Service to deliver care to its patients.

    Dentists
    Mr. Moss: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the number of dentists in the National Health Service in 1979 and in the latest available year.
    Mr. Mellor: There were 15,293 dentists in the National Health Service in England in 1979 and in 1987, the number was 17,761—an increase of 16 per cent.
    Mr. Moss: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for those figures. Does he agree that they hide substantial local variations, and that it is especially welcome that the Government are introducing, on a trial basis, arrangements to encourage dentists to set up in shortage areas by providing financial incentives?
    Mr. Mellor: My hon. Friend is right. The sharp increase in the number of dentists working in the NHS is welcome news to everybody, but it disguises considerable variations. For instance, there are twice as many dentists per head of population in North East Thames as in the Trent region. Plainly, we must do something to make the spread more even.
    Mr. Key: Will my hon. and learned Friend take another look at his Department's policy of discussing dental issues with only just over half the dentists, who are members of the British Dental Association, and ignoring all the others who are members of the General Dental Practitioners Association, because I, for one, find that confusing?
    Mr. Mellor: Our aim is to work with the grain of the profession and I shall bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said.

    National Health Service (Review)
    Mr. Wareing: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consultations he has had with representatives of the medical profession in respect of the Government's review of the National Health Service; and what their response has been.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I have had a number of useful discussions with representatives of the medical profession. I look forward to hearing their views on the implementation of the Government's proposals when they have had time to consider the detailed working papers that I published yesterday.
    Mr. Wareing: Is not the medical profession up in arms about those proposals because it realises that patient care
    828
    is being sacrificed on the altar of a preparatory stage on the road to privatisation? Can the Minister confirm that one hospital that had opted out could concentrate on diabetics, another could concentrate on obstetrics and another on hip operations, creating a Health Service in which care was fragmented? Is it not true that whereas after the war the Labour Government created a comprehensive NHS, this Government are proposing a fragmented one?
    Mr. Clarke: Many doctors have many different opinions. The most common reaction that I have encountered from doctors and their representatives is a requirement for more detail in order to discuss the matter further. They now have the working papers and I await their reaction. No doctor has so far taken up with me the privatisation argument. I do not think that any doctor takes that seriously. They regard it as knockabout political nonsense put about by the Labour party. I have heard of fears about self-governing hospitals suddenly electing to go for some narrow specialty. Apart from those that are specialist hospitals already, such as the royal national orthopaedic, which my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) may have had in mind, I cannot see any sensible reason why any hospital trust and its doctors and managers should decide to start abandoning particular specialties in serving their town, and nothing in the proposals gives them any incentive to do so.
    Mr. Favell: As the medical profession is there to serve patients, if a patient is not satisfied with the treatment that he receives or with the length of wait, will he be able to take his business elsewhere?
    Mr. Clarke: Certainly. We should make sure that the patient is completely free to do so. The rules that inhibit that freedom which are occasionally respected at the moment, will be removed by the Government.
    Mr. Heffer: Is the Minister aware that my constituents are very much opposed to the idea of the Walton or Fazakerly hospitals opting out? Is he also aware that we are very much opposed to the closure of the Walton hospital and the concentration of all services at the Fazakerly hospital? Therefore, will he give us an assurance that the Walton hospital will not be closed and that the ideas and high concepts of the people of the area will be accepted?
    Mr. Clarke: I am interested to hear that the hon. Gentleman wishes both hospitals to be subject to the direct control of the district and regional health authorities, but then expresses his strong opposition to a policy that those authorities might adopt. The closure of Walton hospital and the concentration of services at Fazakerly hospital will have to be decided first by the health authorities that are responsible for both hospitals at the moment; there will then have to be public consultation, and, if the community health councils disagree, my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State will have to make the final ministerial decision. That is the present system and will remain the system after the White Paper has been implemented.
    Mr. Ralph Howell: May I tell my right hon. and learned Friend how pleased I am to hear that all hospitals will be eligible to opt out, not just the large ones? Will he consider the opting out of Wells and district cottage hospital in my constituency, which would be a most excellent step to take?
    Mr. Clarke: Any hospital contemplating becoming an NHS hospital trust will have to draw up its business plan and proposals for serving patients in the area. It will then have to be examined to ensure that the hospital is capable of taking such control over its own affairs and that there is a satisfactory level of demand for its services in the area with an expected level of referrals to justify its existence as an NHS hospital trust. All that is set out in the working paper and I have no doubt that people in Wells and elsewhere will be studying it carefully to see whether it fits the circumstances of their hospital.
    Ms. Harman: Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman consulted GPs about referring patients to hospitals? What will happen under his proposals where the patient and the GP choose a hospital with which the DHA does not have a contract and the DHA refuses to use its contingency reserve? Will the patient get treatment where he or she chooses and who will pick up the bill?
    Mr. Clarke: In the precise situation set out by the hon. Lady the same situation could arise as arises now. A GP is free to refer his or her patients if he wishes, but the hospital is not obliged to accept all referrals. Increasingly, in recent years, referrals have not been accepted because there have been no funds for treatment for an out-of-district patient. All our changes in the White Paper will make it easier for money to cross administrative boundaries, and it will be up to the GP to consult his own district health authority about referral patterns. If he wants to be free of the DHA he will have to contemplate having his own practice budget.

    Abortion
    Mrs. Ann Winterton: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many abortions at 18 weeks and over were carried out in 1987 in clinics run by charities; and if he will distinguish between United Kingdom residents and non-residents.
    Mr. Freeman: Two thousand seven hundred and twenty eight in charitable, as opposed to non-charitable private clinics. Of these, 2,214 were performed on women resident in the United Kingdom and 514 on non-resident women.
    Mrs. Winterton: When will my hon. Friend implement the recommendations of the 1973 Select Committee on abortion, which proposed that links between doctors and agencies referring women for abortions and the clinics in which they were carried out should be broken and that there should be after-care and follow-up facilities for women who come to this country from abroad for abortions?
    Mr. Freeman: We have these matters under consideration, but I can tell my hon. Friend that the majority of abortions performed in 1987 on women after a gestation period greater than 18 weeks were in private clinics. The proportion of non-resident women was just under one half and that proportion has fallen by about one half since 1983.
    Mr. Fearn: Is the Minister aware that the 60 per cent. of abortions carried out in private clinics bring in £2 million to the private doctors concerned? Does he not think that those doctors should be defenders of life not destroyers?
    Mr. Freeman: The private clinics and the doctors who work in them have an important role to play in the health care of the nation. Whether the abortions performed in those clinics or in NHS clinics are ethically correct is a matter for the hon. Gentleman's conscience and for mine.

    NHS (Staff Statistics)
    Mr. David Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the present ratio of administrators and ancillary staff to doctors and nurses in the National Health Service; and what was the ratio in 1979.
    Mr. Mellor: In 1979, for every 100 administrators and ancillary staff there were 140 doctors and nurses. In 1987, for every 100 administrators and ancillary staff there were 190 doctors and nurses.
    Mr. Evans: Does not my hon. and learned Friend's answer reiterate the Government's commitment to the Health Service and in particular to those at the sharp end? Does it not also illustrate that the Government are moving away from bureaucracy to patient care?
    Mr. Mellor: It absolutely does, because that figure—which I am glad that the House has welcomed—shows not only the increase in medical staff but a very major change in administrative, clerical and ancillary staff: a sharp reduction in ancillary staff but an increase of over 63 per cent. in administrative and clerical staff working in clinically related posts. That is a major change and a fundamental reason why the NHS is serving patients better today than it ever did when the Labour party was in power.
    Mr. Bell: Will the Minister note that there was nothing wrong with the ratio of administrators to doctors in Middlesbrough general hospital during the time of the child abuse crisis, when 121 children were taken into care and 98 were returned by the courts? Given that state of affairs, what does the Minister make of the doctors' statement at the weekend that 90 per cent. of the children were abused then and are abused now?
    Mr. Mellor: I have every confidence in the Northern regional health authority and I support the decision it has taken to bring disciplinary action against Dr. Higgs. I cannot say more now, because the matter is sub judice. However, I can say that I read with considerable surprise the letter, signed by the 11 clinicians, that appeared in The Guardian. Neither I nor my Department can see any basis for the assertion that more than 90 per cent. of those children had been abused.
    Sir Anthony Grant: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that the Government are to be congratulated on their policy of encouraging ancillary services to be put out to tender, which has enabled millions of pounds throughout the Health Service to be applied to patient care and has put an end to the nasty NUPE and COHSE cartel?
    Mr. Mellor: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Competitive tendering has been a significant factor in enabling the National Health Service to treat a greatly expanded number of patients more efficiently. Once again, it is a sign of the double-talk of the Opposition that, although claiming to represent the interests of patients,

    831
    they actually uphold the stranglehold of the cartel that NUPE and COHSE used to exercise over the NHS, but do no longer.

    "Working for Patients"
    Mr. Beith: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much has been spent on publicising the proposals in the recent health White Paper, 'Working for Patients'.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The sum of £1,250,000 has been allocated and spent on the launch of the White Paper.
    Mr. Beith: Is that not an outrageous sum to have been diverted from patient care to give the Secretary of State greater publicity opportunities? Will that diversion of funds from patient care not be a characteristic of the reforms that he is setting out, not least if they involve a massive amount of invoicing, charging and recharging, all of which will add to the bureaucratic costs of the Health Service without helping patients?
    Mr. Clarke: I regard it as a bargain at the price when one considers that we were explaining complicated proposals to a service that employs more than 1 million people and consumes £26 billion of taxpayers' money each year. In the past, the Health Service has not communicated well with its staff and, at times, has been reminiscent of the worst features of the car industry in the 1960s and 1970s, by its complete failure to communicate with its own staff. We embarked on a modest attempt to explain to people the implications of our proposals for their careers and their patients. The costs, incidentally, include things such as the popular leaflet and short communications pack, which I know that many in the House are using, let alone people outside.
    Mr. Hayes: In welcoming the way in which my right hon. and learned Friend has taken time and effort to sell his policies and the way in which he has used money to do so, may I ask him to encourage some of his Cabinet colleagues to do the same?
    Mr. Clarke: I know that at least one of my Cabinet colleagues has been interested in my experience of teleconferencing, and the same method will be used again. Given that the Government explain their policies in White Papers and other ways, it is absurd that we are not allowed to explain them to those mostly directly affected, using the most modern methods of communication. The cost is modest. The literature, videos and everything else contain no hint of party political material and we adhere extremely strictly to the conventions that surround these matters.
    Mr. Andrew Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimates he has made of the additional administrative costs of National Health Service hospital trusts, general practitioner budgets and other proposals in the White Paper, "Working for Patients".
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: No overall assessment of costs can be made in advance of decisions about the details and pace of implementation. I have no doubt that the NHS needs to invest in modern management methods.
    Mr. Smith: It is not irresponsible of the Secretary of State to bring forward these proposals without having
    832
    estimated the administrative costs? Does he not accept that his proposals will absorb, in the administration of wasteful competition, resources that should go into patient care? Will he give the House a straight answer to a straight question? Will administrative costs fall or rise? If the latter, who will pay?
    Mr. Clarke: We made some provision for administrative costs in last year's autumn settlement when we allocated £2 billion. Money will certainly need to be put up front for investment in modern management techniques to achieve savings thereafter and to make better use of that money for patients.
    As I said in my main reply, the Health Service needs to invest in that sort of modern management information. En any event, it is absurd that a huge service that spends £26,000 million each year cannot say with certainty where any individual sums of money go or what any facility costs or requires to be spent on it. All our investment in modern management techniques is essential to produce a stronger and better run National Health Service.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Civil Service
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister what arrangements exist to ensure that the Civil Service is not politicised in circumstances where a single party has been in power for a decade or more.
    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): I have been asked to reply.
    The Civil Service is a non-political and professional career service, subject to a code of rules and disciplines. It is an express condition of that code that civil servants should discharge loyally the duties assigned to them by the Government of the day, whatever the political persuasion of that Government.
    Mr. Dalyell: Pursuant to the Prime Minister's oral answer of 2 February, column 425, on the circumstances of Sir Leon Brittan's appointment, what is the House of Commons to think other than that Mr. Ingham and Mr. Powell have become so highly politicised that they connived at the Prime Minister's corrupt and—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must withdraw the word "corrupt".
    Mr. Skinner: Ted Heath said it.
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Dalyell: I borrow the word of the former Conservative Prime Minister.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should resume his seat when I am on my feet. I do not care who else may have said that, but I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw that word.
    Mr. Dalyell: Is there one rule for Back Benchers and another for former Prime Ministers?—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I have studied the Hansard of that exchange and it is my understanding that the former Prime

    833
    Minister referred to the machinery at No. 10, not to the Prime Minister personally. I am asking the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the word "corrupt". I advise him that he will be taking time out of questions if he refuses to do so.
    Mr. Dalyell: The last thing that I want to do is to get thrown out of the House of Commons. However, in view of column 657 on 27 January 1986, could we say specifically the Prime Minister's "misbehaviour"? Did they connive at that?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman please withdraw the word "corrupt"?
    Mr. Dalyell: Is is an important day for the House and the last thing—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] Mr. Speaker asked me to withdraw; I will.
    Mr. Wakeham: That was a long time acoming.
    Whatever the hon. Gentleman's views, today's Civil Service is as impartial and professional as ever. If the hon. Gentleman wants any evidence of that, the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service concluded in 1986 that it had received
    "No convincing evidence that the British Civil Service is being politicised."
    A working party of the Royal Institute of Public Administration has also recently concluded:
    "There has not been an overt or systematic politicisation of the top ranks of the civil service."
    I prefer their evidence to that of the hon. Gentleman.

    Engagements
    Mr. French: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 21 February.
    Mr. Wakeham: I have been asked to reply.
    This morning my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was in Germany for an Anglo-German summit. This afternoon she is attending the memorial service in Belfast for those who died in the air crash at Kegworth.
    Mr. French: Will my right hon. Friend find time to consider the greater degree of choice that the Government's housing policies afford to council tenants? Does he agree that allowing tenants to choose their landlord is the best way of raising standards? Is he aware that Gloucester city council is providing such a choice by offering its tenants the opportunity to opt for one of the best housing associations?
    Mr. Wakeham: I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend that the best way of raising council tenants' standards is to give them a choice of landlord. The Housing Act 1988 achieves that through the tenants' choice provisions and I am sure that council tenants will welcome those new rights. I am also aware of Gloucester city council's proposals for transferring its housing, but I must resist the temptation to comment on them, because the council may wish to apply to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment for a consent to dispose of that housing and I would not want to prejudice his consideration of the application.
    Mr. Kinnock: May I inform the right hon. Gentleman—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question."] Mr. Speaker, may I inform—[Interruption]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Come on, please.
    Mr. Kinnock: May I inform the right hon. Gentleman that the Opposition fully support the firmest international action against the threats that have been made on Salman Rushdie's life? The great majority of Moslems, although devout in their faith and offended by what they have been told that Mr. Rushdie has written, are nevertheless law-abiding citizens who are opposed to any illegal act. I also repeat my conviction that Mr. Rushdie is free, under the law of this free country, to publish, and no power has the right to menace or oppress his liberty to do so.
    Mr. Wakeham: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman and I am sure that his sentiments are shared by all hon. Members. I am sure that he will also be grateful that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will make a statement at the end of Question Time.
    Mr. Boswell: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 21 February.
    Mr. Wakeham: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Boswell: Will my right hon. Friend find time to look into the compensation arrangements that follow compulsory purchase? Does he accept that they are often felt to be unfair and resentment of them contributes to further delays in infrastructure projects?
    Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend knows that we keep these matters under review and he will be pleased that we have substantially increased home loss payments to a minimum of £1,200.
    Mr. Blunkett: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 21 February.
    Mr. Wakeham: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Blunkett: In view of yesterday's events at Shrewsbury, does the Leader of the House first accept that Opposition Members do not wish yesterday's events to be seen as a way of resolving the problems of a unified Ireland?
    Secondly, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that very grave concern is felt by those who use service camps about the way in which privatisation has resulted in a plethora of contractors not using proper screening methods? When I recently visited accommodation outside Catterick camp I was informed that, although service and Civil Service personnel were vetted and supplied with proper passes, contractors' employees who provide catering and other services were not. Will he investigate that matter?
    Mr. Wakeham: I know of no evidence to support what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I shall take note of it and see that it is examined by the appropriate authorities. The attack on Clive barracks was another callous attempt to kill and maim soliders as they lay asleep. It was thwarted by the vigilance of the guards, and their courage and presence of mind prevented a serious loss of life. I am sure the hon. Gentleman would not expect me to comment on security arrangements or any details of them.
    Mr. Conway: Notwithstanding the supplementary question, which was a far from accurate reflection on the state of security on British forces bases, will my right hon. Friend take time during his busy day to ensure that the Secretary of State for Defence communicates to the commanding officer of the 2nd Parachute battalion the congratulations of the House on the vigilance of that battalion in having secured a large base? Will he also commend the courage of Private Norris, who fought off the attackers?
    Will my right hon. Friend ensure that a review is carried out into whether sentries guarding military bases should have their weapons loaded? The fact that they were not on this occasion is not the fault of the individual private or of his commanding officer—it is current MOD policy.
    Mr. Wakeham: I shall certainly pass on what my hon. Friend says. I am sure the whole House would want to pay a warm tribute to the young men who, asleep or on duty, are at grave risk for our safety.
    With regard to the safety arrangements at the camp. the appropriate measures are taken in the light of the changing threats. Measures are constantly reviewed. At Clive barracks the soliders were armed with weapons and had immediate access to ammunition. I would not want to comment on any other speculation.
    Mr. George Howarth: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 21 February.
    Mr. Wakeham: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Howarth: Is the Leader of the House aware of recent reports that have suggested that contact with certain bleached paper products, particularly women's sanitary wear and children's nappies, could lead to the users being infected with dioxin? Does he agree that the manufacturers' response to that has been inadequate and in some respects patronising, and what will he do about that?
    Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman is correct to say that there has been some trouble in this area, but it is of small proportions. It is being examined to check what can be done to relieve the problem.
    Mr. Raffan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the valleys initiative, together with the 67 per cent. increase in this year's urban programme allocation, shows the Government's determination that all areas should benefit from the economic transformation that is taking place? Does he also agree that the Opposition's clear embarrassment by the initiative is simply because this Government are doing for their traditional heartland what they lamentably failed to do when in office?
    Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend is right. I was present in the Chamber yesterday when the Opposition gave a great deal of publicity to the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales this morning, in which he pointed out that in 1988 there was new inward investment in the valleys every two weeks, and more than half those projects were for more than £1 million. In total those investments will provide
    836
    several thousand new jobs, and unemployment in the Welsh valleys has fallen by 38 per cent. over the past three years.
    Mr. Steel: Will the Lord President make it clear to the Prime Minister that not even the best efforts of her publicity machine will persuade us that the German Government are out of step in NATO on the issue of premature modernisation of short-range nucler weapons? A fortnight ago she told the House that Norway was a loyal NATO ally. The Lord President may know that Norway and Denmark have joined the Germans in resisting this move. Does he accept that we believe that this country should spend the next two years seeking further reductions in nuclear and conventional weaponry on the Warsaw pact side, and that it is the British Government who are out of step?
    Mr. Wakeham: My right hon. Friend had a successful meeting in Germany with the Chancellor. I believe that they had good discussions, and I hope that our positions are coming closer together.
    Mr. John Marshall: During his busy day will my right hon. Friend consider the results of the ballots held under the Education Reform Act 1988? Does he agree that they show that the parents of this country prefer Conservative choice to a Socialist straitjacket?
    Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend makes his point well; I certainly shall.
    Mr. Rooker: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 21 February.
    Mr. Wakeham: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Rooker: When the Leader of the House considers with the Prime Minister, as he must do from time to time, the legislative programme of the House, will they take on board the supreme difficulty, indeed the impossibility, of a British jury deciding on blasphemy in respect of' Christianity, let alone other religions, and accept the reality of life in this country, that in effect our national religion is one of freedom, and take the considered report of the Law Commission and bring forward legislation to abolish the law on blasphemy and replace it with public order offences?
    Mr. Wakeham: I will certainly take the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question and discuss it with my right hon. Friend, but the hon. Gentleman would not expect me to answer him here now.
    Mr. Key: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 21 February.
    Mr. Wakeham: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Key: Many hon. Members and all Conservative Members will welcome the downward trend in long-term unemployment. Will my right hon. Friend accept the congratulations of the House on that and also express the thanks of the House to all those, often lowly paid, civil servants in jobcentres who made this trend come about?
    Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw the attention of the House to the excellent figures

    837
    released today, showing that long-term unemployment is down by about 280,000. It has fallen in all regions, which is excellent news, and total employment is at its highest ever.
    Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order right now, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: No. Statement by the Foreign Secretary, Sir Geoffrey Howe.

Iran
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Geoffrey Howe): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement about Britain's relations with Iran. As the House knows, it has been our purpose to try to restore a normal relationship with the Government of Iran. I have no doubt that that was right. Iran is an important country in the region. Britain has significant interests there; and Britain is a permanent member of the Security Council which has responsibility for international peace and security.
Even so, the decision to reopen our embassy in Tehran last December was taken in full knowledge of the difficulties involved, including the continued imprisonment of British citizens, Nicholas Nicola and Roger Cooper, and the detention of British hostages in the Lebanon. On our side, we conducted matters prudently and carefully. There were signs, not least in the two meetings I have had with the Iranian Foreign Minister, that the Iranian Government also wished to re-establish a stable relationship. On 26 December, one British subject detained in Iran, Nicholas Nicola, was set free. More recently, however, matters have taken a serious turn for the worse.
On 14 February, Ayatollah Khomeini made a statement inciting Moslems to violence against Mr. Salman Rushdie, the author, and the publishers of "The Satanic Verses". That was totally incompatible with Iran's obligations under the United Nations charter, and with respect for our sovereignty and the rule of law. We protested in the strongest terms and put an immediate freeze on the intended gradual build-up of our staff in Tehran.
Following Ayatollah Khomeini's original statement, there were clear signs that some in the Iranian Government wished to distance themselves from the threat of violence. On 17 February President Khamenei said that if Mr. Rushdie apologised the threat to his life might he withdrawn. As the House knows, Mr. Rushdie issued a statement at the weekend apologising for any distress caused to Moslems by his book.
However, on Sunday last, Ayatollah Khomeini made a further statement, renewing most explicitly the threat to Mr. Rushdie's life. The whole House will realise that that statement put paid to the prospect of maintaining normal dealings with Iran. It was an attack, not only on the author and publishers of the book, but on the fundamental freedoms for which our society stands: the freedom of expression, religious tolerance and the rule of law.
In Brussels yesterday, I discussed these death threats with Foreign Ministers of the European Community. All the Governments of the Twelve fully shared our sense of outrage at the incitement to murder. The Twelve Foreign Ministers issued a statement, whose text has been placed in the Library of the House, in which they rejected Khomeini's threats as an affront to international standards of behaviour which could not be tolerated. We all reaffirmed our commitment to ensure the protection of the life and property of our citizens. We agreed and announced two immediate steps: suspension of any exchanges of high-level official visits between Iran and our countries and the recall of heads of mission from Tehran. At the same time, the Interior Ministers of the Twelve have
840
been asked to consider urgently the practical steps necessary to restrict the freedom of movement of Iranian diplomats in Community countries.
In those circumstances, the Government have concluded that, in our own particular case, it is neither possible nor sensible to conduct a normal relationship with Iran. We have therefore decided to withdraw all the United Kingdom-based staff from our embassy in Tehran. The Iranian Government have been asked to withdraw their charge d'affaires and the one other Iranian-based member of his staff from London. I realise of course, that this decision inevitably reduces our ability to intervene directly on behalf of Roger Cooper and the hostages in Lebanon. The whole House will share my sympathy with their families at this moment. We have asked the Swedish Government once again to undertake the protection of British interests, and are grateful for their prompt agreement to do so.
Britain is able to have normal relations with many countries that do not share our ideals or democratic way of life. We were ready to do the same with Iran. But we can do so only if Iran respects accepted standards of international behaviour—in particular, respect for the sovereignty and law of other states as laid down in the charter of the United Nations. Iran has disregarded those standards in the most flagrant and menacing way. The response of the Government and of the other member countries of the European Community is firm and clear. Before normal relations can be restored, Iran must meet her international obligations—in particular, by renouncing the use or threat of violence against citizens of other countries.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Her Majesty's Opposition fully support the action taken by the Government in freezing relations with Iran. We welcome the prompt and positive supporting action taken by our partners in the European Community, and now by Sweden, as a demonstration that the utterances of the ayatollah are rightly regarded not simply as an unacceptable threat to the life of one man but as a menace to all civilised nations.
In this free democracy, authors must have the right, within the law, to write and publish freely. In this free democracy, Moslems offended and affronted by what has been published have the right, within the law, to give full expression to their concern, their distress and their sense of serious affront to their religious convictions. I welcome the statements made by the leaders of the Moslem community in Britain urging adherents of their faith to voice their feelings in a responsible and law-abiding fashion. Dr. Zaki Badawi, the chairman of the Imams amd Moslems Council, has stated:
"Any incitement to violence would be contrary to our faith."
It would be slander to imply that Ayatollah Khomeini is an accepted and recognised voice of Moslem opinion. Throughout wide areas of the Islamic world he and his regime are regarded with fear and loathing. It is essential that the world community stands up against threats and terror from that regime. We recognise the apprehension that must be felt about these latest developments by the family of Roger Cooper, held on trumped-up charges in Iran, and by the families of the British hostages held in Lebanon. We urge the Government to continue to do all they can in these exceptionally difficult circumstances to

841
secure their release, but at the same time we recognise that the Government had no alternative to taking the action that they have taken.
Iran should know that she cannot hold the freeing of these prisoners as some kind of bait to obtain improved relations with Britain. Rather, her readiness to secure their release must be regarded as a test of her fitness for such improved relations. The House of Commons must make it clear that Iran's violation of the fabric of world order is utterly unacceptable. She will have to earn the right to be received back into the comity of civilised nations.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The whole House will be extremely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his unqualified support for the position of the Government. It is important for those in Iran to recognise the unity with which this House speaks on this matter and, beyond that, to recognise the prompt unity with which the European Community has spoken on it. It is our intention to seek as widely as we can support for that position from other groups of nations around the world. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for explaining that there are many Moslem countries that regard the statements of Khomeini with as much distaste as we do. We shall be seeking support from them as well.
It was entirely correct for the right hon. Gentleman to reaffirm the right, within the law—he emphasised twice the phrase "within the law"—to publish, and the right, within the law, to express affront and dismay, in whatever way one may please, at publications that one dislikes. But he was right also to underline the necessity for all people in this country, of the Moslem faith and of others, to respect the rule of law—to respect its value to them, as to others—and we welcome the statements made by Moslem leaders in this country to that effect.
Mr. Peter Temple-Morris: Will my right hon. Friend accept again that he had no alternative but to take the measures that he has against Iran in the present intolerable situation? Will he further agree that the most important thing about the measures is that they are concerted? Finally, will he agree that if they are to succeed—and they can succeed here—continued international unity and combined strength of action are absolutely essential?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support. I underline absolutely what he said. One topic which we discussed further with our German colleagues in Frankfurt today was the need to secure the widest possible support from the international community for the action that we have taken.
Mr. David Steel: Will the Foreign Secretary accept that we join in complete support of the action that he has felt it necessary to take in respect of the statements from Iran? Will he also accept that we welcome the swift united action by the 12 members of the European Community? This is the swiftest action that we have seen on an international matter for some time. We hope that it is a trend for the future. Will the Foreign Secretary also accept that the public will be greatly relieved that the Moslem leaders in this country
842
have been so explicit in their statements, which deserve wider coverage, and their disassociation from the views of Ayatollah Khomeini?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his support. As he says, the swift united response of the European Community—swifter and more united than on earlier occasions—demonstrates the growing ability of the Community to take effective united action on political matters. Like the right hon. Gentleman, I also welcome the statements made by Moslem leaders in this country. All protests and activities in this country must be conducted within the framework of the law.
Sir Eldon Griffiths: While joining absolutely in the united condemnation of the ayatollah's threats to British lives, may I remind my right hon. and learned Friend that many of us continue to admire the Persian people, as distinct from their leader, and believe that Iran has a role to play in the stability and peace of the middle east? Will my right hon. and learned Friend therefore send Mr. Basti out of the country with a message that we are ready to assist Iran in recovering from the damage of war, but only when its leader returns to civilised standards and abandons his threats to British people?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making plain both parts of the argument. His last sentence underlines the view of the whole House about the need for a return to compliance with accepted international standards. He is also right to remind the House that there are within Iran and within the Iranian Government people who have been striving hard to bring Iran back to the path of normal behaviour. That is the evidence of my conversations with Mr. Velayati over the past few months. It is for that reason that we have all been hoping that there would be a settlement on that more stable course. It has not proved to be the case. I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support for the action that we have had to take.
Mr. Chris Smith: The Foreign Secretary will know that his statement and the actions taken yesterday are most welcome to all of us who have been deeply concerned about the life and safety of my constituent, Salman Rushdie. However, will he take the opportunity to confirm that the decision was made not simply on grounds of international law and independent sovereignty but because we uphold in this country the fundamental principle that there is a freedom to write and to speak peacefully, and that that freedom is not only one of the elements of a democratic society but is the best guarantee that we have of the free and full development of individual cultures and religions, including the Moslem community in this country?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman is right to make both points. The offence against which the action is being taken was incitement to murder, which is contrary to every law, national and international. The action is also taken in plain defence, in the words of the right hon. Member for Gorton, of the right within the law of freedom of speech and the right within the law of freedom of protest.
Mr. Jonathan Aitken: Has my right hon. and learned Friend noted the sharp contrast between the venomous and inflammatory outpourings of the ayatollah and the responsible caution of most other

843
Islamic leaders, some of whom may well find parts of the Rushdie book objectionable? Will he conclude from this distinction that Iran is isolated in the Islamic as well as the international community and that it will remain a pariah among nations until it stops its evil habit of issuing incitements to violence?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: Again, my hon. Friend makes the right point. He is correct to draw attention to the fact that there are many leaders in the Islamic world who would not dream of associating themselves with the violence and language used by the ayatollah and who share our sense of distress at that while nevertheless feeling some dismay about the book itself. We very much value the support of that moderation among Moslem leaders.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Does the Secretary of State accept that religious groups are entitled to argue against publications but are not entitled to impose censorship on the rest of the nation? Will he also make clear that the Government will not renew relations with Iran until an apology is forthcoming from the Iranian Government and it is made absolutely clear that they accept that they cannot intimidate and interfere in the affairs of another sovereign state?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman is right on both points, and I do not often have the opportunity of saying that. In particular, he is right in believing that, before normal relations can be restored, Iran must meet her international obligations by renouncing the use or threat of violence against citizens of other countries.
Mr. Robert Hicks: I understand the reasons for this decision, but is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that there will be some sadness about the decision of the United Kingdom Government not to leave a nominal presence in Tehran if only to give encouragement to the pragmatists and moderates within the Iranian Government and also, of course, to help the case of Roger Cooper and the three British hostages held in Beirut?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: One had to take into account the points raised by my hon. Friend in balancing the right position throughout one's management of this affair, but I have no doubt in concluding—and I think the whole House will agree with me—that at this stage, in the face of this latest, wholly unjustified threat, we had to take the steps that we have taken.
Mr. Keith Vaz: Will the Foreign Secretary join me in acknowledging the positive and important contribution that the Moslem community has made to the development of good community relations in Britain? Will he take great care in the statements that he makes, in this House and outside, to ensure that none of the hostility and aggression that is directed against a foreign power can be seen to be directed against British citizens who happen to be Moslems, and who have lived here peacefully and happily for many centuries, mindful of the fact that good community relations is a fragile flower that needs to be protected?
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman therefore join me in condemning an article which appeared in the News of the World this Sunday, written by a Mr. Woodrow Wyatt, who I understand is a close confidant of the Prime Minister, which in my view is an incitement to racial
844
hatred? Will he undertake to refer the matter to his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General with a view to prosecuting Mr. Wyatt? I do not ask for him to be burnt or sentenced to death—just prosecuted within the law in the interests of good community relations.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: No doubt those responsible for enforcing the law will take such action as they think appropriate in the light of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, but I think he will agree with me that this is hardly the day on which I should start condemning publications without having read them. He is right to emphasise the legitimate worries of the Moslem community in this country. The whole House will join me in emphasising their right to enjoy the freedoms of this country with tolerance from the rest of the community. It is also right, as he will understand, for those who lead Britain's Moslems to respond, as they have, with tolerance and authority to prevent the risk of violence from either side.
Mr. Nicholas Baker: Although this House regards terrorist threats issued by the ayatollah as totally unacceptable, many of us will regret that they should have been occasioned by publication of a work which is clearly and understandably offensive to our Moslem friends. Will my right hon. and learned Friend continue, by every means available to him, to seek the early release of Roger Cooper, a British citizen who has been detained for more than three years without charge and without trial, and will lie indicate to the Iranian Government that, if they wish to resume normal relations with other countries, the early release of Roger Cooper will be an essential and good demonstration of that wish?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I entirely understand my hon. Friend's concern with that case. He has represented the interests of his constituent and his family very clearly, and he is right to remind us of the need to continue to do all that we can to secure Mr. Cooper's release and to emphasise to the Iranian Government the points that he has emphasised. The fact that we no longer have direct relations with Iran will not prevent us from pressing that case as vigorously as ever.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I must have regard to the fact that today is an Opposition day. I will allow questions to go on for a further five minutes. We then have a ten-minute Bill motion, followed by the main debate.
Mr. Tom Clarke: Does the Foreign Secretary accept that the fair and honourable statement that he has just made increases concern about wider issues involving relations with Iran, including the proliferation of chemical weapons? Will he assure the House that that remains a major priority for Britain—for instance, at the Security Council?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: Yes. The hon. Gentleman's interest in that important topic is well known. We shall continue to press the case for a worldwide ban on chemical weapons. The hon. Gentleman will have noticed that the other decision made by the European Community Foreign Affairs Council yesterday was to agree on the proscription of export of eight chemical precursors, and on the need for further action by the Community along those lines.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: Did the Council consider the implications for trade relations of the closures of embassies and diplomatic outposts? In particular, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the closure of embassies will mean that no Iranian business man or Government representative can visit any Community country without obtaining a visa from a third country? Did my right hon. and learned Friend obtain the agreement of the Council to operate in that way, and in particular did he obtain the agreement of the German representatives?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I think that my hon. Friend has misunderstood the precise position. The other Community countries are not closing their embassies, but are recalling their heads of mission. The German ambassador is already in his country. The Germans are recalling their charge as well, but it will still be possible for visas to be granted to countries with representative missions in Iran.
Mr. Max Madden: We all condemn the odious threat issued by the ayatollah, and appreciate that the vast majority of British Moslems do not recognise that call. Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that decisions likely to be made by Islamic Foreign Ministers meeting in Riyadh in early March could escalate a difficult and dangerous situation? Will he, with the Home Secretary, urgently seek a basis for agreement whereby protests and demonstrations by British Moslems can be brought to an end? That would influence Moslems overseas and, hopefully, isolate the ayatollah and those around him, leading him to withdraw his odious call for Mr. Rushdie's execution.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point when he says that the Moslem community in this country, while free to exercise their right to protest, should do so with the utmost restraint, coupling that action—as their leaders have done—with a repudiation of threats of violence in cases of this kind. I hope that they will make representations to that effect to the countries that will be represented at the Riyadh conference. We shall certainly urge Moslem leaders, at that conference and elsewhere, to repudiate the ayatollah's threats and to support the cause of moderation.
Mr. Ian Taylor: Will my right hon. and learned Friend note that, in my view, he is quite right to make a complete break in diplomatic relations with Tehran, as it is impossible for us to have dealings with an abhorrent regime as long as the Ayatollah Khomeini's view seems to hold sway there? Will he also note that during the Iran-Iraq war Moslems in countries other than Iran did not rise up, as the ayatollah urged them to do, and that that gives some indication of how little weight his word appears to carry among sensible Moslems throughout the world?
846
Finally, will my right hon. and learned Friend try to take advantage of the feeling among Moslem countries in the United Nations, where our permanent representative did so much to bring about the ending of the Iran-Iraq war?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for paying tribute to the work done by our representative in the United Nations which made it sensible for us to try to establish normal relations with Iran. He is also right to emphasise the fact that many Moslem leaders and followers in Iran and elsewhere do not subscribe to the odious threats that have been uttered, and for that reason we look to the encouragement of all such moderate leaders.
Mr. David Winnick: Should not we be grateful to other Governments and people in the Community who understand that the appeasement of evil and tyranny is not the answer and who yesterday gave their backing to what has now been done? Is it not the case that diplomatic relations have not yet been broken formally, and that if there are repeated calls for a British citizen to be murdered there are other reserve weapons which Britain, in concert with other countries in the EEC and possibly other western powers, including the United States of America and Japan, can use? Will the Home Secretary at some stage make a statement to the House so that we can be perfectly satisfied that everything possible is being done within the rule of law to give full protection to the person in question and make sure his life is safe from those who would be willing to carry out the criminal orders of the rulers of Iran?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The House will be glad to welcome the hon. Gentleman's tribute to the important work done by the police. He can be sure that the author in question is receiving protection from the Metropolitan police and that the publishers have received full advice about their own security. It is very important for it to be known that the law will be upheld in Britain. The hon. Gentleman can ask my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary any further questions when he has the opportunity to do so.
Diplomatic relations have not been broken off formally, but the effect of the decisions I have announced is to deprive them of any substance, which is the right conclusion. The hon. Gentleman is also right to underline the fact that if any further action were to be taken, the international community would want to consider whether more severe action was appropriate.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry not to have been able to call all the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who wished to ask questions, but I shall certainly bear them in mind on future occasions when we return to the matter.

Points of Order
3.57 pm
Mr. Edward Leigh: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Earlier this afternoon the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) made yet another attack on Mr. Charles Powell. We value our right to fearless, free speech in the Chamber, but does not free speech depend also on responsibility? What kind of political skunk attacks a man who cannot answer back—
Mr. Speaker: Order. As the hon. Gentleman well knows, we do not refer to each other in this Chamber by epithets of that kind. Will the hon. Gentleman withdraw that phrase about the hon. Member for Linlithgow?
Mr. Leigh: I am happy to withdraw that statement and to say that the hon. Member for Linlithgow is deluded by his own fantasies.
Mr. Eric S. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I do not think that it will help, but I shall take it.
Mr. Heffer: You, Mr. Speaker, must be aware that since the commencement of the matter, many Opposition Members have been very clear as to our position, while both Front Benches have not. Therefore, is it not clear that the comments of those of us who have raised the matter consistently should have been heard on a statement for which we have been asking from the day on which the matter began?
Mr. Speaker: I take it that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the statement on Iran. The hon. Gentleman may say that, but it is always tempting to ask for longer on the statement on which one has not been called, to the detriment of one's colleagues who wish to participate in the important Opposition day debate. I am sorry, but the Chair has to be absolutely fair about these matters.
Mr. Tim Devlin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for
848
Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt), as reported in column 716 in Hansard, raised a point of order about recent developments in Cleveland. It arose out of the action of 11 paediatricians who wrote to The Guardian claiming that as many as 90 per cent. of children diagnosed by Dr. Marietta Higgs as having been sexually abused were correctly diagnosed. However, 98 of the 121 children were returned home, following the judicial inquiry and the various wardship cases.
In this morning's press some of the doctors are quoted as having said that they never signed the substantial letter, only one calling for Dr. Higgs to return to Cleveland to work in neo-natology—
Mr. Speaker: Order. What is the point of order for me?
Mr. Devlin: The point of order is that if the figure of 90 per cent. is to be bandied about and not withdrawn by these doctors, the matter should be discussed by the House. Therefore, would you be prepared to ask the Leader of the House to find time next week for a debate on this urgent and important matter?
Mr. Speaker: This is not the appropriate occasion to ask the Chair to find time for the matter. I am not responsible for what members of the public outside the House may say. There are other ways for the hon. Gentleman to raise the subject.

CIVIL AVIATION (AIR NAVIGATION CHARGES) BILL [LORDS]
Ordered,
That the Civil Aviation (Air Navigation Charges) Bill [Lords] be referred to a Second Reading Committee.—[Mr. Sackville.]

Ordered,
That the National Maritime Museum Bill [Lords] be referred to a Second Reading Committee.—[Mr. Sackville.]

Net Book Agreement (Abolition)
4 pm
Mr. David Shaw: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to increase competition in the sale of books.
The market for books in this country has been described as a bilateral oligopoly, with about 20 major publishers and only about 20 major retailers who control most of it. They are cemented in an anti-competitive relationship by the net book agreement, which my Bill seeks to abolish. The net book agreement, or NBA as it is commonly referred to, prevents booksellers from discounting the price of about 90 per cent. of the books sold in Britain. At present, every time that a bookseller discounts or expresses a wish to discount books, he is threatened with legal action by the Publishers Association. That legal action prevents the consumer from paying a lower price for books by shopping around.
I am sure that the whole House will be concerned that not just the housewife, the pensioner and the nation's children have to pay more than they need for many books. The public sector cannot negotiate its own discounts. They are fixed by the publishers' net book agreement. Local authorities—their libraries and schools—the Ministry of Defence, with its military libraries, and doctors, dentists and nurses have to pay more than they need because of the net book agreement. One supplier of medical books is trying to sell books at a discount at the moment, but it is under threat of prosecution by the Publishers Association.
However, the principle of the agreement is broken by the publishers in such a way as to cause disadvantage to the small stockholding bookseller. That is done by direct supplies to local authorities that bypass the local booksellers; large retail chains are given special extra discounts by publishers which the small local bookseller cannot get; and poor service means that it often takes three weeks for the small bookseller to be supplied with books. Discounts are also given to book clubs. Last weekend one book club was offering in the newspapers the best selling non-fiction book, as part of a special offer, at £1. However, if my local bookshop in my constituency had attempted to make the same offer, it would have contravened the publishers' net book agreement. That agreement results in one rule for the large book club and another for the small local bookseller.
All hon. Members will be aware of the privileged position of the booksellers. First, they have the price maintenance agreement that my Bill would abolish. Secondly, there is no value added tax on books.
The ability of book publishers to control the price of books dates back to the 1800s when one Alexander Macmillan, a relation of someone who is well known to this House, helped to put together an agreement to control book prices. Over the years, that agreement was changed many times until the present one came into being in 1957. The net book agreement of 1957 was approved in a most curious and strange judgment by the restrictive practices court in 1962. The court's judgment stood economics on its head. It was carried away in a romantic world where "books are different". The judgment supported the publishers' case and argued that if the net book agreement was abolished and competition resulted, prices would rise
850
and that the small stockholding bookseller would go out of business. That is exactly what has happened under the net book agreement.[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Shaw: Prices have risen by more than inflation. The small bookseller has lost business to the large retail chains and to the book clubs. Last year the Monopolies and Mergers Commission said that the market conditions on which that judgment was made no longer apply. In other words, the judgment is out of date.
Hon. Members may wonder why the restrictive practices court came to such a strange judgment. It is clear that the judges were very influenced, among other evidence, by the statements of a wonderful spinster lady who is mentioned twice in the judgment. Her name was Miss Babbidge. Miss Babbidge owned her own bookshop in Havant. Sadly, Miss Babbidge died some six years ago and I am informed that her bookshop has closed and that the shop has now become a kitchen shop. The net book agreement did not, as the judges thought it would, prevent Miss Babbidge's bookshop from succumbing to market pressures. As another lady, for whom I have immense respect, once said, "You can't buck the market." The judges attempted to buck the market in 1962. I, and many others, believe that their judgment did not consider the economic facts of life.
Hon. Members may ask why a Bill is necessary and why the Office of Fair Trading cannot take action. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Shaw: The answer is that the 1962 court decision is very nearly unchallengeable. The Office of Fair Trading has an almost impossible legal task. Unfortunately, when Parliament passed legislation on restrictive practices, no provision was made to empower the Office of Fair Trading to review such agreements without returning to the restrictive practices court. The fact that the NBA has not been reviewed by any authority acting on behalf of the consumer in nearly 30 years is, I believe, against the public interest. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I must ask the hon. Members to listen to what the hon. Gentleman is saying and not to engage in private conversations.
Mr. Shaw: The fact that there is also a private and exclusive drinking club called the Possum club, which discusses the net book agreement and other publishing agreements, suggests that the publishing industry is operating a price-fixing cartel that takes advantage of the consumer and the taxpayer.
The book publishers do not and have not been able to argue that competition would reduce the number of books sold. Retail consultants have estimated that abolition of the net book agreement would increase sales by 11 per cent. In the United Kingdom, people buy fewer books than in the United States and Australia where there is no price maintenance. In both of those countries there is a healthy, unrestricted market in the sale of books, with good volume sales and exciting and interesting bookshops that stock about the same number of titles as are published in the United Kingdom. In the United Kingdom, however, book sales volume has been relatively static, and retail consultants have estimated that price increases have been

851
up to 50 per cent. more than inflation, as measured by the retail prices index. I should mention that the publishers deny that, but I have checked prices for certain books over a 10-year period and have found it to be true.
The conclusion is that the United Kingdom book market needs more competition in it. By passing my Bill, the consumer—the housewife, the pensioner, the child and the taxpayer—will be better served at better prices. I hope that the House will give me permission to introduce my Bill today.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. David Shaw, Miss Ann Widdecombe, Mr. Keith Mans, Mr. Phillip Oppenheim, Mr. Nicholas Bennett and Mr. David Martin.

Net Book Agreement (Abolition)
  NET BOOK AGREEMENT (ABOLITION)
  Mr. David Shaw accordingly presented a Bill to increase competition in the sale of books: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 3 March and to be printed. [Bill 80.].
Opposition Day
[5TH ALLOTTED DAY]
Opposition Day

  Food and Water (Safety)
  4.9 pm
  Mr. Neil Kinnock: I beg to move,
  That this House condemns Her Majesty's Government for its failure to fulfil its duty of care and safeguard the safety and quality of food and water in Britain, for its failure adequately to protect the health of the consumer and particularly the health and welfare of the children of this country, and for the failure to ensure the clear, consistent and co-ordinated action of Ministers needed in the public interest; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to accept its proper responsibility far the protection of the consumer, commencing with the introduction of effective and up-to-date regulation, the restoration and development of research in food and agricultural science, and the provision of clear information and advice to the consumer.
  Mr. Speaker: I must announce to the House that I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister. In view of the number of hon. Members who wish to participate in the debate, I propose to put a limit on speeches of 10 minutes between 7 pm and 9 pm.
  Mr. Kinnock: I begin this debate with what I believe to be feelings that are common to both sides of the House. First, there is no hon. Member on either side who does not consider that the rise in the numbers of people affected by food poisoning is serious and, in some cases, tragic. Secondly, there can be few, if any, in the House who do not believe that a modern Government in a complex society have a duty of care for the health and welfare of the citizenry. Thirdly, there is no hon. Member who does not believe that consumers have a responsibility to themselves and to others to be fastidious in their personal habits, especially in the handling and preparation of food. Fourthly, there cannot be any hon. Member who believes that the British people are over-reacting to the problems that have come to their attention, and indeed been experienced by several hundred thousand or even millions of them.
  Whatever the headlines say, the British people have not been hysterical. But they have been quizzical. They have watched the comings and goings in the Government, they have heard the inconsistent statements; they have seen complacency become confusion and contradiction and, in the words of Mr. Simon Gourlay, cock-up. The British people ask, just what do the Government think they are playing at?
  It is not that the British people believe that Government could or should do everything to make life perfect in every sphere of human interest and activity. But they do believe that there are areas of human affairs in which the Government must set and maintain standards of protection, and one of those most important areas is obviously food hygiene. They believe that the Government have been negligent and, in the most confused way, are trying to cover up.
  Mr. Jerry Hayes rose—
  Mr. Kinnock: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman shortly.

  853
  They believe that the Government have been trying to protect producers more than they have been fulfilling their duty to protect consumers. The British people believe that the Government should be anticipating, planning and providing for change, instead of standing aside and intervening only when great alarm is sounded.
  Mr. Hayes: The right hon. Gentleman accuses the Government of being negligent. He must be aware that the Opposition spokesman on agriculture, the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), wrote an article three months ago in Tribune in which he described the issue as
  "a huge field we have neglected."
  Considering that this is the second debate on the subject that the Labour party has initiated in 10 years, who is being negligent?
  Mr. Kinnock: If the hon. Gentleman will show the same eagerness for effective action as that which unifies completely Opposition hon. Members, I will welcome the comments that he makes. I recall him professing great confidence the week before last that all would now be all right. I saw him interviewed and reported in the newspapers saying, "It is all right now. The Prime Minister is coming in."
  The British people want a consistent and cogent food policy from the Government. That must be right. That is why we say that the Government should now discharge that duty of care by seeing that research is not restrained by lack of funds, up to and past the point where the product of research is applied in the market place.
  The Government should ensure that resources are adequate to provide the 430 environmental health officers who are now needed to fill the gaps of much-needed qualified people. The Government should commit themselves to providing the education, the information and the health services necessary for the promotion of good health, including food hygiene, dietary advice and the prevention of ill health. They should now establish an independent food standards agency with tough regulatory powers to restore public confidence, to provide better standards of production and to give information and advice to consumers on all aspects of food policy and food hygiene.
  To discharge their duty of care in this modern society, the Government should introduce modern comprehensive food hygiene legislation to protect the interests of the consumers, to raise the standards of producers and sellers and to assist in universalising the best standards that are achieved by producers and sellers.
  Mr. Peter Thurnham: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that British firms lead the world in cook-chill foods [Interruption.]—and is he further aware that they have dismissed his proposals as naive, imprecise, inadequate and unenforceable? Does that not just about sum up the leadership of the Labour party?
  Mr. Kinnock: I take that intervention in the spirit in which I am sure it was intended. It must be said, however, that if we lead the world in cook-chill food, and we are watching an enormous increase—a doubling over six years—in listeriosis, and if our regulations are so inadequate as to enable any observer to go to stores large and small and
  854
  pick up from the shelves inadequately and improperly stored goods, then obviously we do not have much of a lead in handling cook-chill foods.
  In asking the Government to set their hand to a programme of comprehensive and up-to-date legislation, I am conscious of the fact that the Government can plead that they do not have the legislative time. I give them the undertaking that if they go ahead with introducing effective legislation, we will assist them. More than that, they could provide themselves with oodles of time in this Session by scrapping the Water Bill that nobody wants.
  Everyone outside the Government can see the need for action on food hygiene. For 10 years the Government have presided over a large and accelerating increase in food poisoning. The number of cases of listeriosis has more than doubled, from 115 in 1983 to 259 in 1987. Officials forecast that the figure for 1988 will be more than 300. In the six years from 1982 to 1987 inclusive, the central public health laboratory registered a six-fold increase in the number of identified cases of salmonella enteritidis. In 1988, the number had doubled again, to 13,000 people, to make it 12 times the 1982 figure.
  That trend must be reversed, and reversed quickly. But the Government will not do it by allowing a national shortage of environmental health officers. They will not reverse the rise in food poisoning cases by continuing to cut research into agriculture and food. They will not improve food hygiene by demoting the subject, as they have done, with their centrally-imposed core curriculum in the schools that virtually wipes out food hygiene as a subject for teaching.
  Each of those actions in respect of all of those matters has been a product of Government policy to cut and to centralise. None of those actions is accidental. None of those actions is the product of carelessness. They are the result of the Government's conviction that there should be less funding for local government, less funding for higher education and research, less discretion and less breadth in education in the schools.
  Nobody can call that non-intervention. It is Government interference of the most destructive and deliberate kind, and it contrasts starkly with their refusal to intervene properly to protect consumers. In that they have been at their most zealous in non-intervention, obeying to the letter the creed of today's Conservatism that business is not to be regulated, even when it is clear that, left to themselves, there are interests in the market who will exploit the consumer and cut corners on safety.
  Mr. Michael Shersby: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that during the 10-year period to which he refers the Opposition did not allocate a single day to a debate on food? Is that because they were content with the Government's policies, or because they had no interest in the subject?
  Mr. Kinnock: This is the second such debate in three weeks. If the hon. Gentleman, with his power on the Back Benches, will give me an undertaking that the Government will respond to the public demand that is articulated by this side of the House, we shall debate the subject every week. Perhaps the Prime Minister will even turn up for one of them.
  The Government observe their creed of noninterference in respect of consumer protection, and convincing evidence of that is provided by no less an

  855
  authority than the head of MAFF's standards (food, fertilisers and feeding stuffs) division. In a candid address, to the Institution of Environmental Health Officers last September, Mr. Charles Cockbill, explaining the Government's view, said:
  "The concept of consumer protection … has to be balanced against business considerations."
  Mr. Cockbill was doing no more than his duty as a civil servant, and made clear to his audience of environmental health officers why they, and the public, cannot look to the Government for tighter regulations. Mr. Cockbill reported, for example, that the Government vetoed a proposal to refuse to license food premises where standards of food hygiene or design are not met, because
  "Such a concept of prior licensing approval runs contrary to the policies of the Government on deregulation and lifting the burdens on business, and it is therefore not possible to pursue the original idea."
  Mr. Cockbill added that, for the same reason, there was difficulty in imposing a duty of due diligence on food retailers, because
  "retailers and especially the multiple retailers can claim with some justification that the change will increase their costs substantially. And with such a claim comes a conflict with the Government's policy on lifting burdens on business."
  Mr. Cockbill cannot be blamed for those policies and was merely explaining the Government's view. The content and tone of his full speech shows that to be so—it completely exposes the Government, who are reviewing food legislation with the objective of introducing more relaxed regulations, not tighter standards to protect the consumers. His speech exposed the Government as not being positively against consumer protection, provided that it can be achieved at nil cost to the producer or seller.
  The Secretary of State for Health knows that it is Government policy to lift the burdens on producers, no matter what burdens are placed on the shoulders of the consumers—for the right hon. and learned Gentleman, in his former post as Paymaster General, was responsible for that policy. It was he who, in May 1986, presented to the House his White Paper "Building Businesses, Not Barriers", which presented a glowing report of the progress that the right hon. and learned Gentleman said had been achieved in lifting the burdens from business. As the Secretary of State must be proud of that magnum opus, I am sure that he will recall the entries that appeared under the heading "Ministry of Agriculture". The first measure was the abolition of the eggs authority, so that
  "costs to egg producers will be reduced."
  The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): Would a Labour Government reintroduce it?
  Mr. Kinnock: I shall give the right hon. and learned Gentleman an answer to his question shortly.
  Three years after that White Paper—just a couple of weeks ago—Mr. Keith Pulman of the Egg Producers Association offered a plaintive postscript. Mr. Pulman, who is a man of considerable experience, stated:
  "I think those who were responsible"—
  for the disbanding of the authority
  "have a lot to answer for. If we still had a properly funded authority with research facilities, the whole business could have been dealt with fully and professionally."
  The Secretary of State asked me whether Labour will restore the eggs authority. We might not call it that, but call it the Kenneth Clarke Memorial Institute. We shall certainly have a properly funded, professionally staffed
  856
  research body—especially in an area where, because of their failures, the Government have had to sign a cheque for £20 million. When Mr. Pulman asks for
  "a properly funded authority with research facilities"
  he must surely realise that he is asking the impossible of the present Government.
  The Secretary of State may recall the second measure in his White Paper under the heading "Ministry of Agriculture", where he commented on a subject that has become very topical in the past fortnight:
  "The restrictions on the sale of untreated (that is, unpasteurised) 'green top' milk which were introduced in 1985 caused difficulty for farmhouse caterers."
  He proudly announced:
  "Following representations from the industry the regulations have been amended."
  That was in 1986. Two weeks ago, the arrangements were changed again, when the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food banned the sale of all green top milk. Small wonder that even the Prime Minister commented:
  "there appears to be some confusion."—[Official Report, 14 February 1989; Vol. 147, c. 146].
  Mr. Barry Field: Every morning in the Tea Room, the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) orders five boiled eggs. If the situation is as dangerous as it has been portrayed throughout the controversy about salmonella. why has the hon. Member for Stockton, North not stopped eating boiled eggs?
  Mr. Kinnock: I hope that it will be realised that I am not bound by this answer. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) is known as a man of many parts—not least among them being his ability to juggle eggs. It becomes really exciting when he has not even boiled them—much like the food policy of Her Majesty's Government.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a great many of my constituents like drinking green top milk and have no wish to see it withdrawn? They prefer to make their own decisions. Incidentally, cheese made from unpasteurised, green top milk is no more liable to cause disease than any other.
  Mr. Kinnock: I appreciate both points, and certainly there is some contention surrounding the subject of green top milk, both in respect of personal taste and scientific evidence. However, as Professor Livsey has testified—
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The right hon. Gentleman means Professor Lacey.
  Mr. Kinnock: I apologise. I should only have to look at the hon. Lady who has just intervened to think of lace. As she will know, there is less contention over the use of unpasteurised milk in cheeses. It is to be hoped that the Government can be more coherent on that subject. The hon. Lady will recall a dramatic weekend, not very long ago, when not only did the Ministry say one thing one day, and something else the next, but along came the helpful Secretary of State for Health to say something entirely different again.
  Mr. Paul Marland: The right hon. Gentleman's slip concerning Professor Lacey was his second error so far. He said that the Government have signed a cheque for £20 million, but they have not. The Government have signed a cheque for only £3 million.

  857
  Many people outside the House are anxious to hear the truth, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will concentrate on getting his facts right, for which we shall all be most grateful.
  Mr. Kinnock: The hon. Gentleman and I had the distinction of fighting each other in 1970 at our first parliamentary contest. When, during that election, he was asked how, as a working farmer, he managed to get three weeks off to fight an election, he said that he had left his hands in charge. That provoked my uncle Cliff into saying,
  "It's no good him looking for the sympathy vote."
  However, I am more than happy to correct the record. The figure is not £20 million. I am more than happy to receive that information from the hon. Gentleman, whom I shall cherish in my memory for many reasons, not the least of which is that in the late affair of the Under-Secretary of State for Health he played the part of Stalin to her Trotsky.
  The Prime Minister said that it appeared that there was some confusion. So there is. But there can be no confusion about the fact that the present cause for consumers' concern is rooted in the conditions resulting in large part from the attitude and actions of the Government, who so favour producers and sellers and so neglect the interests of consumers.
  Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Will the right hon. Gentleman given way.
  Mr. Kinnock: No, I am anxious to get on.
  That neglect is not confined to food. Indeed, it intensifies when we address the subject of water privatisation. The Government will insist that privatisation will bring new regulations to safeguard the consumer. They will insist that massive increases in charges are justified by the need to fund investment in the improvement of water treatment and supply. But that is not the true purpose. That is obvious to everyone. But perhaps it was put most graphically by The Daily Telegraph, which says:
  "Mr. Howard's declarations that the consumer will have to foot the environmental bill are providing the reassurance industry leaders want to increase the investment attractions."
  The message is obvious. The water price explosion, fostered by the Government, is not to raise standards but to raise profits. That is also why they have been so resistant to accepting the EC directives and regulations on the subject. The reason for their delays and evasions is obvious. To comply with those regulations will cost a great deal of money. As The Times put it:
  "It is going to be hard to combine this with selling shares to millions of consumers."
  Perhaps the most direct and authoritative comment on the implications of what the Government are doing comes from an expert in private water supply, Mr. Michael Swallow, the director of the Water Companies Association. Explaining the week before last why the private water companies felt it necessary to make huge increases in charges before privatisation, he said:
  "At the moment we operate under profit control, which puts the customer first. This very simple form of regulation goes back to the middle of the last century and it has been very effective. The Government's proposals will put the companies under price control, which puts the shareholders first."
  Mr. Robin Squire: The right hon. Gentleman has now reached the important subject of water safety, about which he spoke at the weekend. Far from the Government not providing investment, as I understand it investment in water sewerage controls is at its highest ever point, and the Select Committee on the Environment said that the major fall in investment of 50 per cent. took place under the previous Labour Government.
  Mr. Kinnock: I respect the hon. Gentleman, not least because of his strong support for freedom of information. The information that he is seeking is available if he looks at the consistent record, year on year, of investment in the water industry and sewerage. He will find that after a dip under the previous Labour Government investment rose and continued to rise, so much so that if this Government had sustained that trend they would have spent a great deal more money in the development of our water supplies.
  It also has to be said that such expenditure is necessary since the Government have been in power for 10 years and must be the first Government this century to mark a decade in office by an increase in rodent infestation in the major cities. I noticed on Sunday that The Sunday Telegraph reported a rise in rat infestation in nowhere other than the Prime Minister's constituency. The rat officer—there is a job for him in the Government Whips Office—in an interview with the Sunday Telegraph said that the rats are becoming very cunning; they have a nibble at the poison and then see if it goes bad in a day. I thought when I read that that was basically the strategy that guides the Government publicity policy.
  Putting the shareholders first, as Mr. Swallow so aptly and accurately put it, is another canon of the Government's creed.
  If the Secretary of State for the Environment is the shareholders' chum, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food takes the prize as the producers' friend at court. In 1987 his Ministry found salmonella infection at 21 of the animal feedstuff processing plants which supply Britain's poultry industry—one quarter of the total. In 1988, the Ministry found salmonella at 17 plants, some of them the very same plants which had been found to be infested a year before. None of those plants was prosecuted. None of the feedstuff was impounded. Incredibly, it was not until a few weeks ago that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food halted processing at plants where salmonella had been found and stopped the sale of eggs from farms where flocks were infected.
  The Minister told the Select Committee a fortnight ago that he had not dared to impose such a ban before for fear that the egg producers would stop telling him when their flocks were infected. If he knows that there is such resistance, why does he not promise 100 per cent. compensation for the killing of animals infected by bovine spongiform encephalopathy, since that would not only protect producers but is an essential protection for consumers?
  It is not that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is reluctant to help producers. The first people outside the Government who were told of the evidence linking salmonella with eggs were the egg producers. They were told on 13 June 1988, almost two months before the public were told at 4 pm on the Friday afternoon of

  859
  August Bank holiday weekend. I bet that Mr. Bernard Ingham was not handling that particular piece of publicity—or perhaps he was.
  Even when a salmonella outbreak hit the other place in May, Mr. Speaker, as you will recall, the producers' representatives were told the contents of the ministerial statement on the outbreak a day earlier than either House of Parliament. The reason for that prior warning, as given in the minutes of that meeting, was that it was
  "to reassure the industry representatives".
  That concern to calm the industry's anxiety is touching. It is a pity that it was not matched by an equal measure of concern for consumers. Whether they be common or noble, they all have an interest at stake.
  It would not be fair to suggest that the public were entirely forgotten at that meeting in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. On the contrary, the meeting ended with Government officials and egg producers agreeing on what they called a common "defensive briefing statement". It was not the job of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food or of the Department of Health to help egg producers draft a defensive statement; it was the job of both Departments to make sure that egg producers were responsive to the need for action to remove the threat to public health. But to this date—we may hear differently this afternoon—neither Department has made compulsory the egg industry's voluntary code of practice. Perhaps that is because the Prime Minister would consider such controls to be what she calls "bureaucratic" and as
  "imposing unnecessary burdens on the industry"
  —to use the phrases that she used in her specious letter to me yesterday.
  Perhaps that attitude also explains the reluctance of the Government to respond properly to the growing evidence of the link between listeriosis and the increased sale of cook-chill convenience foods. I touched upon this in answer to an intervention earlier on.
  It has to be brought to the attention of the House that it is in this matter that the Secretary of State for Health is at his most languid. A fortnight ago he assured listeners to the "Today" programme:
  "Most of those infected by salmonella have an upset stomach. They are not actually ill."
  Coming from the Secretary of State for Health, that is a fairly novel revision of the boundary line between sickness and health. I just hope that it does not spread to the opted-out hospitals.
  Last week the languor grew deeper. The Secretary of State informed Jimmy Young's listeners that listeria was not as frightening as it sounded. He said this about bacteria that have contributed to the death of 100 people in the last two years. In case that knowledge does not make the Secretary of State change his attitude, I draw his attention to a letter from a mother who lost her second child in the 28th week of her pregnancy because of listeriosis. The writer is a lucid and calm woman. I shall provide the Secretary of State with a copy of the letter, although, for obvious reasons, I am not disclosing the writer's identity. She wrote:
  "In the last month since my child's death I have had to cope not only with the grief from the loss of my baby, but also with feeling alternately guilty and like a helpless victim. I feel guilty because he died as a result of contaminated food eaten by me. I feel like a victim because I did not have the necessary information on the risks of listeriosis in time to safeguard my unborn child.
  Firstly, it seems unacceptable to us"—
  860
  that is, her and her husband—
  "that we were not given any warning about the danger of listeriosis even though the Government has known about the increase in the number of diagnosed cases for well over a year.
  Secondly, the advice issued by the Government on the 10th February focussing as it did on soft cheeses, seems partial to the extent of being misleading.
  Thirdly, it is infuriating to witness Government Ministers contradicting one another on such a serious public health issue. The danger now is that 'public confusion' will be presented as an over-reaction and Government advice will be confined to reducing anxiety rather than presenting facts and issuing clear guidelines."
  I believe that every hon. Member must share that concern and I would like the genuine reassurance of the Secretary of State in the course of this afternoon. I quote the letter in order to ensure that the Secretary of State, himself a loving father, will never again even begin to say that listeria is not as frightening as it sounds. That is not the way to put the issue into perspective.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Will the right hon. Gentleman concede that in the Jimmy Young interview—a typescript of which I have in front of me—I frequently referred to the danger of listeria to expectant mothers, which was indeed the burden of the advice that we had given? Secondly, can he give a single instance of any two Ministers having contradicted each other on the risk of listeria to expectant mothers or any other sector of the population?
  Mr. Kinnock: I am not suggesting contradiction in the advice given on listeria, but, since the Secretary of State is so vigilant now, perhaps he could get his right hon. Friend to tell him, or to tell me, why it was that salmonella was connected with eggs in June and the public received a general announcement at the end of August, but it was December before the Ministry of Agriculture or the Ministry of Health drew specific attention to the risk to young children and old people of salmonella enteritidis.
  So far as listeria is concerned, yes, the Secretary of State did draw attention to the danger to expectant mothers. What we are asking for, and what the mother who wrote to me asks for, is effective action and proper information to ensure against all the food possibly contaminated with listeria. That is the comprehensive action that is now required. I put it to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for Health that a correction of his attitude and an updating of regulations and legislation are necessary as the real reassurance that I know that, as an individual and as a Minister, he would love to be able to give to people in the country, whether expectant mothers or not. I hope that he will do that.
  The danger of listeria is well known, and yet every day, as I indicated earlier, 400,000 cook-chill convenience meals are sold without specific regulations to control the temperature at which they are displayed, the length of time for which they are on display or labelling advising consumers when they are safe to eat. The Government are still attempting to control modern food technology and retailing techniques with food regulations that are merely a consolidation of basic laws passed in the 1930s.
  In addition, in their perplexity, the Government have now come up with a campaign "to urge wives", as the blurb says—as if females who are not married do not do any cooking—to return to the "rules of hygiene and good housekeeping" of yesteryear. But the solution is not to advise consumers to return to the shopping habits of the

  861
  1930s in order to conform with the laws of that time; it is to modernise, strengthen and enforce the law on consumer protection.
  In any case, I am sure that if Ministers needed advice on shopping and cooking, they could get it from their resident modern housewife, the Prime Minister. As she reminds us, she has extensive experience in this field. In addition, of course, she has had a more than passing acquaintance with the retail food industry ever since childhood. To her credit, as she also reminds us from time to time, she was previously a food scientist. When we add to all that the fact that she has now, according to the newspapers, taken charge of the Government's food policy, I wonder why she has not taken the opportunity to debate this particular topic on any day this week. It has to be said that the announcement that she had taken charge somewhat underwhelmed her right hon. and hon. Friends. I saw a report in The Independent that one of the Cabinet Ministers supposed to be a member of the ad hoc committee denied knowledge of its existence. And from The Times we heard the story of the Back Bencher, necessarily anonymous, who said:
  "We have seen it all before. It's 'Maggie steps in' yet again."
  —[Interruption.] No, it was not the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes). The hon. Member has gone. I suspected that it might be him, with the originality and exuberance for which he is so well known.
  It is true that there is a certain aura of "Maggie steps in again", because this is another cause of great public concern on which the Prime Minister alights, as if by her very presence she can transform conditions, like some hyperactive fairy queen. At least we know who is the Titania of this Government. What we have yet to discover, as we look across the Chamber this afternoon, is which of the two Cabinet Ministers is Oberon and which will get the ass's head. Perhaps it will be both, because they are both main agents of policies which, the longer the Government press them, the greater the unpopularity they attract.
  That is certainly true of electricity privatisation, the poll tax and the privatisation proposals for the NHS which she has imposed upon the Secretary of State for Health, to which there is huge majority opposition. It is certainly true of the privatisation of water, to which in every opinion poll 70 per cent. are opposed. It is also true in the case of food policy on which 70 per cent. say that the Government are doing too much to protect the industry and too little to protect the consumer, while 90 per cent. feel that the Government should introduce more controls on how food is produced—I swear that those polls with the 90 per cent. majority were not taken in Albania.
  The feelings of the British people on all these issues are well known, widely recorded and very obvious. The Government, in persisting in these policies that are so profoundly against the interests of the nation, are not showing toughness; they are showing obedience to vested interests. The Government are not showing strength, but arrogance. Such arrogance breeds incompetence and such arrogance is incompatible with democracy in government. The British people understand that. As a result, they do not trust the Government and the consequences of that will be that they will punish the Government.
  4.49 pm
  The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  "expresses complete confidence in the Government's policies for protecting the safety and quality of the nation's food and water supplies."
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is at the memorial service for the victims of the crash on the M1.
  I find this an extraodinary debate. It began on a tone with which we could all identify and, as Secretary of State for Health, I can agree with the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) that we are dealing with a serious issue which has had tragic consequences for some people and one about which the public wish to be reassured, both in terms of the advice given and the action being taken to deal with what is obviously a worrying new risk in the food chain.
  What I find extraordinary is that the Leader of the Opposition should choose to make a speech—I think it is his first major speech since the general election, apart from in the debate on the Queen's Speech—in a Supply day debate on a subject in which, as several of my hon. Friends have pointed out, his party has taken precious little interest for many years. Of course, we are talking about recent events, but I must say that as the worrying events have unfolded—and we have had two particular new features of food poisoning which have been identified steadily over the past 12 months—the Labour party has not taken any great interest, until today.
  One feature of the background is the worrying increase in the incidence of one type of salmonella and of listeriosis, which may be connected with food throughout the developed world—[Interruption.] There has been a steadily unfolding amount of evidence over the past 12 months. By the middle of last year, there was concern about salmonella enteritidis phage type 4 in eggs in particular. In July last year, the Government took what I would have thought would be the worrying and significant step of warning people in the National Health Service to use liquid pasteurised egg and not raw egg products. The Opposition did not react to that and took it as a minor matter. [Interruption.] On 26 August last year, the Government took a step that had to be considered carefully because the evidence was still unfolding. We took the fairly startling step of advising the public to avoid eating raw eggs and we gave a public health warning. Again, there was no reaction from the Labour party. [Interruption.]
  By November last year, the evidence was becoming clearer that lightly cooked eggs, as well as raw egg, might be involved in this outbreak and on 21 November 1988 yet another public health warning was given, bringing the matter up to date. Again, it produced no reaction. By that time, television programmes such as "Watchdog" and the "Food and Drink Programme" were often following what we had said. Good Housekeeping magazine was giving advice to housewives based on what the Government were saying. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was having a difficult time with some people in the egg industry because he was explaining that a code of practice would have to be introduced and action would have to be taken. Yet no interest was taken by the Labour party.
  Mr. Brian Wilson: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Clarke: As we all know, the matter came into the political arena on 3 December 1988 when my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie), who was then the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health, received a great deal of publicity for one of her weekend remarks.
  Mr. George Foulkes: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Clarke: For the first time, the Opposition came to life. They were in the vanguard, with some sections of the egg industry, in demanding the dismissal of my hon. Friend. They were not alone.
  Mr. Foulkes: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Clarke: I shall give way in a moment.
  The spokesman for the Social and Liberal Democrats attacked my hon. Friend for undermining confidence in the egg industry and the then spokesman for the Social Democrats compared the risk with the risk of being hit by a meteorite. That was the level of concern then being shown by Opposition Members.
  Mr. Wilson rose—
  Mr. Foulkes rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. If the Secretary of State does not want to give way, hon. Members must not persist.
  Mr. Clarke: The idea that the Opposition suddenly now scent the red meat of politics in the subject for an Opposition Supply day, traditionally a somewhat party political occasion, is quite extraordinary. It is two and a half months after all the political fuss, and endless events have taken place since then. They have missed the bus in exploiting the Currie affair.
  Mr. Kinnock rose—
  Mr. Clarke: I shall give way first to the right hon. Gentleman.
  I waited to see what would be contributed by the amazing and prestigious speech of the Leader of the Opposition. His contribution was his new style in wit, a very good line in jokes, a rather inadequate understanding of the problems of food poisoning and a theory that it is all caused by the policies of the Government.
  Mr. Kinnock: The Secretary of State is absolutely right about my wit. Everything else he has said about the Opposition is a travesty. That is the only reason I have intervened. Over the years, we have repeatedly drawn attention, in all the debates on local government, for example, to the effect that the Government's policies would have on public health. In even more recent times, we dedicated a whole day of the debate on the Queen's Speech to the environment. I, together with two of my hon. Friends in the course of that debate, drew attention from the Front Bench to what the British Medical Association was then calling an "epidemic" of salmonella. There have been many other occasions on which we have taken an effective and vigilant interest in the whole problem of food hygiene. I hope that the Secretary of State will get on with his speech and will stop fooling about with completely false reports.
  Mr. Clarke: The Leader of the Opposition has been fooling about for most of the afternoon so far with his new-style wit on the subject.
  Mr. Allan Roberts: This debate is about water as well as food. Do I take it from the remarks of the Secretary of State that he disagrees with the Secretary of State for the Environment and that speeches arid statements made by myself and my hon. Friends over the past three years about drinking water quality have not been scaremongering, of which he accused us?
  Mr. Clarke: I have not accused the hon. Gentleman of scaremongering yet, but I shall. The whole point of the debate seems to be to arouse the alarm of the public and then to try to turn that to party political advantage. I shall, in due course, return to the extraordinary proposition that where there are worrying problems about water purity, somehow one is safe with public water but not with private water. That seems to be wholly irrelevant to the Water Bill and is only raised again by the hon. Gentleman because he wants to oppose the privatisation of water for other reasons.
  Mr. Jack Ashley: If the Secretary of State is giving us dates and explaining his interest in this subject, can he tell us why it took him from 15 December 1988 to 15 February this year to answer a simple question that I tabled about what was his responsibility for food safety? It took two months to answer a simple question. How many meetings did he have about that question? How many draft answers? How many nights' sleep did he lose? I suggest that that prevarication and delay showed a complete lack of interest or lack of confidence by the Secretary of State.
  Mr. Clarke: My duties on food safety have been clear as were those of my predecessor. They are in the published details of the responsibilities of Government Ministers. .1 apologise, of course, that it took so long to answer the right hon. Gentleman's question. I fear—as is always the position when people first suspect a conspiracy and then think of the alternative—that his question, quite improperly, remained in the bottom drawer of some official over the Christmas recess. [Interruption.] There have certainly not been any changes in my responsibilities for food safety nor in those of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for many years. The present system has been working effectively for the past few months.
  Dr. John Reid: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Clarke: I must be allowed to get on a little further, but I shall give way later.
  Having dealt with the background to this debate and its contents so far, may I suggest that we are all agreed that those who are following the debate from outside the House wish to have clear advice and clear action and to know what is being done about a problem that is causing concern in this and every other developed country in the westerm world? The housewives of this country do not want party political exchanges across the Floor of the House, which are plainly dependent on the opportunist instincts of the Leader of the Opposition. They want to know exactly what advice we are now giving them so that they can protect themselves and their families. They want

  865
  to know the background to the problem and why we are giving such surprising advice and they want to know what is going to be done about the problem. On all those counts, on which the Leader of the Opposition did not spend over-long, we have a duty to be clear and to demonstrate that we have been clear and consistent in the past few months.
  I remind all hon. Members of the precise status of the warnings that we have given. We have had to give warnings to certain sections of the public about the way in which they should treat certain foods. If the Opposition are really sincere in their declaration that they wish to be responsible—I shall take that at its face value and in the way in which it was put to me—they should underline the advice that has been given and agree that it is the crux of the issue.
  We have been consistent throughout in our advice about eggs. We went to the lengths of publicising the Chief Medical Officer's advice in full-page advertisements in the newspapers. I have a small offprint with me. The extent of that advice, which evolved as the evidence during the autumn, was that for healthy people there is very little risk from eating eggs which are cooked in whatever way one prefers them. For vulnerable people—the elderly, the sick, babies, toddlers and pregnant women—eggs should be thoroughly cooked until the white and the yoke are solid, but everyone should avoid eating raw eggs or uncooked foods made from them.
  Mr. Wilson rose—
  Ms. Mildred Gordon rose—
  Mr. Clarke: I shall give way later.
  That remains our advice on eggs. No one is suggesting that it is wrong or that it should be changed. No one is suggesting that at any stage any Minister has given any advice inconsistent with that which stems from the Chief Medical officer or from the course of public debates.
  Mr. Wilson: Before the Secretary of State strays too far from his somewhat sketchy chronological account, is he categorically telling the House that his Department had no warnings of salmonella in the poultry flock before 1988?
  Mr. Clarke: Salmonella in the poultry flock is a subject with which everybody who follows this issue has been familiar for many years. The new type of salmonella—salmonella enteritidis phage 4—and the discovery that it could be carried inside the egg, was first suspected and emerged towards the end of last year. To this day, we are still trying to discover exactly why and how it has emerged. We want to increase our scientific knowledge of it so that we can react to it.
  Ms. Gordon: Does the Secretary of State agree that what old people, pregnant women and mothers with children require are not warnings about not eating eggs, but safe eggs that they can eat? They want an assurance that the producers have been inspected and they want lists of safe producers and retailers from whom they can buy eggs with confidence. The Government have not provided that.
  Mr. Clarke: I agree with all that apart, of course, from the last phrase. We have given the warnings because we had to—because a new problem has emerged. I agree with
  866
  the hon. Lady that it now falls to us and the industry to tackle that problem and to reduce the level of infection to the minimum practicable and eliminate it as quickly as possible. However, a new problem has emerged, and we must give warnings. We shall maintain those warnings until we are satisfied that it can be lifted—that is the essence of this subject. [Interruption.] I am explaining how the problem emerged, when we first became aware of its full extent and the warning that we have given.
  Mr. Foulkes rose—
  Mr. Clarke: I shall stick to this matter for the moment. I shall give way later.
  The other worrying area is listeria and listeriosis. Again, there is no doubt about the warnings that we have been giving, which were last given in a full public press notice on 10 February 1989 and which received a lot of attention. It was aimed at pregnant women and particularly vulnerable people, especially patients who have had transplants, those on certain drugs that depress the immune system, and those with leukaemia or cancers of the lymphatic tissues. Those people were warned to avoid eating soft cheeses and to follow carefully instructions on how to handle precooked chilled food and precooked ready-to-eat chicken. They were advised to warm it until piping hot.
  Mr. Robin Cook rose—
  Mr. Clarke: I shall give way later to the hon. Gentleman because I do not think he wishes to intervene on that point.
  Before we get back to the political hullabaloo, I want to ensure that the public understand the warnings and get them in proportion. It is not complacent to say that one needs to keep this matter in proportion. Indeed, I think that the public know that.
  In supermarkets and kitchens, the public are behaving more sensibly than many politicians and journalists. That is the full extent of the health warnings that we have given. Nobody has said that we should extend them—
  Mr.Cook rose—
  Mr. Clarke: Well, I shall give a simple example first. Let us take someone like myself who, as far as I am aware, is healthy. It may not be my just deserts for my way of life, but I think that I am healthy—as are most hon. Members. I have not been warned to desist from eating any food on grounds of salmonella or listeria, except raw eggs. If one has an occasional raw egg, one knows that one is running a calculated risk.
  Mrs. Gorman rose—
  Mr. Clarke: Our advice has been aimed only at vulnerable groups. Average members of the public are not facing a risk that justifies hysteria or over-reaction. However, what it does justify is positive action, research and more scientific information to tackle the problem at its root before it gets any worse.
  Mr. Cook rose—
  Mr. ClarkeI shall give way in a second.
  To put this into proportion, during the 1980s deaths from food poisoning averaged about 50 per year. By comparison, deaths from accidents in the home were over 4,800 and for road accidents nearly 4,950. No one is

  867
  complacent about any of those figures, but they do put the comparative risks in context. The average person is nearly 100 times more likely to die from an accident at home or on the road than from food poisoning. Although the risk from food poisoning in this new form should be reduced, it does not justify the amazing alarm expressed about it in some places.
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours rose—
  Mr. Cook rose—
  Mr. Clarke: I shall give way in a moment. As I shall show later, the risk does not justify the attacks on the Government for our reaction to the problem—to the worrying extent that it exists.
  Mr. Cook: I thank the Secretary of State for giving way after that "second". He said several times that the problem emerged only last year. However, he will be aware that the figures that he has deposited in the Library show that between 1981 and 1987—not last year—the incidence of salmonella enteritidis increased sixfold. Is he aware that in 1987 the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food discovered infection in one quarter of the poultry foodstuff processing plants but did not close a single one? Is he further aware that in September last year the Lancet was able to state that there had been an "uncontrolled" epidemic of salmonella poisoning "for about two years" in Britain? If the Lancet knew that in September 1988, why did his Department wake up to the problem only a couple of months earlier?
  Mr. Clarke: The big increase in salmonella enteritidis was in 1987. Its connection with the whole egg became clear only in the summer of last year. Nothing that the hon. Gentleman has said has contradicted that. Indeed, I do not believe that it is possible to contradict that.
  The big increase in listeria and listeriosis occurred two years ago, but we stil do not know why there has been a big increase in listeriosis. Only four cases have been positively traced back to food. In 1988 the World Health Organisation gave us its opinion of the problem-that probably the bulk of listeriosis was, in some way as yet unknown, foodborne as an illness.
  As I shall explain in a moment, we are in the forefront of monitoring systems and research. In the advice that we are giving to the public and the steps that we have taken vis-a-vis the industry we are ahead of most other countries in western Europe and across the Atlantic.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: This debate must be about reassuring the public—[Interruption.] That is what the public demands of Parliament today. May we have an absolute, unconditional assurance today that all feedstock protein coming from these plants is salmonella-free? If we receive that assurance today, why could not we have had it in August of last year, when it would have meant so much more?
  Mr. Clarke: I shall be coming to that in a moment. I shall leave most of the assurances to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, but I shall touch on the 17 measures that he has taken to check salmonella in our flocks.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: We want an assurance.
  Mr. Clarke: Yes, I believe that I can give that. We have made orders controlling—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) asked a question and he is receiving a reply.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: I am not.
  Speaker: The hon. Gentleman should not point at the Minister and demand the answers to other questions.
  Mr. Clarke: We have created the necessary powers to be able to give that assurance. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will be able to bring the hon. Gentleman up to date with the enforcement of those powers when he replies.
  As I shall explain in the appropriate part of my speech, we have taken much action and given ourselves many additional powers to control salmonella in egg-laying flocks.
  Mr. Foulkes rose—
  Mr. Tom Clarke rose—
  Mr. Clarke: I shall give way in a second. It is a little rich for an Opposition Member to declare that the purpose of the debate is reassurance when the Opposition have so far spent their time misrepresenting both the date at which the problem first became known and the advice that the Government have given. With no scientific grounds on which to do so, they are challenging the action taken by the Government last year when the nature of the problem first became clear.
  Dr. Reid: Does the Secretary of State realise that if anything in today's debate will cause wide public concern, it will be his refusal to give the categorical assurance asked for by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours)? Does he think that comparing the statistics of people who died from food poisoning with those of people who died on roads is any consolation to the relatives of those who died from food poisoning?
  Does the Secretary of State understand that advertisements in newspapers are no substitute for policy? Will he take the opportunity today to explain to the House and the country why the Government vetoed their own 1984 proposals to subject new food premises to Government regulation and approval? In doing so, did the Government put the health of the nation or the Prime Minister's dogma of deregulation first?
  Mr. Clarke: I have already explained that I gave the figures, not to minimise the impact on the individuals affected, but to make it clear to everyone in the Chamber that it is still safer to eat any kind of British food than it is to cross the road. Quite demonstrably, that remains the case.
  Mr. Foulkes rose—
  Mr. Clarke: Secondly, I shall—
  Mr. Foulkes: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Speaker: Order. As a Front Bench spokesman the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) should be the first to know that if a Minister, or even an hon. Member, does not give way, he must not persist.
  Mr. Clarke: I shall not give way before I have answered the last intervention because that would reduce the debate

  869
  to a farce. I have given an assurance that the Government have the necessary powers to control the production of protein in this country. As part of the assurance that I shall give about the steps we have taken, I can say that the Government have the necessary powers to monitor the flocks and are checking protein as it comes from the producers.
  The hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) is doing what his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition does by calmly changing the subject to talk about a regulation on new food premises that was introduced three years ago. He cannot demonstrate that any case of the food poisoning with which we are concerned this afternoon arose from the Government's decision about that regulation. The Opposition must stop thrashing about trying to find vaguely food-related topics to suggest that the risk is worse than it is or that, somehow, the Government are not tackling the problem.
  Sir David Price: In order to make some sense of assessing the degree of the problem, will my right hon. and learned Friend deal with the point raised about the alleged under-reporting of salmonella cases? Does he agree that academics who multiply the Department's figure by 100 do not add to our appreciation of the problem? Is he aware that applying that factor of 100 to the basic health figure—the mortality rate—would mean that all of us in the House and the nation would die 1·2 times every year?
  Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend helpfully takes me on to my next point, which concerns the exact extent of the infection and our assessment of what action should be taken to reduce it.
  As I have explained several times, we are talking about a new form of salmonella. There are hundreds of different types of salmonella of varying seriousness, but we are dealing with a new type—salmonella enteritidis phage 4. Cases of that particular type associated with poultry and eggs have risen during the 1980s. In 1988, 12,553 cases of phage 4 were reported in this country. The latest score for 1988 of cases directly associated with eggs is 60 outbreaks, involving about 1,600 people.
  It is true that all types of food poisoning are under-reported. Many people's symptoms are not severe enough for them to trouble their doctor, or if they do, he does not always submit his results for pathological examination. In America, where I suspect reporting systems are not as good as ours, by convention some academics multiply by 100 the number of reported cases to give a figure closer to the truth. By definition, no one knows exactly how much under-reporting takes place, but those involved in the matter in this country believe that a factor of 10 is more suitable for monitoring the conditions in Britain.
  Mr. Foulkes: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Clarke: Let me again give some factual information about listeria. I do not think that any hon. Member in this debate can challenge the information I have given, because they have none better.
  The difficulty about listeria is that it is also a new and insufficiently understood problem. The type of listeria with which we are dealing is an organism that is widely
  870
  distributed in the environment and with which we all come into frequent daily contact. It is present in water, vegetation and soil. For some reason, as yet imperfectly understood, although we are all exposed to it—about one in 20 of us probably carry it in our bodies—it causes ill effects in vulnerable people.
  For a few of us the organism causes a disease known as listeriosis, which is fortunately quite rare. Last year there were 287 cases. In the past two years the number has suddenly risen. In healthy adults it can cause a mild flu-like disease but unfortunately, in more serious cases, it can cause meningitis and septicemia. As the Leader of the Opposition said, it presents a particular problem for pregnant women, in whom it may also infect the developing baby and lead to miscarriage, stillbirth or the baby being born with severe illness. The problem is being studied throughout the western world. However, it is only in the 1980s that serious outbreaks have begun to occur.
  Soft, ripened cheese appears to be a particularly common carrier of listeria. Again, before people rush out to cancel their orders for soft cheese, I shall repeat that healthy adults have probably consumed listeria several times in the past few days without even being aware of it or showing any symptoms. However, pregnant women are at risk if they eat cheese with listeria.
  In the 1980s there were outbreaks of listeria, first in Canada, and then a particular cheese, Vacherin Mont D'or, caused deaths in Sunderland—[Interruption.]—in Switzerland. [Interruption.]—and had to be banned. Then in America they had a serious outbreak involving Mexican soft cheese. Hence, we have given the advice to those consuming soft cheese in this country, although to date we are aware of only four cases directly attributable to food, only two of which concerned soft cheese. It seems to make no difference whether the cheese is pasteurised or unpasteurised. We have given warnings to this carefully selected group of vulnerable people because most of us can eat soft cheese, which has a lot of listeria in it, without knowing that we have it and without suffering adverse effects.
  That statement produced some momentary silence and even a little less hilarity from the Opposition because it is a factual description of the particular aspects of food poisoning with which we are concerned. Those facts do not lend themselves to party political attacks. They are not facts about which the Opposition are any more scientifically informed than the Government.
  Dr. Lewis Moonie rose—
  Mr. Clarke: But certainly they wish to know exactly what we are doing about it.
  Mrs. Rosie Barnes rose—
  Mr. Clarke: First, the Government are armed with many independent expert committees.
  Dr. Moonie: Perhaps I am slightly better informed than the Secretary of State on this subject. He must be well aware that the rise in the number of cases of listeria is exactly paralleled by the rise in the use of cook-chill methods of storing food. He will also be aware that this fact is recognised by major manufacturers such as Marks and Spencer, which have taken action to ensure that this bacterium is eradicated from their food production.
  Mr. Clarke: Certainly it is true that, among other things that have happened during the 1980s, there has been an increase in listeria, especially in the past two years. There has been an increase in the use of pre-cooked chilled foods on sale for retail. It is certainly true that listeria is a risk that must be looked out for in pre-cooked chilled food. I shall come to that in a moment. No one has yet established the direct link. We know that the level of listeria should be kept reasonably low and precautions should be taken by those who are particularly vulnerable to the bacterium. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) is a registered medical practitioner who I know therefore has qualifications in his field. The hon. Gentleman claims to know exactly why particular groups get listeriosis from listeria. If he knows exactly what steps must be taken to reverse that, he should be in pursuit of a Nobel prize, and not in pursuit of retaining his seat in the House of Commons.
  Mr. Tom Clarke rose—
  Mr. Clarke: I do not believe that the medical and scientific world is entirely sure yet of the answers to these questions. We will take the hon. Gentleman's advice, and we are taking advice. The Government already have many independent expert committees to rely upon, including doctors and vets within the Government and a wide range of outside expertise, such as the food advisory committee, and the committee on toxicology. Those committees will not be attacked by anybody on either side of the House. We have 10 specialist working parties dealing with all aspects of food hygiene, which contain experts from inside and outside.
  I trust that we shall not hear any bizarre attacks upon them as part of some political conspiracy in support of the producer, private industry or whatever is claimed to be at the root of this difficulty. No subject is considered closed by them. We analyse thousands of samples of food each year. We monitor what is going on in this country to a much higher extent than most other countries.
  Mr. Tom Clarke: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Clarke: Research has been mentioned. We are financing research on a considerable scale. That case is not undermined by finding one disappointed researcher whose research has been finished—and where the money is being switched to some other aspect—and suggesting that that is incontrovertible proof that we are neglecting research. At present, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is funding 14 research projects, either specifically on listeria or including work on listeria. We are in the forefront of work in this sphere.
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Clarke: Most developed countries, as I keep on saying, are experiencing a similar problem. It is not confined to this country. One thing that arises from our system of monitoring, answering questions and giving advice—indeed, from our system of parliamentary debate—is that we in this country are more aware of the extent of the problem than most members of the public in other countries are aware of the extent of similar problems in those countries.
  Mr. Robert Hughes rose—
  Mr. Clarke: We are taking a considerable amount of action to tackle this. We are taking more action than most of our neighbours.
  On salmonella in eggs, going back to the question that was raised by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture has put in place a package of no fewer than 17 measures. 1 shall touch on some measures that are especially relevant to the hon. Gentleman's intervention, because the Minister will deal with his own measures.
  We have given ourselves new powers to stop the supply of products from protein processing plants where salmonella is found. We have put out notices preventing the sale of eggs from flocks that have been identified as a source of salmonella-infected eggs. Very shortly, an order will be made under section 29 of the Animal Health Act 1981 to provide, where necessary, for the compulsory slaughter of laying flocks in which salmonella has been confirmed. Much interest has arisen, especially since my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South made her remarks about the extent of infection in the flocks. Another order will be made shortly providing for the compulsory bacteriologial monitoring of all laying flocks which will enable us to improve our knowledge of the extent of infection of the flocks.
  Mr. Foulkes: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Clarke: I shall give way, although I will not give more details at this stage. I know of no country, and I challenge the hon. Gentleman and any of his colleagues to disagree, that has introduced a more comprehensive package of measures to deal with the problem, although we are by no means the only country that faces it.
  Mr. Foulkes: The Secretary of State said earlier that we need clarity and not confusion. I think he was trying to accuse us of scaremongering. He will recall that all this confusion started with the statement that he has just mentioned from the former Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie). Could the Secretary of State now tell us what he said to the hon. Lady immediately after that statement was made? Did he ask her to correct her statement because it was misleading, or did he ask her to shut up?
  Mr. Clarke: The first time that serious interest was taken in this subject by the Opposition was when they joined in the demands to sack my hon. Friend because of her remarks. On the following day, when the hon. Gentleman was probably in the House, I answered a private notice question in which I gave the clear advice of the Government and a clear description of the nature and extent of the problem. To the best of my knowledge, nobody, certainly not so far this afternoon, has challenged anything that I said on that occasion.
  The Chief Medical Officer gave widespread interviews on television and to newspapers to give the public health advice. I use the Chief Medical Officer because, although he is a civil servant, he is quite free of any suggestion of being subject to political interference in his medical judgment. He is also best qualified to give medical advice to the public and he did so. What I said to my hon. Friend was that she should decline to give interviews, because the only interviews that she would give was where she would face attacks from people like the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) demanding that she withdraw—

  873
  [Interruption.] Yes, certainly. At that stage, this responsible Opposition put the issue on a par with woolly hats and Edwina-baiting—[Interruption.] Yes, of course that was said.
  Again, the following day, my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South repeated her belief in what she had said on the Saturday and added to it the Government's health advice, in exactly the same terms as I and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food had given it, as well as the Chief Medical Officer.
  Mr. Foulkes: Will the Secretary of State follow that up?
  Mr. Clarke: We have had quite enough of that. I gave evidence on it for an hour to the Select Committee on Agriculture. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Tom Clarke: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Clarke: I shall give way to my namesake, who is being most persistent.
  Mr. Tom Clarke: I am very grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. While he attempts to reassure the House, will he accept from me that in the past 15 minutes I have received information from the management of D. B. Marshall's chicken factory in my constituency, which has just announced redundancies for 239 people, which is more than half the work force at the factory? The management has told me that recent publicity has much to do with the decision. Does not the Secretary of State agree that the Government will have to get their act together much better than this unless even more jobs are to be lost?
  Mr. Clarke: With the greatest respect, the hon. Gentleman should take that up with his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition—[Interruption.] A few moments ago I attempted to repeat—and, despite the interruptions, I think I succeeded—the medical advice currently being given to the public about the safe handling of food. It was not greeted with derision, because there is no different advice that the Opposition want us to give, but it was greeted with repeated interruptions, weak jokes and general disbelief that I should compare it with road accidents or anything of that kind.
  It is important that the vulnerable groups take the advice that we give, and it is important that other people realise that if they use common sense in handling food they are perfectly safe. It is also important that the Opposition parties stop messing about on this subject and find a subject for debate in respect of which they can make a useful contribution.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Clarke: No, I cannot keep giving way.
  Let me go on to the question of cooked, chilled food. We have dealt, so far, with salmonella in eggs and with listeria in soft cheese. Cooked, chilled food is also an important matter. Listeria is carried in soft, ripened cheeses. We are concerned also about the handling of cooked, chilled and ready-cooked food in supermarkets. A recent report, produced by the Government's own public health laboratory service, which appeared in The Lancet, gave what is, so far, the best measurement of the extent of
  874
  listeria infection in some foods found in supermarkets. That report was known about and was fully taken into account by Sir Donald Acheson when, recently, he gave pregnant women and seriously sick people his advice about listeria and the handling of cooked, chilled food.
  Nevertheless, we do intend to follow up recent concern about cooked, chilled food, and we now have regulations in draft, under the Food Hygiene Act, to require a maximum temperature for the distribution, storage and sale of pre-cooked, chilled foods. This is an aspect into which the hon. Member for Livingston entered a few days ago, with an essay at his own regulations. I said at the time that he was a little bit like a third-rate Liberal candidate in a county council election, knowing that we were producing regulations and that they were about to come, but demanding their introduction. Nevertheless, what he said was interesting, although, in fact, he lifted our existing guidelines for cook-chill catering in hospitals and applied them to the retail sale of various pre-cooked, chilled foods. They are not quite the same; the practical problems are different. Nevertheless, we have our regulations in draft, and our experts' conclusions—and plainly we have access to a much wider range of expert advice than he has—will come out soon.
  The hon. Gentleman was not wholly foolish in choosing as a model our cook-chill guidance to National Health Service hospitals. I am glad to say that it comes out extremely well in all recent surveys. Our National Health Service guidelines have a good record. In the case of cook-chill in hospitals, there is such a short time between cooking at a high temperature, storage at a very low temperature for a very short time and then bringing the food up to piping hot again that the process has a good record and is giving rise to no concern.
  Contracting-out was said to be about to cause a wave of food poisoning throughout the hospitals. We have gone through a tendering process for well over three quarters of hospital catering, and the rate of salmonella infection in hospitals is dropping, not increasing. [Interruption.] Yet again, the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) cannot resist bringing into a debate about food poisoning absolutely irrelevant ideological nonsense about his resistance to private caterers or contracting-out. In fact, since contracting-out started, salmonella infection has dropped.
  Mr. Frank Dobson rose—
  Mr. Clarke: If the hon. Gentleman waits to hear what I have to say about the regulations, I will give way before moving away from them.
  On the question of cooked, chilled, our experts have now agreed, and we will be laying the necessary hygiene regulations in the very near future. Those regulations will control the maximum temperature throughout the manufacturing and distribution chain, and that is important. We are working on a code of practice to ensure careful handling at every stage, from the preparation of foods to their sale on the shelves. We are also carrying out investigations into the temperatures necessary to kill the organism during heat treatment and into the effectiveness of microwave cooking. The results will be available shortly, and, once more, we shall take action at once.
  Mr. Robin Cook: I readily accept what the Secretary of State says about the promise of regulations in this area. The Government have been promising regulations in this

  875
  area since they issued a consultative document in June 1987. Can the Secretary of State explain to the House why, 20 months later, no action has been taken on that consultative document, despite the growing evidence of listeriosis? If it really is necessary for his Department to take 20 leisurely months to consult over one statutory instrument, could we please have 20 months of consultation on the White Paper before he dismantles the National Health Service?
  Mr. Clarke: The Opposition keep bringing in subjects that it might have been wiser to debate this afternoon. They would have been more relevant to a Supply day debate.
  On the hon. Gentleman's first, and serious, point, let me say that I regret that it has taken 20 months, since we first announced our intention to consult, to produce these regulations. I can give the hon. Gentleman a perfectly straightforward explanation: the experts have taken a long time to come to agreement. [Interruption.] It really is quite absurd that every time we produce anything in an area of this kind Opposition Members insist that there is a party political conspiracy behind it. The fact is that when one is dealing with an area in which the scientific knowledge is far from complete, one brings together the widest body of expert knowledge. But the experts do not always agree. They had pressure put upon them by me and by my right hon. Friend because we needed the regulations. I am glad to say that—without compromising their scientific position, I am sure—they have finally agreed, and that we are about to lay the regulations.
  I agree with the Leader of the Opposition that the consumer is entitled to look for the safest food that it is possible to get. It is not the consumers' responsibility in the first place. Nevertheless, consumers have a responsibility to take good care of themselves and of their food in the home, and we shall soon be launching a full-scale health education campaign on food hygiene to explain to people making increasing use of convenience foods in modern kitchens how they can handle that food safely in order to reduce the risk of disease there.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: Does the Secretary of State recall Question No. 16 on today's Order Paper concerning the irradiation of food? Contrary to normal practice, the written answer to that question is still not available in the Library. though the other written answers are available. Why is he so coy about his Department's position concerning a proven method of making food safer? Will he say what is his policy towards the irradiation of food?
  Mr. Clarke: It is true that all the best evidence we have so far is that irradiation actually kills bacteria and poses no problem for the consumer. But, as the hon. Gentleman, who follows these matters, knows, we are again in the hands of an expert working party, whose report we are considering. It is one of the ironies of the recent controversy about food that a lot of the lobbying is contradictory. Irradiation tends to kill bacteria in food, and there is no evidence that it creates any difficulties.
  People talk about the safety of eggs. We hear about battery farming, which is not popular with many people in this country. There is no evidence that free range eggs are any more free of the newer types of salmonela than battery eggs. Infection has been found in both.
  When we have looked at the infections that come from cheese, we have found nothing to suggest that
  876
  factory-made cheese is safer than the farm gate variety. As someone said, we are consulting all over again on the question of the sale of unpasteurised farm gate milk, which some people like to buy and which undoubtedly also gives rise to a degree of food poisoning. Irradiation is a subject to which we shall certainly have to return, because the process would not actually kill some of the bacteria about which we are talking.
  Mrs. Rosie Barnes: I wonder whether the Secretary of State could say something about the use of unpasteurised milk in cheese making. Comments at the weekend before last caused a considerable degree of anxiety about which cheeses were safe and which were not. Some hard cheeses are made from unpasteurised milk, and I know that many small manufacturers of cheeses have been finding their livelihood very hard hit in the days following those remarks.
  Mr. Clarke: When questioned on the Jimmy Young programme I gave my understanding of what the newspapers told me my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food had been saying on Saturday. At the same time, in Brussels, he was explaining that he had not said it—that we were not contemplating a ban. The position is that we are not contemplating a ban on any kind of cheese. So far as listeriosis is concerned, we cannot detect, from any evidence, any higher risk of disease in unpasteurised cheese than in pasteurised cheese, and there is no case for discriminating between them.
  Mr. Shersby: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the point raised by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) is important? Can my right hon. and learned Friend comment on what studies his Department has made on the use of irradiation in other countries such as the Netherlands? Does he share my view that if he intends to legalise irradiation, the Opposition should support that as a valuable measure for dealing with food poisoning?
  Mr. Clarke: It will be interesting to see. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food may find time to deal with irradiated food when he replies to the debate. There is considerable concern about it and at the moment it is not allowed in this country. Much of the public concern is caused by confusion about the general subject of radioactivity. There are people who do not hesitate to confuse the two things. Again, we shall examine the best, up-to-date scientific information, both from here and abroad, about irradiation.
  I cannot have been asked many more questions in any debate than I have been asked this afternoon, but there are limits to the extent of the scientific knowledge that exists about the new strains of salmonella, the worrying increase in listeriosis and other things connected with the subject.. No one denies that during the 1980s—not, as the Leader of the Opposition says, uniquely in this country because of the political policies of the Government, but throughout the developed world—there has been a worrying increase in particular types of food poisoning. No one knows exactly why. We all know that there have been sociological and technological changes in the production and handling of food. There has been a big increase in the mass production of food, which has had desirable consequences for the consumer, not least in reducing the price. Supermarket sales of food are increasing, and increasingly

  877
  food is of a convenience type, made to be prepared in new inventions like the microwave oven by busy people coming home from work.
  All the evidence from this country and abroad gives no cause for panic or hysteria. As we have all said throughout, in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Department of Health, the evidence gives rise to serious concern that more infection is getting into the food chain at some point than used to be the case. It needs the most close scientific investigation. For that reason the Government have already announced their intention to appoint a committee on the microbiological safety of food. The committee will contain the widest possible range of expertise. Its members will be able to give advice on every part of the food chain and bring together their various specialities so that we can improve our understanding of why there has been an increase in food poisoning and what we ought to be doing to reverse it.
  We have invited Sir Mark Richmond to be the chairman of the committee. Sir Mark is professor of molecular microbiology and vice-chancellor of Manchester university. He is also chairman of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals. Among his various posts he has been chairman of the British national committee for microbiology, a member of the Lister Institute and a member of the Jarrett committee for university efficiency.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is he a Tory?
  Mr. Clarke: Once again the Opposition have betrayed the full extent of their interest in the subject. The political predilections of the chairman of the committee are more important than his scientific background. I have not a clue whether he is a Tory.
  The terms of reference of the committee will be:
  "To advise the Secretary of State for Health, the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Secretaries of State for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland on matters remitted to it by Ministers relating to the microbiological safety of food and on such matters as it considers need investigation."
  That means that it will be invited to respond to specific issues put to it by Ministers but it can also initiate longer term studies of its own.
  The committee will look at the increasing incidence of foodborne illnesses particularly from salmonella, listeria and campylobacter. It will try to establish whether this rise is linked to changes in agriculture and food production, food technology and distribution, retailing, catering and food handling in the home. It will recommend action where appropriate. It is intended that the committee will have an expert membership which will include an epidemiologist, a microbiologist, an environmental health officer, a veterinary surgeon, a farmer, and food scientists with experience in production, distribution and catering. Consumer interests will also be represented on the committee. I hope that it will make some of its early recommendations in time for them to be included in the food legislation which the Government are contemplating.
  I have taken a great amount of time, most of it in deference to interventions from all over the House—I have promptly provoked another one.
  Mr. Christopher Gill: My right hon. and learned friend will be aware that the Leader of the
  878
  Opposition referred to certain vested interests in the food industry. Will my right hon. and learned Friend take the opportunity to reassure the House that the food industry, whether producers, manufacturers, processers, retailers or whatever, has a big vested interest, that is, ensuring that it markets a product that gives total satisfaction? The food industry has as big a vested interest as any individual.
  Mr. Clarke: Of course, food producers, retailers and supermarket chains are all anxious, above all, to restore consumer confidence in their product. Within the food industry there is considerable expertise on catering, retailing and the handling of cooked, chilled products. We are working closely with the Ministry of Agriculture and the food industry in what we are doing.
  We have a record which is second to none of any country in the developed world of careful monitoring, of research, of prompt advice to the public and of action on the threats that are posed to the public by new varieties of food poisoning. We have set up a new independent committee to advise us on the worrying new developments in food poisoning in recent years. The whole subject has been trivialised to some extent this afternoon by the Opposition who made it a Supply day debate and then tried to make cheap political points out of it.
  I began by saying that I was astonished that the right hon. Member for Islwyn was here. This is his first major Supply day presence since the election. Was it on defence, on the Health Service or on economic policy? No. He talked about the unity of his party, but his party either has no policy and is listening to various groups before deciding on what it should be, or it is only unified on the question of bad eggs and goat's milk cheese which it sees as its route back to power. The Labour party has made a deliberate attempt to arouse public concern, for party political advantage. On an issue which should be bipartisan the Labour party has tried to fan public concern. I invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to treat the Opposition motion with the contempt that it undoubtedly deserves and to vote for the Government amendment.
  Mr. Speaker: Before I call Back Benchers to participate in the debate, may I remind them that there will be a 10-minute limit on speeches between 7 o'clock and 9 o'clock. I hope that those who are called before then will set a good example by not taking much longer.
  5.47 pm
  Mr. Martyn Jones: I shall try my best, Mr. Speaker, to make my five minutes count.
  Whatever may be said from the Government Benches, some of us are qualified to speak on the issue. It does not take an expert to know that public confidence in food is at an all-time low, with some justification. In the last few years, a combination of Tory free market dogma and ministerial complacency and bungling has been literally deadly.
  I have no wish or right to pre-empt the report of the Select Committee which is investigating salmonella in eggs, but I wish to comment on the evidence which was given in public. When the Secretary of State for Health, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) were interviewed, the ordinary person in the street had to assume that one of two things appertained: that there was a cover-up of evidence by the former Under-Secretary of

  879
  State for Health, who had been ordered to shut up, or that the former Under-Secretary of State had decided to keep quiet for her own personal reasons, literary or egotistical. Neither says much for inter-departmental liaison or the people involved.
  Inter-departmental relations between the Department of Health and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food were also pretty scrambled, for whether eggs are the cause of the increase in salmonella infection generally or not, it has been known literally for years that there has been a problem with salmonella of all kinds—there are, after all, 2,200 species or so—in poultry meat production, and the kind of action we are now hopefully seeing—the enforcement of zoonosis orders and tightening up of feed regulations and the 15 or so other measures which are to be listed later—are probably years overdue, both for the benefit of the consumers and the producers, who by and large want to produce good, wholesome food, and do not benefit from scares. This is a perfect example of how free market theories cannot work in a modern society. Indeed, they have never worked in health and hygiene matters.
  What further delights have we in store in this area? Will the cutback in research funding have an effect? Of course it will. My right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock ) mentioned BSE—bovine spongiform encephalopathy, which is quite a mouthful and is a long name for a potential hazard of gigantic proportions, dealing with a very esoteric and long-term pathogenic agent. It is supposedly viral-like, but nobody really knows. It is resistant to heat, capable of causing degenerative brain disease in cattle and is very similar to scrapie in sheep.
  That leads to a very interesting question. We have compulsory slaughter for cattle in place now albeit, I believe, with insufficient compensation. If the Ministry believes that the risk from cattle with BSE is enough to insist on the incineration of the bodies, why is there no such order for sheep with scrapie? The carcase of a scrapie sheep still ends up in the butcher's. People in Britain and probably elsewhere have been eating meat from sheep with scrapie for hundreds of years. Any shepherd worth his salt can recognise the first signs of scrapie and would tend to send the sheep to the butcher's before anyone else noticed, which could happen with BSE.
  However, there are other knock-on effects of this problem. The disease has frightened off buyers from other countries. Britain's cattle exports are worth about £58 million a year, and 12 months ago Australia and Israel banned the import of British cattle. Australia's ban also includes semen for artificial insemination, although there is no evidence that the scrapie agent can be transmitted via semen. The Ministry will pay compensation, as I said, but it is only for half the average market value for a cow that must be slaughtered. We are fobbed off with the idea that the cattle in that condition are probably worth only that much, but that is not the point. We need to prevent the likelihood of this disease getting into the food chain, because we do not know whether it is transmissible to human beings, and we are not likely to know if we do not research the issue.
  Kuru is a very esoteric human disease. Microbiologists have this as an example of a very strange pathway, in that it is reckoned that it is passed on because of the cannibalistic instincts of the Fore tribe in New Guinea, who had the unfortunate habit of eating their relatives, which is not widely known in the hills of Wales. But we
  880
  certainly eat beef, and as cows are in the food chain, it is possible that this unusual and basically unknown disease can get into human beings.
  Another human disease, which is probably not connected but is a similar sort of organism, is called Creutzfeld-Jakob disease, which shows at least that human beings can be susceptible to this sort of organism.
  Mr. Ron Davies: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the incidence of Creutzfeld-Jakob disease is 30 times higher among Libyan Jewry who treat as a delicacy the consumption of sheep's brains? Is this not a fairly firm indication that there is the possibility of transmission of scrapie via this unknown agent into humans where it is manifest in clincial forms of CJD?
  Mr. Jones: I suggest that it is very likely an indication of the possibility of transmission in that way. I understand that there is some evidence that the eating of sheep's eyes can cause a similar problem. On a lighter note, I inform my hon. Friend that mock turtle soup is made from sheep's brains, and it may be something to avoid in future, bearing in mind the possible problems. I certainly do not wish that to be used as an excuse to start killing turtles again, because that would be the wrong inference to draw.
  We have an example here of inter-departmental bungling, because we do not know what risk there is of human transmission of BSE and I doubt whether this is near-market research, so I would think that this is a problem of both Government policy and Government intentions. Over the last few years we have seen that free market dogma simply does not work when it is applied to food production and research. In fact, it is tantamount to a licence to kill.
  5.55 pm
  Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: I very much welcome the fact that we have had this debate today, because there has been, as has been acknowledged on all sides, a great deal of confusion over the whole of this issue. To that extent at least I welcome the opportunity.
  I enter this debate, I hope as the House recognises, as someone who has had a reasonable amount of practical experience of what is involved in the production and processing of food. Indeed, I was brought up on a family farm which, in the early 1930s, in the east of Scotland, was one of the pioneers in producing tuberculin-tested, tuberculin-free milk. The need for proper hygiene and for freedom from disease in food production is one with which I have certainly been concerned for the whole of my life.
  I also hope that in speaking in this debate I can speak from a degree of practical experience, because I had responsibility in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for four years, admittedly dealing much more with European matters perhaps than with domestic food matters. None the less, the one thing that did impress me and which was touched on by my right hon. and learned Friend in his speech a few moments ago was that, when we relate our standards in the United Kingdom to standards elsewhere in the western world and in Europe, ours are the highest standards. Yet from what we have heard in recent weeks one would wonder whether that was true. It seems that we could be accused of literally shooting ourselves in the foot over the good record of our industry.
  I need no persuasion of the need for the highest possible standards of hygiene and quality in our food industry. To

  881
  maintain such standards requires, as I think my right hon. and learned Friend acknowledged this afternoon, constant vigilance and persistent effort. I hope that there will never, from any quarter in this House or elsewhere, be signs of complacency. For that reason I very much regret the amount of confusion and contradiction there has been. If we are honest with ourselves there has been an element of confusion and contradiction over recent weeks, and this has not helped.
  I am particularly grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health for what I believe was a much clearer statement in the House this evening of exactly where we stand on these issues, why we stand where we do, and what action is being taken in the future. I feel reassured, and I hope that the Opposition will acknowledge that as well. I certainly believe people outside the House ought to be reassured as well. I believe that the problems have been identified and, having been identified, must be dealt with.
  Equally, whilst I regret some of the confusions that have arisen, I deprecate even more the degree of irresponsible scaremongering to which people have been subjected over recent weeks. Consumers have been misled, and the livelihoods of innocent people outside the whole of this controversy have been threatened or at worst destroyed, as was said by the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) a few moments ago in an intervention.
  Mr. Eric Martlew: When the hon. Gentleman said that there had been a good deal of scaremongering, was he referring to the comments made by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie)?
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Scaremongering has come from all quarters. I exclude no one and no political party. Such scaremongering in connection with the nation's food is something that I deprecate, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will join me in doing so.
  What worries me is that so much of what has been said is based neither on clear evidence nor on scientific principles. To a great extent, reason has gone out of the window. What I hope that the debate will do, and what I shall certainly try to do, is to keep matters in their proper perspective. Given the way in which people have talked in recent weeks, it is surprising that there are any elderly people in the population. As a journalist said to me today, how frequently—if ever—do we meet someone who has actually suffered from food poisoning?
  Over the years the Ministry of Agriculture has had a good record in protecting the quality and standards of the nation's food and promoting healthy food production. Since pre-war days, through the Ministry and the country's agriculture departments, disease after disease has been eradicated from animal food production—foot and mouth being perhaps the most significant, although it is probably less important in relation to human health. Tuberculosis and brucellosis are examples of human diseases on which the initiative has been taken by our agriculture departments. After their eradication effective and careful monitoring has ensured that they have never returned to our livestock population with the subsequent threat to human health.
  882
  The Ministry's record applies to a long list of other diseases: swine fever among pigs; Aujesky's disease, almost completely eradicated through work supported by the industry, financially as well as in other ways; and fowlpest among poultry. I hope that the Minister will not be diverted from this course by the events of recent weeks. The Department that he heads has a record to be proud of, and I believe that it will continue to be our best insurance against disease and in support of proper health and food hygiene standards. If we examine it properly and dispassionately, we see that this is the record of an industry and a Ministry that are not irresponsible, but have considerable achievement behind them. Comparison with other countries suggests that we have one of the best records—if not the very best—in the western world. I hope that the Ministry will remain true to its history and will continue to tackle the problems resolutely and unwaveringly.
  If the Government and the Ministry are to be effective, they must provide proper resources. That is especially critical in two respects. First, it goes without saying that proper resources must be given to the state veterinary service for the eradication and monitoring of disease. It is important to attract staff with qualities necessary for the task by offering appropriate salaries. Staff numbers are another issue to which, in view of what has happened in recent weeks, renewed attention should be given and, if necessary, additional resources devoted. The veterinary service is in the front line of the battle against disease and in support of hygiene, and I hope that the Government will provide the necessary support.
  My second point concerns research. As my right hon. and learned Friend knows, I have serious doubts about the classification of some areas of near market research, the financing of which he wishes to return to the industry. I remind him that we are dealing with an industry with a multiplicity of small, independent units, and that at present it is finding things very difficult financially, for reasons of which he is aware. Some of the research needs to be reviewed to establish whether it should more properly be the Government's responsibility. I am thinking especially of public health and food hygiene. Of course we want support from the industry, but I think that we need more attention from the Ministry as well.
  One example is the work on listeria being done at the Moredun research institute in Edinburgh, currently being funded by Government but earmarked as near market research to be funded by the industry. Another—I know that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) will agree—is the work of the Torry research institute in Aberdeen. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health spoke of chilled food and the importance of refrigeration. At that institute, some of the foremost work in Britain is being done on refrigeration techniques and how to improve them. I beg my right hon. and learned Friend to re-examine some of those research programmes, which I think should receive continuing Government support rather than being handed over to the industry—not because the industry is uninterested, but because of the difficulties of providing finance from that source.
  As I have said, I welcome the debate. We needed a clear lead from the Government, and I am glad that my right hon. and learned Friend has given it today. We need an end to scaremongering, and I hope that the Opposition Front Bench and others will recognise that. Otherwise it

  883
  will be the British consumer who will ultimately suffer through unwarranted uncertainty. It is in the British food industry—production and processing—that livelihoods will be lost. The only winners will be overseas producers and processors. That will be bad for our balance of payments, and bad for Britain.
  6.8 pm
  Mr. Ronnie Fearn: It is very difficult to assess accurately what is happening to the food and water industries, and the repercussions for the health of the nation, especially at this stage. Excessive secrecy—the dominant feature of the present Government—and a lack of real information have served only to fuel the controversy. The public are utterly confused, and the question "What would you like for dinner?" has taken on unnecessary and nightmarish proportions.
  Much of the hysteria of the past few months could have been avoided if the Government had for once approached an issue on the basis that the people have a right to know. If clear and sensible information and guidelines had been issued when the salmonella infection in egg production was first identified, much of the subsequent panic reaction from various Government Departments need not have happened. The response to the issue of soft cheese, unpasteurised milk and the listeria risk was such a reaction, and the issue still needs thorough investigation and clarification.
  It is obvious, however, that, in our rush to progress and our haste to produce food more efficiently and profitably in a market-oriented society, certain people and industries have been allowed to cut corners. Consumers' rights have been neglected and the dangers to their health have become much more prevalent.
  In the present era of mass production and of scientific and technological advance it is even more important that the public have access to information. Individuals have the right to know what they are eating; mothers have the right to know what they are feeding their babies and what the effects may be. They should have the right to choose what substances they are consuming. Above all, they have a right not to he used as guinea pigs without their consent. Food should state clearly all contents, and where that is not practicable, the information should be easily available.
  An example of the public not being informed or being given little choice as to what they consume is the use of bovine somatotropin treatment in milk production. Milk containing that hormone should be bottled separately and clearly labelled. In addition, the facts and information surrounding the use of BST should be made available to the public now. Are the public aware that in the United States the Food and Drug Administration is not completely happy with BST and there are restrictions on its use in that country. What does the Minister intend to do about the fact that the Veterinary Products Committee has refused to license the use of BST on the ground that not enough work has been conducted into its effects on animals?
  It is known that there is an increased incidence of mastitis and anaemia and there is concern that it may reduce fertility. Although the possibility of the bovine somatotropin hormone becoming active in humans is very remote, there is some risk. What will be the overall effect on farmers and milk production? This is the first time that a genetically-engineered hormone has been introduced
  884
  into the human food chain, and instead of clouding the issue in secrecy the Government should take the opportunity to set up hard and fast procedures to cover the introduction of other such drugs in future.
  Consumers must be given the opportunity and information to make an informed choice. Consumers should also be given more information and more protection from the possible ill effects of cook-chill foods. The expansion of that industry makes it imperative that not only should such food be subject to stringent quality control, but that wherever it is used the individual consumer should be informed. The Department of Health particularly needs to look into its wide use in the Health Service and in local government services such as schools and meals on wheels. The fact that it is cooked and dispatched from one central unit to many hospitals exposes more patients to the possible source of contamination and makes any food poisoning outbreak difficult to control. The recent outbreak of salmonella poisoning at St. Helen's hospital, Mersyside, which was traced to a cook-chill cottage pie, should cause deep concern since it is known that listeria is a much tougher bacteria able to survive at very cold temperatures. Will the Minister consider introducing regulations requiring health authorities, hospitals and other units to inform patients of the use of such food and to offer alternatives to those patients most susceptible, such as those in maternity units, or perhaps even to ban the use of such foods at least in certain units until further investigations have been conducted?
  The report in The Guardian this morning that leaders, in the food industry and retailers were being asked to draw up a draft code to help prevent listeria is not good enough. Surely we have passed the stage where the food industry should be allowed to regulate itself. The Government must act now. There is a need for strict legislation, regulations and enforcement.
  Mr. Shersby: Has the hon. Gentleman ever heard of the Food Act 1984? Has he read the provisions of that Act and does he not know that there are already very strict regulations governing food production in this country?
  Mr. Fearn: I have read the Act and I have seen the regulations, but they are not implemented because there is not enough inspection.
  The practice exposed in The Sunday Times on 19 February whereby large retailers such as Sainsbury's are allowed to offload surplus rejects or near-to-shelf-date goods, knowing that they will be sold for human consumption, cannot be tolerated. The fact that the wholesalers of such food cannot be prosecuted under the present law is not acceptable. The poorer sections of the community should not be put at risk or sold poor quality food in the interests of large companies cutting their losses.
  Mrs. Gorman: I should like the hon. Gentleman to know that I regularly buy such products which have gone past their sell-by dates. I buy a whole tray of yoghurts in my local market for 50p and they are absolutely excellent. Many people who are much less well off than I am find a marvellous source of food in the supply of items which are marked with ridiculous sell-by dates.
  Mr. Fearn: I hope that others do not follow the hon. Lady's example.

  885
  Profit and loss issues lead me neatly to the quality of water now and in future. The reported cases of water pollution incidents in England and Wales between 1980–81 and 1986–87 rose from 12,500 to 21,095, yet the Government have granted some water authorities new and relaxed effluent standards. At the same time, in the drive towards cost efficiency, the water authorities' capacity to invest in improvements has been curtailed. Lack of investment in the infrastructure means broken and rotten sewers which have contributed to an alarming increase in the rat population with the inherent danger of disease.
  We have heard today that people in Oxfordshire and Wiltshire are being advised to boil their drinking water. Claims that the warmer winter may have some bearing on such events should not be allowed to detract from the real problem. Surely we can expect those in control of our water authorities to have expertise and knowledge as to the effects of warm weather and to provide some protection against it.
  At least 5 million people in the United Kingdom receive tap water that does not meet the legal limits set in the European Community directive. Now the Government are to ask for a time extension. Do we seriously believe that a privatised industry intent on profit will improve matters? Stringent controls will impose greater costs and will be vigorously resisted by water companies.
  Everyone is aware of how easy it is to find loopholes in the law or to flout regulations. The consumer, unable to refuse to buy that necessity of life, will be virtually powerless. Once again the Government's obsession with secrecy has led them to refuse to accept freedom of information amendments to the Water Bill in Committee. What makes us so different from the rest of Europe? Are we so immune from bugs and the effects of pollution that the Government think that they have the right to ignore or manipulate EEC regulations and directives?
  Once we could boast of some of the purest water in Europe. Now the name, "sick man of Europe" is applied to us, not in terms of our place in the league of powers, but because of our poor standards of environmental pollution, hygiene and so on. Are we proud of that? Are we content that British people are exposed to more possibly harmful substances than people in other countries? Do we accept the line of thought that British people do not have the right to know about things that affect their everyday lives, or that they are incapable of making a sensible, informed choice?
  The Government must get their act together. There must be freedom of information for the consumer and increased consumer representation at the decision-taking level. The lines of responsibility within and between various Government Departments need to be clarified. Tougher legislation and regulations are required for food and water production, processing and so on. However, laws and regulations are useless unless they can be enforced. The Government should make available resources for the training, recruitment and retention of environmental health officers and investigate ways to increase their powers.
  Mr. Gill: I should be interested to hear the hon. Gentleman's view on how many additional inspectors would be required to make sure that our food was 100 per cent. safe.
  Mr. Fearn: No country could boast that its food is 100 per cent. safe. I was asked how many inspectors would be needed. I have looked into the question and I learn that 1,500 inspectors are needed.
  I hope that the Minister will take to heart the issues that have been raised today. I hope, too, that action will be taken to prevent the chickens from coming home to roost.
  6.19 pm
  Mr. Paul Marland: I accept, as do others, that there is widespread concern about bacteria in food, and the debate has attracted great interest. I pay tribute to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health for telling us in such great detail about what his Department is doing. He did his best to reassure both those who have been listening to the debate and those who will read the report of the debate in Hansard and to set the record absolutely straight. The hype and sensationalism that the issue has generated is quite wrong, and it culminated in a few tasteless jokes by the Leader of the Opposition. That hype and sensationalism has misled consumers, jeopardised many businesses and resulted in a severe slap in the face for all those who are involved in the production, distribution and sale of food.
  The issue has become a charter for cranks. They have blown it out of all proportion. Dubious professors and assorted nut cases have ached to tell us that virtually everything that we eat is bad for us, or poisonous, or in some way will jeopardise our health. That is fair enough with cigarettes and alcohol. However, when I heard one of the so-called experts tell us on radio that there is a trillion to one chance that we shall be infected if we eat a certain brand of processed food, I knew that the time had come to turn it off.
  It is hard to achieve a true sense of proportion. When I was in west Gloucestershire last weekend, therefore, I conducted my own research by visiting food manufacturers and retail outlets. I also talked to my friendly local doctor. They know a great deal more about these problems than they are given credit for. They have had in place for many years methods and systems to minimise infection and disease. In the case of responsible firms, the methods and systems that they use are far in excess of what is demanded by local authorities.
  Voluntary practices should be backed up by local regulations that are enforced by inspectors. It is easy for Opposition Members to say that there should be 1,500 inspectors, but I found that statement about as convincing as the man on the radio who said that he thought that there was a trillion to one chance of people being infected if they ate a certain brand of processed food. The hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) made an off-the-cuff remark. He was on the ropes. He had no idea what the answer was, so he just trotted out the first figure that came into his mind.
  Hysteria is causing more trouble than listeria. My friendly doctor told me that listeria is an organism that is found in soil, water, vegetation and even grass cuttings. None of us can avoid it. It is present in some soft cheeses and in certain cook-chill foods. However, it can be completely destroyed by thoroughly heating the food. As Sir Donald Acheson said of listeria, the chances of an ordinary person becoming infected are so remote that it is not worth worrying about. Those of us who have met him, or who have heard him talk, know that he is not a man

  887
  who is given to overstatement. I was moved, as I am sure other hon. Members were, by the Leader of the Opposition's story about the lady who lost her baby through listeria infection. I do not, therefore, dismiss the fact that in certain cases listeria can be dangerous.
  Salmonella is a more serious problem, but it has been grossly overstated; there has been a great deal of scaremongering by hon. Members. Producers and retailers are well aware of the dangers, but it is ludicrous to use—as some have—the multiplier of 100 to arrive at an estimate of the number of people who have been infected. People have always suffered from upset stomachs. It is wrong to attribute all of them to salmonella. Nevertheless, it is a problem and it should be further investigated. We have heard today that that is precisely what is happening.
  I welcome the new programme of microbiological research and the inquiry into food infection that is chaired by the Prime Minister. This Government have never discounted food poisoning scares. They have acted responsibly by finding out the truth. It would be pointless to go into the history, but BST in cattle, radiation from Chernobyl, lead on solder in cans that are used for preserving food and anti-freeze in wine have been dealt with quietly and efficiently by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. In 1988, £20 million was spent on ensuring food safety, and 500 people were employed in that work. If the Ministry is guilty of anything, it is guilty of not having blown its own trumpet loud enough. It has not said precisely what has been done.
  I welcome the education programme that is to be targeted at consumer practices. I believe that more than 50 per cent. of food poisoning outbreaks start in the home. Cracked eggs that have been stored in the fridge are used by the housewife. I wonder how many people check the fridge temperature when they store frozen food and ensure that it is stored at the right temperature. I wonder, too, how many housewives and cooks check the defrosting instructions and make sure that they cook the food in the right way. As most families shop only once a week, I wonder how many people check the storage instructions on the back of the products that they buy? The industry takes great care to put instructions on their products so that the consumer knows under what conditions frozen or chilled foods should be stored and then cooked. Today's occasional shopping practices and irresponsible cooking play a fair part in causing food poisoning.
  Guidelines are needed, but we have them already and they should be followed. The cry for more Government legislation and for more restrictions reminds me of the nanny state that we have worked so hard to abolish. Our opponents want more Government control, more regulation, more bureaucrats and less choice, but we should end up with tasteless lunches. We do not want that. We need to find out the facts and to act on them. We need to adopt a prudent and cautious approach. We must also bear in mind that the ever-changing practices and customs when preparing and eating food and the ever-changing practices and customs in its production and distribution are having an effect in the increase in food poisoning.
  It is a complicated subject, but plans have been made and advice for the consumer will be forthcoming. The consumer will be given advice on how to look after food products. The Select Committee's report is soon to be published. I hope that it will make interesting reading for all those who are interested in the subject.
  888
  Two key principles underlie the Government's strategy on food safety. First, prompt action should be based on proper and detailed scientific evidence. Secondly, the need to provide consumers with information on food quality and safety is imperative. That is the right spirit and way in which to go forward.
  6.30 pm
  Mr. Frank Cook: Anyone would think from the speeches of Conservative Members that this whole issue had been invented by people other than their own spokespersons. Despite their protestations, any lingering doubts we may have had about the validity, if not the total accuracy, of the remarks made before Christmas by the former junior Minister, the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie), have been dispelled by subsequent events.
  The comical sight of Ministers rushing to defend the indefensible as their friends in the food production and distribution lobby cried "foul"—contradicting themselves and each other on radio and television over eggs, poultry and cheese—proves that the Prime Minister's first priority must be to make "foot in mouth" disease notifiable, at least for her Ministers.
  For once, the media have managed to get it right. There is a justifiable crisis of confidence in our food production which will not be dispelled by the largely cosmetic actions which Ministers have taken so far. There can be no argument about the facts. Food poisoning has increased dramatically in the last 10 years and, according to recent reports, is continuing to rise. To the long-standing problem of salmonella has been added the new fear of listeria, a common enough bacteria the potential for harm of which has only recently been recognised as new methods have enhanced the risk of infection and the medics have recognised how serious the consequences can be.
  Let us not forget how serious food poisoning can be. Gastrointestinal infection can be a major systemic illness, causing high fever, copious diarrhoea, vomiting and pain. Weight loss and dehydration are severe and death in elderly and infirm people is all too common.
  Mr. Gill: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that another relevant statistic is that we have the second highest proportion of old people in our population in the world? It follows that that would not be the case if the food industries were providing a substandard product to those people, who are, in any event, the most vulnerable section of society.
  Mr. Cook: That is an interesting line of argument. Perhaps they are better cared for than those in the same age group in Third world countries. I was referring not to statistics but to conditions that result from food poisoning, as the hon. Gentleman would have been aware had he been paying attention to what I was saying.
  Listeria infection may cause abortion, with all the grief and anguish that such an unforeseen event can bring. When we fully recognise the damage that these conditions can cause, it is right for us to expect effective action to be taken. The problem which we are facing affects the whole food chain—production, distribution and preparation, either commercial or domestic. I agree that stringent control of practices in the home can reduce the chance of

  889
  eating infected food, but that cannot be the whole answer, unless we adopt in the kitchen the same standards as in operating theatres to prevent cross-infection.
  People have a right to expect their food to be clean and substantially free from powerful bacteria or additives before they purchase it. Government have an absolute duty to see that that is so. For Ministers to attempt to blame anyone but themselves for the problem is a gross dereliction of duty on their part.
  The Secretary of State was a singularly inappropriate choice to speak first for the Government in this debate. He is not responsible for food production or distribution—the direct source of the problem—but is merely the gatekeeper trying to lock the door after the horse has bolted. Of far greater importance are the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, with total responsibility for food production and most distribution, and the Department of the Environment, which is responsible for the upkeep of local standards. The balance between those two areas is critical.
  One can argue a reasonable case that food in Britain is over-intensively produced—for example, poultry and eggs, the factory farming of beef and pork and the attempt to extract extra milk from cows by using hormones—and that much of it is over-processed, over-dependent on additives and sold through far too few outlets. Many friends of mine who have lived in Europe testify to the latter, comparing the number of outlets for fresh food in Holland, Germany or Switzerland with the situation in this country. We have mistakenly concentrated on quantity and convenience rather than quality and choice, and we are paying the price for our folly.
  Several actions must be taken now to restore public confidence and improve standards. I welcome unreservedly the proposal to ban unpasteurised milk in England and Wales, as is already the case in Switzerland. I am less certain of the need to use only pasteurised milk in cheese production; the number of producers is small enough for action to be taken to control the process and ensure that harmful contaminants are excluded.
  We in Britain must shift the emphasis away from the producer-oriented Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to a new food standards agency which would make the well-being of the consumer its primary concern. It is no accident that such a plethora of information is coming from major producers and distributors of food. They know that they have been rumbled, that they have forfeited our trust and that they will have a hard job to regain it.
  A food standards agency would concentrate on quality and have regard to the nutritional and health standards that the Government must set. It could build on much of the excellent work that has been carried out locally on food policy in areas such as Fife, London and elsewhere. The excellent work done by local authorities and health boards compares favourably with achievements in this sphere at central Government level. No wonder Ministers want such bodies to be abolished.
  We must strengthen control over food distribution and sale. The whole cook-chill process must be investigated and revised, with more stringent control of temperature
  890
  and sterility. If, hopefully, we reverse the over-centralisation of food production and the over-concentration on huge retail outlets, we shall have to accept an expansion of environmental health departments. Practices such as the improper display or handling of cooked or raw meats must be stamped out.
  The Government must not go ahead with cuts proposed in research and development. It is high time that we took a serious look at the CAP and the appalling effects that has had on quality and the price of food in this country. The featherbedding of production at any cost must stop before farmers will concentrate on rearing high quality animals, cereals and vegetables which will command a decent price without the need for the processing tricks at which the manufacturers are so good. On all those aspects, the Government have woefully failed in their duty to the public.
  I should hate people to have the wrong impression about the technique of the irradiation of food. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) is right to say that it kills bacteria. However, it fails to remove the toxins that are generated by the bacteria, so it can leave food looking decent and healthy but also retaining toxins which are dangerous. In no way will irradiation improve the standard of food or make it healthier to eat. It succeeds only in prolonging shelf life. It serves no purpose for the consumer, only for the retailer.
  For all those reasons, and despite the protestations of the Secretary of State and the whingeing of Conservative Members, the Opposition have been right to choose this subject for today's debate. It highlights the confusion and contradiction that are still clearly evident on the Government Benches. That is why the Government stand condemned for their incompetence and folly and for mismanaging the whole affair.
  6.39 pm
  Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock: In concentrating my remarks solely on food matters, I speak as a Member of the House and as a consumer; and let us not forget that every member of the public is a consumer and therefore has an important role to play. With that in mind, we must bring some realism and clear thinking into the issue of food safety.
  Some issues are being taken out of context and exaggerated out of all proportion. We have one of the finest food industries in the world, with reputable farmers and manufacturers attempting to provide us with the best produce. Their record shows that, despite the present furore, they are succeeding. Britain has recently demonstrated that, together with Denmark, it has the highest quality milk in Europe; they are the first countries to achieve the EEC's new health and hygiene standards. Also, we have our milk delivered daily to our doorsteps, which many of us appreciate.
  I challenge any right hon. or hon. Member to deny that we have some of the best-run and cleanest supermarkets in the world, offering the widest choice of foods, and meeting all tastes. Anyone who has shopped outside the United Kingdom will be aware of that. The situation has changed over the past 20 years. We are handling and purchasing food in better condition than ever before, and there is much greater choice. I am not saying there is no need for further change. There is always room for improvements, but they must be introduced in a logical, carefully thought

  891
  out way, and not be panic measures. The Government must be receptive to changes and improvements, but I implore them not to be panicked into taking steps that are likely to damage the food industry, manufacturers, retailers, or consumers.
  The question of salmonella in eggs and poultry and of listeria in other products must be addressed as a matter of priority and be resolved. However, we cannot tolerate allowing an eccentric professor at the university of Leeds, who has analysed a few eggs and a few cooked dishes, to draw conclusions that such foods are killing hundreds of people every year. It is not sensible to draw such a conclusion, and our deliberations must not be guided by such a pseudo-scientific approach.
  I understand that listeria is a common bacterium that is to be found in soil and in vegetation, in the atmosphere, and in human bodies. It has been shown to be present in many of the raw foods we eat, such as vegetables and salads, yet we do not view those foods as posing a problem to our health. Nevertheless, Professor Lacey at Leeds has found listeria in cook-chill foods, causing total panic and misunderstanding among many consumers. My belief is that he does not know either the level of listeria that he has discovered or the level that is needed to make a person ill. However, he still concludes that many, many people have died from listeria. In my view, his views border on science fiction. I am not saying that nothing should be done, but we should be sensible and keep matters in perspective.
  As to the quality of farm products, the Government must be given sufficient powers to improve and defend quality where necessary—even if that is to the detriment of producers on some occasions. The Government have long experience of eliminating tuberculosis and brucellosis in cows, and a similar campaign must be mounted to eradicate samonella from the country's poultry flocks, on a region-by-region basis.
  The Government must also intensify their efforts to improve the quality of animal foodstuffs. We cannot allow the spread of salmonella through contaminated chicken feed, be it of British or imported origin. We must ban for ever the use of animal or chicken offal as an ingredient in animal foodstuffs. We must never again need to wonder whether the use of sheep offal has spread the widely recognised sheep disease, scrapie, to cows, which, as we have already heard, causes in them the unpronounceable disease known as BSE—sometimes called "mad cow disease"—which currently attacks our herds.
  In the best-run factories, exhaustive steps are taken to ensure that all food manufacturing operations are conducted hygienically. There, processing procedures are designed to ensure—as they should be in the home—that unsafe, raw food never comes into direct contact with processed, finished products. That should be a basic rule in anyone's kitchen, and I defy any right hon. or hon. Member to state that it has not been followed by producers, as well as in many homes, for years.
  Mrs. Audrey Wise: The hon. Lady made a number of sweeping assertions about Professor Lacey—calling him, for example, eccentric. Is she aware that he is professor of microbiology at Leeds university, and is also a consultant of microbiology to Leeds western health authority? Is she aware also that his work has conclusively proved a link between stillborn and premature births and listeriosis? Does the hon. Lady still adhere to her view that Professor Lacey is eccentric?
  Mrs. Peacock: I knew of the information that the hon. Lady gives, but I reiterate my remark that Professor Lacey has caused confusion and concern among many consumers.
  We must ensure that consumers follow strict codes of practice in preparing and cooking food. The critical process of heat treatment or cooking kills the offending bacteria, and many techniques, such as milk pasteurisation, guarantee that products are not released before they are properly heat treated. However, it is still possible for food to become contaminated during the final assembly and packaging operations, and perhaps those are areas in which the Government should lay down firm but sensible modern guidelines, covering factory standards in respect of buildings, cleaning and sanitation—where, if great care is not taken, problems can often arise.
  Such guidelines could best be drawn up by specialists from the food industry sectors concerned, who have the relevant information, and who are already well versed in good practices. They could work closely with specialists from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and from the Department of Health. We do not need to introduce specific legislation for each type of operation, but food factory licensing, linked to adherence to specific industry operational guidelines—monitored by environmental health officers as part of their routine activities—is needed.
  I suggest that a separate food regulatory body, as envisaged by some Opposition Members, is not required, because it would soon be at loggerheads with local government. It would lack the local knowledge and contacts necessary properly to perform its duties.
  One of the most important points to emerge from this debate is that there must be better control over the temperature at which food is stored. Right hon. and hon. Members may be aware of the leaflets that one well-known store is offering to its customers, and 3½ million copies of which have been produced. It serves to remind the housewife how products that have been manufactured and packed under the strictest conditions of hygiene should be treated in the home. There is also a leaflet about the safety chain. Marks and Spencer says that the key elements it has found to have held good for the past 20 years are clean factories, safe cooking, good refrigeration, and short shelf life. With the help of the leaflet laying down guidelines for the housewife to follow, none of the scare stories that have been emerging should come true.
  Much has been achieved in the area of better food temperature control by retailers such as Marks and Spencer, Sainsbury, Tesco and Asda, to ensure that companies supplying food to them do so at the right temperature. They recognise equally the importance of maintaining food at the correct temperature in their own display counters. However, experience shows that more must be done, and perhaps controlling legislation is needed. However, one must approach that task sensibly, with retailers working together with the Department of Health in devising guidelines not only for supermarkets but for the corner shop, which is an important form of food outlet in many areas, including my constituency of Batley and Spen.
  We should also ask housewives to check their fridges. How often do we check that our fridges are not frosted up and are operating at the right temperature to ensure correct product storage? Fridge manufacturers should consider incorporating red warning lights in the event of a

  893
  rise in temperature and we may need to store food at lower temperatures. However, the Government must not remove whole sectors of food from retail display, putting manufacturing jobs at risk and denying many consumers the choice of prepared dishes they have come to expect. I welcome the Government's announcement that they are to sponsor research into the operation and maintenance of domestic fridges. That will be helpful and it is long overdue.
  We must not concentrate solely on the food manufacturing and retail sectors. We must look also at standards in catering. Many food poisoning outbreaks stem not from the home but from pubs, hotels, restaurants, residential premises and hospitals. They have a duty to ensure that the food that they are serving is of the highest possible standard, particularly in hospitals where people are extremely vulnerable and may be affected when others in the community are not.
  If there are hygiene problems in some of the so-called best restaurants in London, what are the standards in some of our more humble establishments? Some guidelines may be helpful in that area. We may need a review of some of our manufacturing practices and better control of food storage at retail level. We also need a general food hygiene drive in all food outlets.
  We must not forget the consumer. We can do much to promote food safety until the product reaches the consumer who can then undo everything at one stroke. Conditions in the home cannot be controlled. People set their own standards and conditions in the own kitchens. But we can improve knowledge and understanding of food safety matters and that is important. I look to the Government to mount a domestic food hygiene programme, not just through leaflets but by using television, which reaches many people, radio, particularly local radio, and perhaps an advertising campaign. In addition, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science should take steps to improve education in this area in our schools since many young people use microwaves for preparing their suppers.
  The Government should review the food industry to dispel the uncertainty about food safety. It would be helpful if all food manufacturers and packing premises were licensed, perhaps by local authorities, to agreed standards of hygiene and construction. The safety and hygiene of all food manufacturing and packing processes should be capable of inspection by local authority environmental health officers. All premises selling or preparing food for human consumption, such as shops, supermarkets, cafes, restaurants and public houses, must be licensed by local authorities and minimum standards of construction and hygiene, particularly in their kitchens, must be clearly defined.
  As a further safeguard, there should be written codes of practice, agreed by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Department of Health, covering all sectors of cook-chill food manufacture and packing industries. The food distribution chain is an important link in food reaching the retail outlets, in retailing and in catering and institutional food preparation. Those guidelines should lay down methods of processing, product temperature control and hygiene. Agreed codes of practice are preferable to legislation and trade associations
  894
  should be able to implement them with the minimum of delay. They should provide a framework for monitoring by environmental health officers.
  We need a sensible, systematic approach to the problem. We must not be panicked into taking steps in the House which many of us, including consumers and housewives, would eventually regret.
  6.54 pm
  Mr. Eric Martlew: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak. You may remember that on 24 January, when we had a similar debate, I was unsuccessful in catching your eye. As a result, I had to sit throughout the debate, which I enjoyed. However, I did not enjoy the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who, I am sorry to say, is not in his place. He made a complacent speech which suggested that we had the finest food in the world, that there was no problem about food quality and that it was the wicked Labour party, aided and abetted by irresponsible media, which had made up all the horror stories about food poisoning.
  On 14 February, St.Valentine's day, the Prime Minister announced that not only was there a problem with food poisoning but that it was so great that it could not be left to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food or the Secretary of State for Health, but she personally had to take charge. I cannot understand why she is not here to take charge today.
  The Prime Minister took charge to save the nation. Where does that leave the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food? It leaves him looking rather foolish, and rightly so. If ever there was a speech that did not stand examination in the cold light of day, it was that one. It oozed with complacency and was wrong in tone and content. Even when the hon. Gentleman introduced the great Cumbrian philosopher, Beatrix Potter, referring to the political essay, "The Tale of Peter Rabbit", he got it wrong.
  Let me remind hon. Members about that story. Peter invaded the garden of a rather dim-witted, grim individual called Mr. McGregor, eating his vegetables and avoiding the ponderous Mr.McGregor on his way home. The point of the story is to be found on page 56, which says:
  "I am sorry to say that Peter was not very well during the evening. His mother put him to bed and made some camomile tea and she gave a dose of it to Peter."
  Hon. Members will be aware that camomile tea is a traditional cure for food poisoning. Peter Rabbit got food poisoning from eating something out of Mr. McGregor's garden.
  That story was written at the turn of the century, but the serious point is that 80 years later people are still getting food poisoning from eating food from Mr. McGregor's garden. Since 1980, reported cases of food poisoning have increased from fewer than 10,000 to more than 30,000, according to official figures, and there is the possibility of under-reporting by a factor of 10 or even 100.
  Conservative Members have not asked what happened under the previous Labour Government because their record was three times better than the present Government's. The situation in Britain today is so bad that it has reached "epidemic proportions". Those are not my words but the words of the chief medical officer of health to the Select Committee on Agriculture, of which I am a member.

  895
  The Government have presided over a massive reduction in local authority spending. They have reduced the number of environmental health officers in every district at the very time when they should have been increasing them. The Government have taken credit for the number of restaurants, cafes and take-aways that have opened and the new developments in cook-chill methods and microwaves, but at the very time when such developments demand more and more inspections the Government have reduced expenditure, laying the consumer open to more problems.
  Worse still, standards have been reduced. In 1970 the medical profession recommended that any food handler who had salmonella poisoning or food poisoning of any kind should be excluded from work and not allowed to return until he or she had had three negative tests. In 1983 the Government changed those regulations. Now people who are still salmonella positive are going back to work in our food factories, shops and restaurants. Only yesterday I was talking to some environmental health officers—I will not name the constituency—and they told me about a woman who worked in a butcher's shop, serving meat, and was salmonella positive but, because of this Government's regulations, could not be stopped from going back to work. She is back at work serving over the counter. That is a disaster waiting to happen, and it is the same all over the country. If the Minister wishes to investigate, he will find that I am telling the truth. The reason for this is that when people are laid off public money has to be spent on keeping them at home.
  The Government have reduced the standards under which we produce food in our factories to those of a Third world country. The standards of a factory which is fulfilling export orders, whether the goods are for export to the United States, Germany, Nigeria or El Salvador, have to be much higher than the standards demanded by the Government here. There are higher standards of packaging and labelling and the buyers insist upon knowing exactly what is in the product, which is not the situation in this country. There are higher standards with regard to food additives. Many of the additives which the Government allow to be put into food are banned abroad. There is a lower bacterial count, and there are more bacterial counts than we demand in this country. Goods for export have a shorter shelf life.
  I do not want to give the wrong impression. We have some very good food-producing companies in this country. I worked for 20 years for a company with a very good reputation for quality. The United Biscuits factory also has a very high standard, and there is one company, the largest employer in my constituency, Cavaghan and Greys, which has the highest standard in Europe, if not the world. However, this has nothing to do with Government regulations; it is in spite of Government regulations. It is all to do with the fact that it manufactures for Marks and Spencer. Firms such as Marks and Spencer and Sainsbury demand very high standards—or so they seem, but they are only high standards in comparison with those the Government lay down.
  Those firms want to make maximum profits, but they lay down standards that will safeguard the health of their customers. I suggest that it would be better if Marks and Spencer, instead of making thousands of pounds available every year to the Conservative party, gave its members a
  896
  copy of the food hygiene regulations. We should be aiming for the manufacturing standards that Marks and Spencer insists upon.
  Mrs. Peacock: The hon. Gentleman, in the early part of his speech, made a scurrilous attack on many of the companies in this country producing food for many stores. He then redeemed it a little by saying that there were companies that supplied Marks and Spencer whose standards were very high, but they were high only because—and so on. Will he admit that there are many food-producing companies in this country that have the highest standards, not because they are exporting but because that is what the consumer and the housewife demand and are willing to pay for?
  Mr. Martlew: The hon. Lady misunderstood me. I was not attacking the companies. I was making a vicious attack on the standards laid down by the Government. I will give the hon. Lady an example.
  In 1986, after the Chernobyl incident, the milk in this country was contaminated by radiation to varying degrees. Milk was transported from one part of the country to another. It was taken out of factories that were making milk products for export because it would not meet their standards and sent to another part of the country to be put into bottles or made into cheese or butter. That is how high the "marvellous" standards in this country are and that is what I am complaining about—not the standards of the food companies but the standards of the Government.
  I will give two more examples of the Government having let us down. I refer again to the Chernobyl incident, and the question of irradiated lamb. The Government failed to safeguard the health of the people. Lamb went into the food chain in this country that had a degree of radiation above the safety level. The Select Committee said that.
  Green top milk is another example. I have heard one or two hon. Members try to defend it. We know that since 1983, when the Government refused to ban it in England and Wales, there have been 1,700 recorded cases of food poisoning caused by green top milk. That means that 2 per cent. of the milk on the market has been responsible for .50 per cent. of food poisoning caused by milk. In the Calder Valley, in Yorkshire, in 1984, eight people died through drinking untreated milk. The Government have refused to do anything about it.
  I asked the Minister on 19 January whether there were any plans to ban green top milk. The answer was no. The hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander) asked the Minister on 3 February the same question and the answer was that the Government were entering into immediate consultations on banning it. That shows not only the incompetence but the confusion of the Government.
  Those are all examples of the Government failing to protect the consumer.
  I do not understand why the Prime Minister is not here today, but I have grave doubts whether any plan put forward to safeguard food in this country will safeguard the consumer. Let me revert to the incident before Christmas when the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) made her famous statement. A Minister who was, I believe, very frustrated made a statement that was exaggerated. There was a great clamour from the farming lobby, the food-producing lobby, the egg producers and the Retail Consortium for the hon. Lady to be sacked.

  897
  There was also a clamour from the Labour party but the right hon. Lady never takes any notice of members of the Labour party so I will not include them.
  Did the Prime Minister defend that Minister and refuse to ask for her resignation? No, she did not. Within 11 days she was asking for the hon. Lady's resignation. The right hon. Lady is putty in the hands of those powerful lobbyists, and I do not trust her with the food health of the country.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I remind the House that the 10-minute limit on speeches is now in operation.
  7.9 pm
  Mr. Michael Shersby: As in previous debates on the subject, I declare an interest. I worked in the food industry for about 20 years and I am an adviser to a section of the food industry today.
  I have listened to the debate with great care. In some ways, I am rather sad because it seemed that it was being used as yet another opportunity for the Opposition to make political mileage out of a situation that is worrying many consumers. I intervened during the speech by the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) and made the point sincerely to him that, without wishing to pull his leg, it was the first time in my 16 years in the House that I had heard the Labour party use an Opposition Supply day for a debate on food, except for the debate in January, to which the Opposition drew attention. That is a long time.
  I am glad that the Opposition have instigated the debate today because, unlike the Labour party, my party—I hope that the Leader of the Opposition will be kind enough to listen—has a special committee dealing with food and drink industry matters. I know that the Labour party had a food and agriculture committee and when Tom Torney was a Member of Parliament, he was a regular spokesman on those matters and took a great interest. I should like to see the Labour party take more interest in the food and drink industry than it has. I make that suggestion constructively and not in criticism of the way in which the Labour party organises its committees.
  Despite the problems to which the Leader of the Opposition referred, we in Britain have a wide choice of healthy food. Our food is among the safest and best in the world. Let us be very careful before we allow criticism of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, of farmers, of the food industry and of our retailers to reach such a level that it suggests that there is a widespread or large-scale risk to human health in Britain today. That is not so. There are some problems, and some are serious, but they must be put in perspective and discussed in a well-informed and moderate manner if we are to deal with them properly. I say to hon. Members, including the Leader of the Opposition, that they should remember that ill-informed criticism of our food could affect our food exports. They were worth £5,575 million to Britain in 1987 and the main markets for them were western Europe, north America and the middle east. Many people in those areas will read what hon. Members have said today.
  Today, there is a more varied supply of food than ever before in the history of this country. Consumers must not be misled into believing that there is a major threat to their
  898
  health or that of their children as a result of what the Opposition said or of the media coverage of the problems of salmonella and listeria, serious though they are. Both of them have been known by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Department of Health for some considerable time and timely action has been taken. Where further action is appropriate, it has been taken quickly.
  Let us first consider the question of salmonella enteritidis. It has been a problem in chickens, as has been widely recognised by the British Poultry Federation and by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The phage 4 type is a new and growing problem here and in many other countries. It has not become a problem as a result of inactivity by MAFF or the Department of Health and it has been tackled with vigour at each point along the egg production chain. Some time ago, the British Poultry Federation told me and my fellow members of the food and drink industry committee that it had taken steps to isolate chicken flocks where outbreaks had been detected, and that was well before the comments on salmonella made by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie). It moved quickly to ensure that poultry feed that might be contaminated was excluded from feed for chicken flocks.
  MAFF has now complemented the timely self-policing action by the respected and responsible poultry industry by bringing forward new regulations to avoid contaminated food entering the chain. We have new codes of practice to minimise the risk of infection. A new code has been introduced to require bacteriological monitoring, rodent control, the cleaning of poultry houses and the hygienic handling of eggs. But salmonella enteritidis will not be eliminated by MAFF, by the Department of Health or by the Leader of the Opposition. It is in the environment, but with 17 measures to deal with the problem our approach is among the most comprehensive in the world.
  I ask my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he replies, to deal with the interesting point raised by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) about irradiation. Many hon. Members would like to know what Government policy towards that is likely to be. It is an interesting and important matter on which I hope the Government will make a statement.
  Mr. Frank Cook: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Shersby: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but I shall not because I have only 10 minutes and Mr. Deputy Speaker has asked us to be brief.
  Mr. Cook: I took only nine minutes.
  Mr. Shersby: I would like, in the short time available—
  Mr. Cook: This is an important point.
  Mr. Shersby: I remind the House that the food and manufacturing industry in this country has been well ahead of the Government in taking action to inform the consumer about the importance of food hygiene in the kitchen. I have here a publication entitled "Common Sense about Food Care in the Kitchen", which was published in July 1988. It starts by warning the consumer about food poisoning and its causes and it advises consumers how

  899
  food poisoning can be avoided by common-sense measures in the kitchen. It was preceded in September 1986 by another publication called "Common Sense about Food". Those publications have been complemented by a widespread campaign addressed to schools called Foodline, which started in December 1988. It deals with food care and hygiene in the home. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to launch a campaign from his own Ministry which will be as good and comprehensive as the one that has been run by our own food manufacturing industry and which has been in place for some time. In the nature of things, the amount that the food industry can do is limited. The Government have greater resources at their disposal. I hope that they use them wisely to complement what I regard as an excellent initiative.
  We have heard much about listeria in this debate. Listeria was first identified in humans in 1928 and it has been widely distributed in the environment for a long time. For the average healthy person, the risk of becoming ill with listeriosis from eating food is very small. We have been told of the risk with certain soft cheeses, especially for pregnant women, and that has been a matter on which my right hon. Friend has rightly been quick to advise those at risk.
  One would think that cook-chill food was only invented yesterday from the amount of interest shown and by the number of hon. Members who see it as a major source of listeria. We know that cook-chill foods are safe, convenient and of high quality if they are manufactured, stored and reheated properly. I am glad that MAFF is to introduce new regulations covering the manufacture, storage and reheating of such foods. I have urged my right hon. Friend to do that for some weeks in a series of parliamentary questions and I am glad that he has taken good advice from his expert advisory committees and has not been stampeded into premature action. I look forward to the regulations being approved soon by the House. I hope that my right hon. Friend will give some idea of when the regulations will be published because I am sure that the House is anxious to pass them into law.
  There is an urgent need for the consumer to be aware of the need to store cook-chill food properly immediately following purchase. It seems that some consumers buy cook-chill food at lunchtime and keep it in the office for four, five or six hours at room temperature before taking it home and putting it in a domestic refrigerator. Perhaps some consumers do not realise the difficulty that that can cause, or the problems that may arise from leaving cook-chill food in the car on a hot, sunny day. For absolute safety, cook-chill food needs to be stored at— 5 deg Centigrade. It may cost a little more to run a refrigerator at that temperature, but at least one has a guarantee that the food is safely stored. I understand that MAFF will run a campaign about food hygiene and food storage and I hope that it will deal with that aspect. I wonder whether my right hon. Friend will talk to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and suggest that the manufacturers of domestic refrigerators fit a temperature gauge to their equipment as standard practice. Surely that is not too much to ask and it would aid many people to know that their food was stored at the right temperature.
  The Government are taking timely action to deal with the problems that we have been debating today. I am glad that we have had another debate on this topic, I hope that
  900
  the Labour party will keep up its interest in food matters and that we shall have the pleasure of hearing its views on other occasions.
  I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to speak in this debate. I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health on his speech. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will complement it when he replies.
  7.19 pm
  Ms. Mildred Gordon (Bow and Poplar): Modern food production methods could lead to plentiful cheap food and a higher standard of living if they were properly regulated and controlled. However, with this Government's philosophy, which puts profits before public health, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is inevitably forced into acting first and foremost in the interests of the farmers' lobby.
  Even this Government can no longer keep the lid on the fact that things are going dangerously wrong. It is true that in the past most people closed their minds to the hideous concentration camps for animals that modern farms have become, but most people had no idea that chickens were being cannibalised and that a great deal of animal feed was made up of excrement. For many years, while feeling somewhat uneasy about what was happening, most people kept silent because they felt that there was no halting the changes that were being made in the name of progress.
  However, the press has now opened up the matter. Indeed, the Government could hardly keep the problem of the increasing incidence of food poisoning out of the papers after the outbreak of food poisoning in this building. People are beginning to realise the dangers to themselves and their families. People who have been campaigning for years in favour of healthy food and who were looked upon as cranks now begin to assume the role of prophets.
  Most of the purchasing and preparation of food in this country—as in every other country—is done by women. The work of women who have to manage on a limited budget is made much harder because of the lack of information, conflicting information, and the insufficient details on labels. The Government are allowing information about manufactured food ingredients to be kept a trade secret when it should be available to housewives. That is shocking and must be stopped.
  As has been said by hon. Members of all parties, women need more information about frozen food. One of my worries is that owners of corner shops, operating on tiny margins, with high rents to pay and who work all hours in the struggle to compete, may be tempted to lower the temperatures in frozen food lockers when they are hit by the coming huge increases in the cost of electricity.
  It is the most vulnerable groups in society that are forced to shop at corner shops, such as those who have no transport, or who find it difficult to get about. These vulnerable groups have already been mentioned and include old people, mothers with babies and disabled people. We need an army of inspectors to check frozen food lockers in shops and supermarkets. We need guidelines on temperatures and on the lengths of time for storing frozen products.
  The same vulnerable groups are now being forced to eat cook-chill meals in hospitals, day centres for the elderly

  901
  and disabled and, increasingly, in schools. That dangerous trend is definitely the result of the Government's policy of cuts and enforced privatisation within local authorities. It is equally disgraceful that baby food containing aluminium has still not been banned by the Government, in spite of the call by doctors and scientists that it should be banned.
  The result of the Government's policies, which put the interests of powerful profit-making lobbies before the interests of the community, is always more work for women. Cases of salmonella and other types of food poisoning have increased enormously since 1986 and the work of looking after the sick members of their families and managing on less money if the wage earner is ill all falls on women's shoulders. They bear the brunt of the policies of this uncaring Government.
  Intolerable problems are created when older people succumb to senile dementia brought on by aluminium in the water supply. Some chemicals that are suspected of causing cancer are being used by farmers and residues meant for plants above the surface are seeping down and ending up in drains and watercourses. About 4 million Britons drink water that breaches EEC nitrate levels. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is not invoking the powers that it was granted under the Control of Pollution Act 1974. We in this country can no longer boast about having safe water. People are deeply worried about the future standard and cost of water when the industry is privatised.
  A further cause of concern, which has already been mentioned, is the future maintenance of sewers and the increasing problems of rodents, which pose a further health hazard. I have raised that subject many times since becoming a Member of the House.
  Chemicals and pesticides used by farmers are now said to penetrate the skins of apples and potatoes, so the earlier recommendation to wash all fruit before eating it will not help. The increasing numbers of allergy eczema cases probably stem from the increased use of herbicides, fungicides and insecticides.
  Air and ground pollution from nuclear power is also a problem. The books have not been closed on the effects of Chernobyl, but the Government are proposing to build yet more nuclear power stations, although they do not yet know how to dismantle the ones that were built 30 years ago.
  There is a marked class gradient affecting one's chances of survival and remaining healthy in old age. The ability to buy good food is a major factor. Several reports have shown that working-class people and the poorer ethnic minority groups have the poorest health. That point is especially relevant to my constituency. In the case of ethnic minority groups, poorer health does not stem from their type of diet, which is often healthier than the usual diet in the West, but is directly related to poverty.
  We need cheap food, but we also need good food. We need a Government policy that considers the interests of the consumers and makes them paramount. We need a Government who are not the puppets of vested interests. We need a new Consumer Protection Act, which not only requires companies to trade safely, as the Consumer Protection Act 1987 requires them to do, but one that is extended to include agricultural produce. We need a
  902
  Government policy that is less concerned with cover-ups and allaying public fears, and more concerned with cleaning up the increasingly dangerous mess into which we are drifting.
  The public do not want to be assured that healthy people can take a fair gamble in eating food that is infected with listeria and salmonella. The public want proper control to make food safe for everyone.
  7.27 pm
  Mr. Barry Field: It is a remarkable fact that, in a debate that has been well trailed and given much publicity, there are precisely nine hon. Members on the Opposition Benches and 12 on the Government Benches. There could not be a better demonstration of how much the Opposition parties truly care about the health of the nation in relation to food.
  Mr. Frank Cook rose—
  Mr. Field: Before the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) intervenes in my ten minutes because he wants to mention my earlier intervention about eggs—
  Mr. Cook rose—
  Mr. Field: If the hon. Gentleman insists I shall, of course, give way to him.
  Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman is as accurate in his counting of eggs as he is in his counting of hon. Members in the Chamber. He cannot fail to get things wrong this evening. I sympathise with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in having to deal with him.
  Mr. Field: That was probably the least worthwhile intervention that we shall hear this evening. However, it confirms the accuracy of the statement that I made to the Leader of the Opposition when I pointed out that his hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North regularly takes an egg in the Members' Tea Room in the morning—[Interruption.] Well, I have seen him order as many as five, but that was probably when he was taking them up to those of his hon. Friends queuing to introduce ten-minute Bills. Nevertheless, that confirms that the hon. Gentleman consumes eggs so, although the Leader of the Opposition was endeavouring to tell us how dangerous those nourishing little things are, it is clear that members of his team are continuing to consume them.
  I thought that the first rule of politicians was that there were no votes in sewerage. Obviously, part of the new Labour party review is that there are votes in Montezuma's revenge. The Opposition's contribution to this evening's debate on the motion standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition should be completely refuted. For me, the only effect of the whole debate has been that I have eaten more eggs—boiled, scrambled and fried—in public in the last few months than ever before.
  It is hypocritical of Opposition Members, with their mouths full, to criticise farmers, particularly during food and farming year. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) made a good point about the agricultural contribution to the balance of payments. It is hypocritical to criticise farmers when the demand from housewives is for cheap, good-value food.
  A retired medical officer of health told me that he hated a warm Christmas because the turkeys hung around in the

  903
  butchers and salmonella bred inside them. He guaranteed that after a warm Christmas there would be an increase in tummy upsets. However, I shall not dwell on that.
  In his speech in Southampton this week, the Leader of the Opposition spoke of care of the environment. I should like to speak about pollution, particularly on our beaches. I noted that the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) used the usual Social and Liberal Democrat trick of donning the mantle of protecting the environment.
  We have heard so much recently about the water industry that I felt that in a debate on food and water I should draw the attention of the House to the remarkable progress that has been made in my constituency in the disposal of sewage and the cleaning up of the environment.
  In 1984, a triple ditch oxidation plant costing £2 million was installed at the Fairlee sewerage works on the Medina river. There is one similar installation in Kent and another in Denmark. In recent memory, before the plant's installation, the river Medina was so polluted—I believe, though I have not been able to check, that this was under a Labour Government—that the medical officer of health banned the consumption of mussels taken from the river because of the number of bacteria they contained due to the raw sewage in it. As a result of the installation of that plant there has been a remarkable improvement in the quality of the river water.
  In Cowes, an outfall system costing—8 million was installed which used, for the first time in the United Kingdom, the horizontal direction-drilling technique for the cross-Medina river and seaward outfall. At Sandown, the clariflow system was pioneered by Blue Circle Industries and Portsmouth polytechnic. It was installed in 1985, at a cost of £1·5 million, and under a Conservative Government, long before the hype about the care of the environment and the nation's health. It is so revolutionary that it is the only sewerage treatment plant of its type in the world. It relies on the injection of clariflow—a chemical that reduces the bacteria to make the water ideal as an EEC standard bathing beach. In the past two years, a new sewer outfall costing £8 million has been installed at Ryde.
  This debate is about not simply the safe disposal of sewerage, but the quality of drinking water. At Sandown water works, Southern Water has installed a new Neptune Nichols system and at the Knighton water works the iron removal plant has just been completed, and the island's entire water supply is now up to EEC standard. In the past two years, the expenditure per head of population has been more than £80. When that is set against the average water bill of £120 per head for the Isle of Wight, even Opposition Members will begin to realise that this country's water industry is investing in the nation's future and environment.
  For far too long water authorities have been the judge and jury on pollution, but water privatisation will bring an end to that remarkable situation. Under the new Bill, for the first time the criminal law will apply to pollution and the standard of the drinking water supply.
  Frankly, Opposition Members' contributions to this health debate amount to chicken feed.
  7.37 pm
  Mr. Calum Macdonald: I am grateful for being called and I shall try to keep my remarks within the recommended time limit, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  904
  The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) began his speech by suggesting that the absence of Opposition Members showed their lack of interest in the nation's health and food. The most conspicuous absentee from today's debate has been the Prime Minister, and I suggest that he addresses his remarks to her.
  I shall try to relate my brief remarks to a comment made by the Secretary of State for Health at the beginning of the debate in response to a question put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley), who asked why it had taken the Secretary of Stale two months to answer a question that he had tabled. The Secretary of State replied that he was sorry but that the question had probably remained in some official's bottom drawer for those two months.
  That answer sums up the Government's attitude to this problem. First, the Government have given low priority to food and health. The Secretary of State falsely accused the Opposition of not addressing those issues. As has been pointed out by several Opposition Members, we have raised the dangers caused to health and the environment by the Government's successive cuts in research. The number of environmental health officers has been cut as a consequence of their policy.
  The Government have also wholly failed adequately to regulate private businesses because they prefer profits to people. The Opposition are right to say that the Government have accorded the problem a low priority.
  The other notable aspect of the Secretary of State's remarks was his reference to an official. Passing the buck has been another characteristic of the Government's handling of this issue. The prime victim of that trait was the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie), to whom the Secretary of State passed the buck towards the end of last year.
  To return to the question or low priority, the Secretary of State's comments and the Government's attitude make it clear that not just written answers, but consumers have been left in the bottom drawer over the past several months. Meanwhile, the producers have been in the Secretary of State's top drawer. That is exemplified by the now notorious defensive briefing that was conducted by Government officials and representatives of the egg industry as early as last June, with the Government feeling it should be their duty to get into huddles with egg producers to produce defensive briefings rather than telling the public at that stage what they knew about the problem. That says a lot about the Government's attitude.
  When the Government did move, it was to alert officials of the National Health Service. They gave the excuse that they did that because people might be at risk in hospitals, ignoring the fact that most sick people would not be in hospital but would be at home being looked after by relatives and would be equally at risk. It is fair to say that the Government have consistently afforded low priority to the issue and put it in the bottom drawer.
  What I really wish to deal wall is the trait of passing the buck as exemplified by the Secretary of State's response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes).
  The right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) spoke about the confusion over the issue. The responsibility must lie with the Government. The right hon. Gentleman also spoke of irresponsible scaremongering. The right hon. Gentleman was asked whether he would associate the hon. Member for

  905
  Derbyshire, South with that irresponsible scaremongering, and he coyly declined to answer the question directly. But it must have been clearly in his mind. I would have said to him—unfortunately he is not in the House at the moment—that if there was scaremongering and confusion, the responsibility lay not with the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South alone but, in the last analysis, with the Government and especially with the Secretary of State for whom the hon. Lady was working at that time.
  In response to an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley, the Secretary of State repeated the astonishing admission, which he also made to the Select Committee on Agriculture when he came before us, that he had advised the hon. Lady to keep quiet following her controversial statement on 3 December about most egg production in this country being affected by salmonella. When the Secretary of State came before the Select Committee he said that his advice to her to keep quiet had been given because he felt that Sir Donald Acheson was the most appropriate person to go about the country and to clarify the question of salmonella infection. Again, I suggest that he was passing the buck to an official rather than taking responsibility upon himself.
  The solution offered to the problem of the controversy generated by the remarks of the former junior Health Minister was wholly inadequate and stretches credulity.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The hon. Gentleman totally ignores the fact that I spent the afternoon answering questions on the subject in the House of Commons on the Monday in question. I received enormous coverage of my remarks because of the interest in the subject. Similarly, the chief medical officer is the best placed person inside Government circles to give medical advice to the public. I simply do not understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying today, which was the gist of his questioning in the Select Committee—that because we gave advice in that way for 24 hours, we somehow failed to correct the impression created the day before. People like the hon. Gentleman, and some of his hon. and right hon. Friends on the day, were more intent on pursuing the personality issues that they thought were raised by the position of my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South. That would have got in the way of information getting to the public, if they had been allowed their day out on the Monday trying to pursue my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Macdonald: It is astonishing for the Secretary of State to say that the junior health Minister would have got in the way of providing correct information to the public, and it shows a grave lack of confidence in the abilities of his former junior Minister.
  Mr. Clarke: I did not say that she would have got in the way, but that the hon. Gentleman and people like him who saw the whole thing in terms of the personality of my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South would have got in the way of information being given to the public.
  Mr. Macdonald: The Secretary of State is simply missing the bald and obvious fact that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South, who was then a Minister, was
  906
  conspicuous to the whole nation by her silence. The very fact that she remained silent attracted the attention that the Secretary of State now complains of.
  If I could use a literary reference, I shall repeat a story about Sherlock Holmes and the dog that did not bark in the night. Holmes was investigating a crime and referred Dr. Watson to the curious incident of the dog in the night. Watson said that the dog did nothing in the night and Holmes replied that that was the curious incident. That is what people are saying about the former junior Minister. It is even more curious because, on this occasion, the dog did bark in the night but then was put quietly to sleep.
  The Secretary of State came up with a new excuse in response to an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley, which relates to his previous feeble excuse, namely, that if he had asked the hon. Lady to clarify and expand on and qualify her statement, she would have been subjected to the unfriendly questioning of the media and from the Opposition. It is astonishing for the Secretary of State to suggest that the hon. Lady needed the Secretary of State's protection from Opposition Members.
  The central mystery remains unsolved. If the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South said nothing wrong in her remarks on 3 December, why did she have to resign? If, on the other hand, she said something wrong, why was she gagged and advised not to clarify or to expand upon her statement? If what she said was neither right nor wrong but simply ambiguous, which is the Secretary of State's interpretation, the same question must be addressed to the Secretary of State. Why was she advised to keep silent and advised not to expand her remarks?
  I remind the Secretary of State that he can pass the buck only so far. Those who pass the buck to ensure their own survival will eventually die by having the buck passed to them. The Prime Minister has today sent in the two Ministers—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. Mr. Jacques Arnold.
  7.47 pm
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: I wish to speak about the listeria hysteria. I must admit that in the course of the debate I felt somewhat sick; not sick to the stomach, because I had cheese for lunch and I thrived on it, but sick at heart at what we are seeing in the House of Commons and generally in the grand commotion to put fear into the British people about the food they eat. There can be nothing more base than taking that approach. I am also made sick at heart to see Opposition Members leaping on the bandwagon in the hope of demolishing a few Conservative Members, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie).
  The worst possible example of this hysteria during the afternoon was the shroud-waving of the tragic case of the death of a baby, which was far too reminiscent of the way in which the great debate over the NHS was conducted. That shroud-waving was to the shame of the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock).
  Mr. Marland: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. Does he agree with me that we should have a little more background information as to what actually infected the mother who was carrying that child, because I have much sympathy with my hon. Friend's remarks?
  Mr. Arnold: Indeed, I thoroughly agree with my hon. Friend. So frequently, in the health debates in this Chamber, and now in this debate, have family tragedies been bandied about without the facts upon which hon. Members could come to a view being substantiated.
  I am angry at the current situation because there is in my constituency a modern cheese packer. H. T. Webb and Company. That firm was set up three years ago in the Springhead enterprise zone, and today it gives work to 300 of my Northfleet constituents. Thanks to the hysteria in which Opposition Members indulge, there has been a drop in sales, and 200 of those workers, in the packing and production part of the plant, are now on short time, with the fear of redundancy.
  Let us look at the facts of the matter. Last year there were only 287 notified cases of listeria. It is not known how many of those were caused by eating contaminated food. Clearly, the right hon. Member for Islwyn knows even less about listeria, as he demonstrated today when he strayed from his carefully prepared text to try to answer a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham), which he seemed incapable of doing. Listeria is nothing new; it has been present on the farms of this country for generations, particularly in silage and in cows and grazing sheep. But it is containable if sensible hygiene is practised. The success over the years can be seen in the survival of our farming community. Listeria has had no significant impact on the health or mortality rate of farmers.
  It is cheese packers and producers and their workers who are being affected by the current hysteria. How has my local firm reacted to the very real problems? When the problem of listeria in cheese raised its head in early 1987 the firm took acton. The problem, it may be recalled, raised its head in a serious manner in the Swiss canton of Vaud, where the local cheese, Vacherin Mont D'Or, was found to he infected. The firm in my constituency required all suppliers to certify their cheese to be listeria-free, and it did this by insisting on certification by laboratories in the country of origin—usually in the universities—and in all cases authorised by the respective countries' Governments. It then carried out continuous testing in its own laboratories. Hon. Members may care to know how much listeria it has found. The answer is none. The tests for dangerous listeria have always proved to be negative.
  One thing that I would, however, ask of my right hon. and learned Friend is that the advice given to the public be more clear. The public have been advised to avoid some cheese. What they should have been told is that only ripened soft cheese, such as Brie or Camembert, is liable to listeria, and 90 per cent. of that is made from pasteurised cream and milk. Tests have been carried out regularly, both here and abroad. We might care to reflect, when we consider both Brie and Camembert and their propensity to dangerous listeria, that generations of Frenchmen have eaten these cheeses, yet the population of France has not been decimated.
  Other fresh soft cheeses, all of which have acidity below 4·8 pH cannot, technically, carry listeria. We are safe in buying cheese such as roulé, Philadelphia or potted cheeses and yoghurts with foil tops that are available in supermarkets.
  The hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke), who, no doubt, is also at dinner, reported to this House the loss of over 200 jobs in his constituency owing to the collapse of an egg producer. He was told that less than an
  908
  hour after his leader had made great play on public fears. The producer no doubt thought his cause, in restoring public confidence, was lost, and threw in the towel and, with it, those jobs.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State was right: the Opposition are concerned with woolly hats and Edwina-baiting and with scoring party political points. What is at stake is thousands of jobs in the food industry and the restoration of faith in public advice on food safety. To my mind, the Secretary of State's long speech earlier today clarified that advice. I hope that it will be reported clearly to the public and that it will be heeded.
  7.56 pm
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths: The House will, I hope, forgive me for confessing that I have no financial or constituency interest in the food industry. I make no plea on behalf of the agricultural business or the procesing business or the storage and distribution arms of the industry. For me, and for many hon. Members, the interests of the public are paramount.
  I fundamentally reject any suggestion from Conservative Members that legitimate concerns voiced by Labour Members about the standards that prevail in the food business are harmful to the interests of this country. Unlike advisers to the Government, I do not believe that the
  "concept of consumer protection … has to be balanced against business considerations."
  In truth, it is the failure of this Government to impose standards that has had the effect of undermining both export potential and the domestic purchasing of products. I am very concerned that hon. Members on the Government side seem wedded to the concept of voluntary regulation when, so obviously, voluntary regulation has brought us to our current sorry state.
  I wish to draw the attention of the House to the threat posed to research on listeria being carried out in my constituency. Staff at the Moredun research institute have been studying the effects of listeria on sheep, and their studies may well have beneficial implications for humans. The research being carried out by Dr. William Donnaghie has benefited from a grant of £10,000 a year from the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for Scotland. But the Barnes review has cast doubt on the future funding of this project beyond 1991. This Government review is recommending that listeria research must be funded by industry instead of by the Government, but all the attempts by the Moredun research institute to secure funds from industry have failed. Industry does not appear to be interested in funding such work, I am told; there is simply no profit in it.
  Yet earlier this month the Department of Agriculture warned, in a press statement, about the dangers to pregnant women of contact with sheep or lambs. The infection which causes enzootic abortion in sheep can also affect humans. Unfortunately, the Department is not so willing to make long-term financial commitment to research and development in this area. In the White Paper on the Government's expenditure plans to 1992, which was debated in this House on 9 February, the Government make their commitment clear. Chapter 4 shows that the expenditure on agriculture, fisheries and food research and development is falling. My hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) was perfectly correct when he lamented the cuts in food research. Table 4.24, on

  909
  page 18 of the Government's expenditure plans, sets out the cut at £20 million in real terms by 1991–92. The cut in MAFF expenditure on agricultural and food research and development has occurred in each year from 1984 to 1988 and will have fallen from £125·1 million in 1984 to £88·8 million in 1992.
  It is hardly surprising that the Government seek to cover their tracks by looking for scapegoats. Earlier Professor Lacey, who has an interest in the food industry, was called a crank. The Government have been accused in responsible newspapers such as The Independent of covering up. There has been the headline:
  "Secret document charts spread of salmonella".
  Other newspapers have pointed to the cover-up in the baby milk scandal involving aluminium. The headline in The Observer was:
  "Danger baby milks kept secret."
  These newspapers are not the rags that have been condemned on both sides of the House; they are not given to hyperbole and their sales are not dependent on sensationalism and exaggeration. I have quoted from The Observer and The Independent, respected papers for which the Minister, the Secretary of State and their colleagues write.
  The Government's search for scapegoats has to end. Their attacks on the press have to stop. Their attacks on the public and their pious view that the public should take almost full responsibility for any food poisoning must also end. The Government have to face up to their responsibility. The problem emanates from their cuts in research and development and from their championing of the interests of business rather than the consumer and of profit against the public good.
  8.1 pm
  Mr. Michael Morris: I declare an interest as an adviser to a trade body and to a company in the food industry. If the charge of the Opposition is to stand, they have to prove that the Government, by their actions, have ignored the problems in the food chain. The Labour party itself has consistently challenged the Government with alternative policies which it believes would solve the problems.
  The key determinant of whether food poisoning is being controlled and analysed properly lies with the public health laboratory at Colindale. I hope that hon. Members who take an interest in the subject have visited Colindale. I took the opportunity last year to spend a morning there. I do not think that anyone who has visited that establishment can be in the least worried that the medical side is being ignored. That extensive laboratory, which is well staffed and equipped, is doing an enormous amount of analytical work on salmonella and on other problems in the food chain.
  For anyone to suggest that the range of work is superficial or inadequate shows a complete misunderstanding of the work of the laboratory. The work is being done competently and with great thoroughness. The nation should recognise that. It is to the work of the laboratory that Ministers in the Department of Health and in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food react. At the time that I visited the laboratory—I have had no reason to believe anything to the contrary since—the right warnings were given at the right time.
  910
  If that is so, one asks why there has been an increase in problems, particularly when the standard of living is rising noticeably. The problems in the poultry industry have not arisen in the last 12 months. There has been salmonella in chickens probably for 10 years or more. The Secretary of State for Health correctly pointed out that the most recent strain is difficult and that the evidence is that it was introduced through infected feed material.
  The underlying problem has been there for quite a long time. Whereas in the 1950s and 1960s the House, Members of Parliament, the press and the public accepted what scientists put forward as a result of their analyses of food and nutritional values, that is no longer so. Every time scientists present reports, they are challenged by the media or by what I call the greater green movement. There is a great distrust of what scientists say. That is a worrying dimension. A small group of activitists challenge everything that scientists, particularly food scientists, put forward.
  I understand that E numbers are supposed to be a safeguard. No doubt other hon. Members share my experience of people saying in surgery, "Does it mean that we should worry if a product has an E number on it?" So E numbers have had the reverse effect. Through the media the public are calling for the removal of preservatives and additives, and for restrictions on herbicides and pesticides. There is a flotilla of claims that these are all harmful in food manufacture and production. We have even reached the extraordinary stage that because a tiny percentage of hyperactive children react to a particular additive, some people demand its removal from food products. I think that a distrust of scientists is causing some of the problems today.
  On my way to the House at lunch time I listened to the "World at One". It was announced on the programme that six supermarket chains had set up a hotline called "Foodline" as a food safety advisory service. What a good thing they have done. By taking the initiative, the food chains have shown a proper regard for a difficult situation. What was the comment by the BBC reporter? He asked, "Can we trust what is being put out by these interested parties who are food retailers?" He also asked, "Can we trust Government statistics?" When people in an industry which is fundamental to the economy take action to help, it seems extraordinary that commentators should immediately debunk it and assume that the whole thing is being done in self-interest.
  A key determinant has to be what the Labour party offer as an alternative. Opposition Members will remember several documents produced by their party. One was called
  "Food Policy—a Priority for Labour"
  It was a microcosm of the National Advisory Committee on Nutrition Education and the chairman of NACNE appeared to have written three quarters of it. I assume that that was dumped because we got another document called "Health for All", which was a charter on preventive health. It included about half a page on healthy eating, which was indicative of the deep research done by the Labour party. Very little of it had anything to do with what we are debating today, apart from something about withdrawing additives if there were doubt about safety, and a little about the irradiation of food.
  On Friday of last week there was a press release from the Labour party. I note that it was on House of Commons paper. I hope that the Select Committee on Services will

  911
  check why two Front Bench Labour Members issued a press release on House of Commons paper because I believe that that is illegal. That is on the record and I hope that someone will c heck on it.
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Get on with it.
  Mr. Morris: I will get on with it. I am talking about a press statement by the shadow Minister for Agriculture and the shadow Secretary of State for Health. They say:
  "It is clear that the voice of the consumer has taken second place to that of the producer."
  That is absolute rubbish and bunkum.
  They then go on to say:
  "We believe our proposal would have averted the problems that arose with salmonella and listeria." The hon. Gentleman would know if he had listened to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State today that we do not yet know what the answer is to the new strain of salmonella. Perhaps he does know, and perhaps he will inform the scientific world of the answer, but I do not think he knows it.
  Finally, we see that the proposal is to set up a food standards agency
  "which would be independent of Ministers and able to speak authoritatively on food protection matters."
  The press statement continues:
  "The Agency will be responsible to the Cabinet Office and to Parliament."
  Who will answer in this House? Will people from the Cabinet Office come here and answer questions on the food standards agency, or will it be the Public Accounts Committee?
  Is this a deeply thought-out policy arising from all the policy documents? No. The truth is that it was knocked out at the end of last week on House of Commons paper and thought to be a good idea. It is a very shallow approach to a very difficult problem. The real truth is that the Labour party has not done any work on this. It has just run a scare programme and frankly I think that that is deplorable. I suppose that one good thing has come out of this debate, and that is that the people of Britain recognise the importance of food safety and that they should listen to the scientists and the people in the public health laboratories. When the chief medical officer makes a statement, that is a statement based on fact, and he is the person they should listen to, not to the media or the other hype and the sort of comments that we have heard from the Labour party today.
  8.11 pm
  Mr. Elliot Morley: I would like to make it quite clear that I have no connection at all with the food industry. Unlike some Conservative Members, I have not been paid to come along here to today to state the case of vested interests.
  I want to examine the facts at issue. I am not interested in scaremongering or in trying to frighten consumers. I am interested in getting to the bottom of what I think has been the irresponsible handling of the situation by the Government and in seeing whether there are any practical lessons to be learnt.
  I believe that the root of the problem lies with the whole attitude of deciding that the market should be self-regulating, and that goes back to a comment made in 1980, when the Labour party argued for a tightening of controls in the protein processing order, which we had discovered was not working successfully. It was said in
  912
  response that in the present economic climate the industry should itself determine how best to proceed. The underlying theme of the Government's food policy is that the industry itself should be allowed to decide its own priorities.
  When we had a discussion about regulation, about a policy, about a strategy, it was said to be the policy of a nanny state. I would rather have a nanny state than a free market economy, which simply lets loose the Lucrezia Borgia of the free market into the kitchens of this country. When we are taken to this extreme, the choice for the consumer lies between salmonella and listeria. I emphasise that that is taking the issue to the extreme.
  I would be the first to concede that there are many good food producers and many caring farmers in terms of standards of food production, but some Conservative Members have been trying to blame the consumer, the housewife, the people who cook the food. It seems to be they who are responsible for the outbreak, not the producers. I know it is fair to say that cooking methods have changed over the years. We have microwave cooking now, for example. However, it is equally fair to say that farming methods have changed over the years. They are far more intensive now. There is far greater use of inputs, chemicals, agro-business, agro-product methods.
  On that point, I wonder whether the Minister will take into account the animal welfare issue. It is fair to say that the Secretary of State for Health did mention that many people were concerned about such things as battery farming and, apart from animal welfare, there are very real arguments. There is evidence to suggest, for example, that if there is infection within intensive animal units, it is spread at a far greater rate than it would be if there were more space.
  There is also a problem with the grandparent stock of hens, for example, and the cloning that there is these days in intensive animal units. It is something which needs to be looked at in terms of the conditions of intensive animals—the cage spaces—and whether there should be a move away from battery egg production towards deep litter egg production. Although deep litter production is not exactly perfect, it is more desirable than the intensive method, where hens spend the bulk of their lives, on average two years, locked up in a tiny cage, with no daylight and no floor to stand on. A great many people are concerned about that. I think that the answer is that people will eventually decide themselves through their own pockets, through green consumerism, that they will not purchase the products of such intensive methods of farming.
  There has also been concern about pigs. Again, I would pay tribute to some of my local farmers, who have introduced different models of farrowing cages which allow sows to stand up and turn round, something which the traditional farrowing cage does not allow. That is a step in the right direction.
  Nevertheless, although there are caring farmers and good producers, there are also other farmers and producers who simply want to maximise their profits without taking any interest in the welfare of their animals, or anything else for that matter.
  I believe that we need to do more research into intensive animal rearing to find not only the best way of producing food for the consumer, but to pay more attention to the condition of battery animals and intensive farm animals.
  One of the worst issues that has come to light in this whole inquiry into what has been happening with food is

  913
  the way that the Government have been cutting back on research and development in the farming sector. We already know that there is a proposal to cut £30 million from the AFRC over a number of years in a move to shift the research to what is deemed near market research. We have heard from some Conservative Members that they accept that the farming industry itself is fragmented and it is very difficult for the industry to pick up the research on this. The real condemnation comes with a scheme at Bristol led by a Dr. Mead, which was told last summer, before this scare on salmonella started, that it would be axed in March of this year. That research scheme was actually very near finding ways of eliminating salmonella in chicken and is now deemed to be ready and suitable to be picked up for the market.
  On the Select Committee, when I asked whether any firm had picked up this scheme, the answer was no. So here we have a Government-funded scheme which was near to developing a system for eliminating salmonella which has been axed and thrown on to the free market to be picked up or not. I think that that is an irresponsible way of dealing with important research to tackle the serious problem of salmonella.
  The hon. Gentleman talked about positive suggestions from the Labour party; I will give him one now. The Government set aside £19 million for compensation to farmers and only £3 million has been taken up. A total of £16 million is earmarked in the Budget. Why do the Government not take some of that £16 million and inject it into the various research programmes investigating animal husbandry, intensive farming, salmonella elimination and methods of identifying salmonella in the early stages? The money is there, it is budgeted, and it could be used now. It is a question of political will and desire, and I would be interested to see whether the Government are prepared to do that. It is no use saying that they do not have the resources; we know full well that they have.
  There is also the question of the reaction to other issues, such as BST in milk. To be fair to farmers, I quote Mrs. Mary James, a delegate at a recent meeting of the NFU, who said:
  "All BST will do is line the pockets of the drug companies. The salmonella scare tells us that we cannot afford to take risks where the safety of food is concerned."
  What I would say on that issue, if hon. Members want a positive suggestion, is that if we are to have trials with BST, why not label the milk coming from herds of cows injected with BST so consumers themselves can choose whether they want to buy that milk or not? That is certainly not being done by the Government. BST-treated milk simply goes into the milk pool, and people have no idea whether it is in their milk bottles.
  There is also the question of BSE, or "spongy brain" as it is commonly called. An inquiry has been set up by the Ministry and the Department of Health under Professor Richard Southwood of Oxford university's zoological department. The Guardian claims that, because Ministers do not like its findings, the report is being held up. It is also alleged that the Treasury has put pressure on proposals for a joint inquiry into salmonella because some of the proposals that might emerge from such an inquiry could prove expensive to implement. That again is a condemnation of a Government who take risks with people's health rather than making available what are, in
  914
  comparison with the alternative, quite small sums to ensure that health is protected through the research that we need.
  The Government have failed in many cases to notify the public or to give enough warnings. There was no excuse for them to withhold, for over a year, the information that listeria in cheese threatened pregnant women. Such information is not scaremongering in the way that Ministers have described. It is balanced, reasonable and rational, but it came too late.
  Let me say a brief word about water quality. It is outrageous that the Government have suggested that the standards for effluent and discharge levels for sewage outfalls will be lowered rather than meeting EEC requirements simply to try to make water more attractive to investors and public institutions. The Government's priority should be to ensure that our beaches reach EEC bathing standards, that our rivers do not deteriorate and that our drinking water is of adequate quality. I do not believe that privatising water is the way in which to do that. It simply enhances the risk to the consumer. The underlying failure of the Government lies in their claim that the free market delivers. It certainly does not. We need regulations, planning and strategy, and we are not getting them from the Government.
  8.22 pm
  Mrs. Teresa Gorman: I speak as a housewife. The women in this country buy 90 per cent. of the food, and on their behalf I want to say how disgraceful it is that the Labour party has sought to worry and confuse them by making a political issue out of matters which are nothing of the sort.
  Housewives like me are eminently grateful to our excellent food industry for the tremendous variety of foods available—not least cooked chilled foods, which make our lives much easier by cutting down enormously on preparation time. Along with the microwave oven, they have revolutionised the lives of women like me who go out to work but want to provide a variety of interesting foods for our families. To suggest that the cooked chilled food industry is somehow harmful to the population is nonsense.
  I am sick and tired of these campaigns. We get one almost every week. Everything that makes life interesting and bearable seems to be wrong for us: the air that we breathe, sex, tobacco, alcohol, sugar, salt, unwashed food, red meat, fast food, eggs, chickens—and now lovely smelly cheese. I would quarrel with the French about many things, but their cheese is delicious, and to suggest that it is bad for people is absurd.
  The truth is that germs are everywhere. They are all over our skins—some 2 million on every square centimetre. Every time that we open our mouths to breathe we suck a load of them in. They are a damn sight less dangerous than many politicians—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—particularly those on the Opposition Benches.
  Furthermore, if we eliminated all those germs, the minute that we stepped out of this country we should all go down with the local version of Delhi Belly, the Aztec Two-Step or Montezuma's Revenge. In fact, a good dose of germs every day builds up natural immunity and is an essential part of human biology. Without it we should all be a good deal worse off.

  915
  We must keep this problem in perspective. I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on his excellent exposé of the political motives behind all this nonsense. The truth is that there were fewer than 40,000 reported cases of food poisoning in this country last year compared with—this is not my estimate—1some 120 billion portions of food eaten in the same period. Such problems from food are less the equivalent of being hit by a meteorite but rather that of finding a particular grain of sand on the beach at Blackpool. The chances are infinitesimal, and although the cases that happen are unfortunate they are not the end of the world.
  Of the 50-odd cases of people who, on average, have died from food poisoning in this country over the past five years, almost all have died in public institutions such as hospitals and old people's homes. In the Stanley Royd hospital, 19 people died not because the food was bad but because of the hygienic practices in the hospital. The food had been left standing around for too long.
  Most problems are caused not by food itself but by the way in which it is handled, prepared or left standing around. That is the message that we must get across, and not necessarily to housewives. Most cases happen because people nowadays can afford to entertain more, and food is prepared in advance and left standing around.
  astThe Labour party is looking around for some cause to embrace. It is even harping back to the idea of a Ministry of Food. I heard a Labour party member on the radio the other day actually extolling the virtues of the old days when we had a Ministry of Food and people's diets were controlled by the Government: good old Socialist rhetoric. The Leader of the Opposition has told us that the Labour party would also like another 500 health inspectors, another 500 researchers and more and more jobs in Government Departments for more and more of the boys. That is the motivation behind the campaign, and it is disgraceful that the British public are not being warned.
  Even more interesting is the source of most of the Labour party's information. Just as the Low Pay Unit stirs up nonsensical campaigns about what it alleges to be three quarters of the British public living on below average wages, Labour relies considerably on the organisation called the London Food Commission, set up by the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) with a £1 million grant. Masquerading as a respectable organisation, it publishes almost all its stuff in Left-wing journals, including the journal of the International Marxist Group and other such bodies.
  The publications have such names as "Food and Profit: It Makes You Sick". If we did not know their political orientation before, we would when we read stuff like that. They are also behind the campaign to prevent the irradiation of food, which one Opposition Member actually extolled. He will get into hot water for extolling the virtues of a process that the Labour movement is officially opposing.
  The organisation has as its declared aims
  "to expose the evils in society in which we live and how the health of society is affected by social and economic conditions, particularly in the case of food, its production and its consumption."
  That is the motive behind much of the nonsense that is appearing in our newspapers.
  Mr. Frank Cook: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Gorman: No, I will riot. I have only 10 minutes, and I am going to fill them up.
  One of the campaigns is against fast foods. The organisation has got it in for the hamburger. Its employee—known as Dr. Tim Lobstein—is conducting a campaign against the Big Mac. Another is the cook-chill campaign. This is what it has to say:
  "Cook-chill foods result in job losses, change of working hours, reductions in pay and de-skilling."
  One of its leading lights, Dr. Tim Lang, is also an adviser to COHSE, which is trying to protect food jobs in the Health Service by alleging that cook-chill food brought in from outside and served to the patients is infected. He makes a scurrilous attempt to discredit the Government's policy of bringing private enterprise into the catering industry. That reveals the motivation of that organisation. It is another Labour party front which is visibly running out of money and trying to drum up support for its campaign. I warn industry against giving any money to that organisation as it is a thoroughly sinister body.
  Mr. Frank Cook rose—
  Mrs. Gorman: I want to warn the Government, because the editorial of The Food Magazine published by that organisation tells us that after 6,000 letters were sent to the Government complaining about the lack of openness in the food industry, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, which ought to know better, has finally
  "allowed a consumer representative into its party to the world talks in Geneva."
  These people are definitely and openly trying to infiltrate those Ministries which influence Government policy, and no doubt the Chief Medical Officer of Health. The Government had better watch out for that organisation because it is definitely not devoted to the policies to which the Government are dedicated.
  In my opinion, the whole campaign has been drummed up by the Labour party, which is devoid of campaigns by which to justify its existence. Among other things, the Labour party is calling for a food policy—shades of the Labour movement after the war—and a Food Ministry. It attacks the multinational companies—the great Satan of the Left—which provide most of our major chains with the excellent quality food that they offer the housewife and I have already explained why I think that is a wonderful idea. It has even mounted an attack on cheap food. I am sure that the British housewife will be delighted to know that that is Labour party policy—not that we have a cheap food policy thanks to the CAP which puts £12 a week on the food bill of the average British family. But the Labour party is quite happy to see the price of food rise if it can use that as a means of attacking the private sector, which provides a high-quality, interesting and varied diet.
  Now that we know who is behind much of that nonsense, I ask the Government to keep their wits about them and examine what is going on in Ministries to find out whether an infection of Socialist ideas is influencing Government policy and to ensure that they are wiped out and disinfected.
  8.32 pm
  Mrs. Audrey Wise: The hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock) called Professor Richard Lacey who has done a great deal of work on listeria an eccentric. Although I pointed out that he is doubly qualified as a doctor and a microbiologist, and that he is

  917
  professor of microbiology at Leeds university and a consultant in microbiology to Leeds Western District health authority, the hon. Lady stuck to her views, which were echoed by other Conservative Members. One of the major results of Professor Lacey's work has been to establish a link between premature births, stillbirths and listeriosis. I suggest that that is far from eccentric. After all their demands for facts, I am interested to see Conservative Members react in that way when they are presented with facts by someone who has become quite interested in his research and is enthusiastic about informing people of its results. I am quite sure that expectant mothers are keen on knowing about the dangers that they may face.
  We have been told by Conservative Members with the utmost confidence that cooked, chilled food is safe. One Conservative Member said, "You would think that it had been invented only yesterday". But it has not been in use for much longer, as it was introduced only two or three years ago. In that time there has been an explosion in the use of cooked, chilled foods, with massive investment in equipment and products. Listeria is important not because of the proven incidence of listeriosis but because of what the future may hold due to the current investment in cooked, chilled food in the private and public sectors. It is the only form of food preservation being used on a large scale without proper scientific evaluation or having stood the test of time. The issue is not whether we like cooked, chilled food or whether it is nice to have a convenient form of food, but the fact that that particular form of food preservation needs further evaluation and the products need particularly careful handling. It is not simply that the listeria bacterium survives refrigeration—it thrives under refrigeration. There is a very narrow band at which it is safe. I understand that it is stunned at between 0 deg and 3 deg, but that at any temperature above that it multiplies and becomes more pathogenic. In that way it differs from most organisms. Therefore, listeria is very important.
  We have received from the Chief Medical Officer of Health and from the Government advice which is hardly precise. We have been told to keep our food really cold. By means of parliamentary questions I am trying to find out how cold is really cold. It is hardly self-explanatory. We have been told that the bacteria, which are very common, are thriving and multiplying because of the extensive practice of keeping food refrigerated for lengthy periods at insufficiently low temperatures. That is a possible reason why the disease is spreading.
  It is not hysteria on the part of Labour Members to say that the matter needs to be treated very seriously, not least for the sake of workers in the industries involved as they will carry the can if the investment in cook-chill products proves to be ill-founded and firms get into difficulties through the distortion of trade which results from its expansion without proper evaluation.
  Listeria is important and the Government are not providing adequate information. We are told that everything is all right, that analysis is taking place and the public are being informed. However, when we realise that public analysts can analyse only four out of every million items purchased and that total spending on food analysis represents only 5p per person per year, we are entitled to say that that is hardly an extravagant use of resources. It
  918
  is not even an adequate use of resources for food analysis. We believe not only in adequate regulation, but in the proper resourcing, financing and enforcing of those regulations.
  We have heard a great deal from Conservative Members about the housewife. Their motto seems to be, "If in doubt, blame the housewife". I resist that as I do not consider that the blame can be laid at the door of women in Britain. We choose what we buy and what we eat, but over the years our choice has not been increased but has in an important sense been narrowed. In a really profound way it has been narrowed. It is difficult for people to buy food with confidence that it is pesticide residue-free and to feel sure that they know what they are eating. The public want that information. That is why there is such a huge demand for organic food.
  Some of the reasons for these deep problems can be found in the way that animals are reared and in the way that food is grown. When "The Food Programme" on Radio 4 investigated the way in which pigs are reared in Britain, it found that 250,000 sows are tethered so closely together that they can barely lie or stand. That is not a healthy way in which to keep animals.
  I keep free range chickens. I know about hens. The notion that hens can be healthily kept in tiny cages where they are unable to turn around and that they can be stuffed with antibiotics with impunity is a monstrous distortion of food production. People are resisting more and more the production of food in that way.
  The Government's job is to ensure that consumers can find the healthy food that they want. It is also their job to ensure that nobody lives in such poverty as to be unable to afford healthy food.
  Food is a political issue. Research has shown that it is easier and cheaper to buy healthy food in the better-off areas than in the worst-off areas of Preston. Poor people find it harder and more expensive to gain access to healthy food. That puts food on the political agenda, good and proper.
  8.41 pm
  Miss Emma Nicholson: I have a keen interest in the debate. As a cook, I once poisoned 120 people with salmonella. Having listened to what Opposition Members have had to say today, I feel that it is proper to issue a guide as to how to poison people with salmonella. It is quite clear that the Opposition do not know how to go about it. It is a very interesting trick.
  What one does is to become a hotel cook in a rather run-down hotel where the profits are slender and the free market does not seem to operate. That cannot be in this country. It must be in a country where everything is state owned and nationalised, where there are no profits and where the free market does not operate. One takes from the back of a lorry a job lot of frozen chickens. Because one has come from a farming background, one has never seen peculiar, misshapen, frozen lumps before. One bungs them in the oven and cooks them for the time that one normally allows for cooking a chicken from father's back yard that one has plucked and drawn oneself. Alas, 120 hot air balloonists from all over the world were fed by me with salmonella, which meant that they were unable to rise in their hot air balloons for the best part of a week.
  Since those days, I have taken the keenest possible interest in food. I have watched closely the inaccuracies

  919
  that have been put forward by Her Majesty's Opposition and—dare I say it?—by those dreadful people the media. What about the headline, "Eggs poison boy"? That led to the sad death of nine-year-old Zamire Hussain. A week later it was agreed by the medical authorities that no trace of salmonella—egg induced—had been found in that lad's body, but there was no apology in the media for that inaccuracy.
  The Sunday before last the health correspondent in one of the Sunday "heavies" spurned the coming Government leaflet on food and said:
  "We won't have the Government telling us to wash our hands."
  The correspondent said that virtually all food poisoning comes from cross-contamination or from food storage and handling. Before I am accused of being on the side of the farmer, I should point out that, at a meeting of my farm council about 10 days ago, 350 farmers referred to their keen interest in the consumer. My constituency depends on food. We produce, process, transport and ship it. We sell it to the consumer who eats it. The consumer is the whole purpose of the exercise.
  When we consider hygiene and why food poisoning is on the increase, it is worth remembering that 7 billion meals were cooked and consumed outside the home last year. I suffered from food poisoning last year on the way to Stoneleigh. On the way to the agricultural show we stopped at a cafeteria early in the morning. Somebody in the cafeteria was wiping his nose, another person had grubby hands and somebody else had grubby hair. We should have walked away, but it was early and we were hungry. By midday at Stoneleigh we felt extremely ill.
  Of the 2,000 or more strains of salmonella, very few are injurious to human or animal health. One must match containment at source, which is a most crucial element, with improvements in food handling. Most egg infections have arisen from the multiple handling of eggs. As for salmonella enteretidis, phage type 4, it is good news that the discovery has been made that it is contamination not from the ovi-duct but from the gut. That is a much more regular form of cross-infection from a chicken and it is something that will be easier to contain. All the evidence points to that conclusion, and it is genuinely good news. I know that the House revels in scare stories, but let us occasionally be glad to hear good news.
  It is the utmost ill-fortune that the United Kingdom is suffering from phage type 4, either by mutation or because it has come from Spain. It is a close cousin of two salmonellas that have been virtually eradicated in the United States. I do not believe that all is lost. I am confident that it will be contained by the excellent and speedy measures that have already been taken by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The key is to maintain good food hygiene. With phage type 4, one starts with the broiler breeder; it should be eliminated from the food chain.
  Contrary to views that have been expressed this evening, it is important to remember that if salmonella is present in an egg, a small number of the bacteria can multiply to levels that cause illness. If, for example, we leave eggs outside either the refrigerator or a cold room and if they are then broken open in a warm temperature and fed to people who are sick and who can therefore tolerate only a much lower level of salmonella concentration, they may become ill. Conversely, one can identify eggs with only a small number of salmonella
  920
  which, if properly handled, are perfectly tolerable, even by somebody who is in poor health. If we look hard enough, we can find salmonella in all the food that we eat. It is the way that food is handled that is critical. For example, if we make a salad in a bowl in which we have stored raw meat and the bowl has not been disinfected properly, our families may suffer stomach upsets.
  Families' shopping habits have changed. They shop once a week. People have small refrigerators in small flats and kitchens without larders. The Government must try much harder to educate and help the housewife as well as to enforce proper regulations, as they are already doing, in the case of those who mass produce food.
  The sterilisation of eggs does not help. They need an effective temperature of 56 deg C and eggs have to be cooked at that temperature for 15 to 20 minutes. That will eliminate the salmonella, but it kills our appetite, too.
  It has been said in the debate that the withdrawal of funding from near-market research has led to cuts in research into salmonella or scrapie. I want to put that right. The funding of one particular project on the competitive exclusion of salmonella, which had been in progress for more than a decade at the Institute of Food Research, has been terminated because, after comprehensive review, it was decided that it had reached a successful conclusion. However, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is continuing to fund other research on salmonella at the IFR. There is also funding of research into scrapie. The requirement for research into BSE is currently under review. Scrapie research is being carried out at the nemopathogenesis unit, which is jointly funded by the Agricultural and Food Research Council and the Medical Research Council. MAFF is collaborating with the NPU and is already funding work on BSE. That is a most important point.
  I should be appalled if the Government followed the Opposition line and banned the sale of green top milk. Consumers increasingly prefer food which has the least processing—that is the move towards more natural foods—but there are dangers inherent in this. Listeria from raw milk is an extremely rare possibility. Regular drinkers have developed an immunity, and occasional drinkers should be given warnings, particularly if they are sick or pregnant.
  Is it the Government's line, if we are to ban raw milk, to ban cigarettes and tobacco because of the known causal link between self-induced lung cancer and smoking? If we are not to follow that line—and I know that we shall not—it would be wholly wrong to ban fresh raw milk. I was brought up on it, and I am exceptionally fit.
  The majority of listeria-contaminated soft cheeses are made from pasteurised milk which has been reinfected during subsequent manufacture. This bug is adept at living at a wide range of temperatures. Bacteriological analysis applied to dairy products is the key to ensuring safe consumer choice. This will protect the consumer and the manufacturer.
  I will give an example of the least need to be frightened of food poisoning from cheese. Gidleigh park, one of the major hotels in my constituency and a five-star establishment, has served 75,000 meals since it opened, and 90 per cent. of the clients have cheese, almost all of it made from non-pasteurised milk and over half of that being soft or semi-soft cheese. That hotel has not had any cases of food poisoning.
  The withdrawal of additives—the E number fuss—which means that food has a shorter life, has in many ways

  921
  been reflected in the rise in the incidence of food poisonings as food decays sooner. Undertakers will be sorry to hear this. I am referring, of course, not to sewage or water undertakers but to those who are concerned with human carcases. They used to say that, with all the preservatives we ate, we spent two weeks longer on the slab.
  The keynote issue is consumer choice—giving consumers complete information, regular knowledge and public education—following the ministerial line rather than the Opposition line in wishing to take away from consumers that to which they have a right, the choice to buy and consume what they wish. After all, if the market does not work, will the Opposition seek to nationalise farming?
  8.52 pm
  Mr. Robert Hughes: I must be brief because I have less than five minutes in which to speak.
  I agree wholeheartedly with the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) in the united approach that north of Scotland hon. Members have adopted in trying to restore the funding of the Torry research institute which deals with fish and which has had 25 per cent. of its research budget cut. It cannot make that up in near market research and I hope that the Minister will meet us to discuss the issue before the matter becomes final.
  I have been deeply disturbed by the way in which some Conservative Members—including the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland), who I see leaving the Chamber—have behaved in this debate. I am glad to see that that hon. Gentleman has decided to remain to listen to me. There has not been the slightest contribution about the fact that there is food poisoning from primary food sources, no hint of shame and no whiff of apology for the fact that food is contaminated at source. There has been only screaming that housewives are to blame because they are not handling food properly. I have also found the attitude of the farming industry reprehensible; it is simply screaming about its compensation.
  There is an old adage about prevention being better than cure. Clearly it would be better if bacteria and other organisms did not get into food. I have some knowledge of these matters, having been the convener of the health and welfare committee in Aberdeen at the time of the major typhoid outbreak. I am therefore aware of how bacteria works its way through the food chain. I also appreciate the way in which the farming industry sometimes feels under threat, when it believes that it is not the only responsible party—that the processors, distributors, manufacturers and handlers all have a degree of responsibility, as have the restaurants and everyone else in terms of trying to avoid food poisoning.
  Everyone must bear a responsibility, and the Department of Health should take a lead and push more strongly for the irradiation of food. That technique kills 99·99 per cent. of the pathogens that are dangerous to human beings. This health matter should be pursued. We accept modern technology in terms of cook-chill, refrigeration, microwaves and so on. The fact that food is refrigerated, for example, means that it lasts longer and that the organisms get a chance to develop.
  922
  In the old days, when we had no refrigerators, the food went off, it stank like hell and it was thrown out. I should add that irradiation does not help with eggs because they pong if they are irradiated. Nor does it affect fatty foods. But the possibilities are such that we should pursue these issues with greater vigour.
  We must increase the number of environmental health officers. Only by that means shall we be able to do more checking. It is high time, considering the dangers facing the public, that we brought into the food industry the concept of product liability in the way in which it exists for other manufactured goods. If one sells a dangerous iron or television and somebody is killed, one is responsible. It should be a badge of honour for the food industry to boast that its food is contamination free, that it has done everything possible to protect the public. If that is not done, it should have a responsibility, by way of criminal prosecution and compensation.
  This has been a valuable debate. I regret that it has been devalued by those who spoke, in a totally uncritical way, on behalf of the food industry and who were not willing to accept that faults exist in that industry. Nevertheless, it has been a valuable debate and I hope it will not be long before we return to those matters.
  The degree of interest in the subject has meant that, whereas most hon. Members thought there would be ample time in which to speak, that has proved not to be the case. There are many other issues on which I would have liked to have spoken. I was told that, had I done so, I would have probably got myself into hot water, so I will resume my seat and face the consequences.
  8.56 pm
  Mr. Keith Raffan: In the few minutes available to me, I will comment on only one issue raised by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes), and that is water, although I wish to speak about cold rather than hot water. The debate is about the safety of food and water, though most contributors have, perhaps understandably, concentrated on food.
  The British Government signed the EEC drinking water directive in 1985. Even by that time, many treatment works were up to standard. Since then, a further 300 have been brought up to standard, and by next year a further 90 will have joined that number. By the mid-1990s, 150 of the 170 remaining will be brought up to standard, though many of them are covered by derogations under article 9 of the directive because the lower standards in those areas do not cause any health risk. Indeed, the lower standards are due largely to geological problems making water purification difficult. So by the mid-1990s nearly all of Britain's water will meet or better the EEC drinking water directive.
  We on the Government Benches must concede the Opposition's point that this could have happened earlier. But it did not happen earlier because in 1976 capital expenditure by the water authorities was cut by a third by the then Labour Government. Labour Members must therefore accept responsibility for the fact that it is taking us till the mid-1990s to get our water treatment works up to standard. They cannot blame the present Government for the delay.
  The Conservative Government have increased capital expenditure on water treatment works by 50 per cent. in real terms. In 1976–77, Welsh water authority capital

  923
  expenditure was £32·9 million but by 1987–88 it had risen to £67·8 million. Incidentally, I am glad to see the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones) in his place as I shall refer to him later. Expenditure on water infrastructure has greatly increased under the present Government, compensating for gross neglect by the Labour Government.
  The Water Bill is the key to attaining higher standards for Britain's water. For the first time, the European water directive's provisions will be given the full force of law. It will also free the new water pies from external financing limits, enabling them to borrow money for capital works as they require it, and so to accelerate their capital programmes. They will no longer have to queue behind schools or hospitals. Should the nightmare occur—difficult though it is to fantasise—of Labour ever returning to power, the pies will not face the prospect of that Labour Government slashing capital expenditure on water and sewage treatment works as they did in the mid-1970s.
  The Water Bill will also establish a tough, regulatory framework. For the first time, it will be a statutory offence to supply water that is unfit for human consumption. The National Rivers Authority will play a valuable role. I recall that in 1985, in the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, many Opposition and Conservative Members, when considering coastal sewage pollution, made the point that it was ridiculous for water authorities to be both poacher and gamekeeper. The NRA will bring an end to that position. It will now monitor and enforce quality objectives. A drinking water inspectorate will ensure, for the first time, that suppliers monitor water quality and comply with standards. That has not occurred before, assessment being left to the water authorities. The pies will also be required to give detailed information about water quality to the public. For the first time, there will be exact, numerical standards for drinking water quality set down in United Kingdom law, approved by Parliament. All that is due to privatisation.
  I am glad that some Labour Members have admitted, no doubt unintentionally, that high water standards can be achieved by a private water company. I refer to a report in the Wrexham Water News of November 1988:
  "Three Clwyd MPs have praised Wrexham Water Company for the work it does in maintaining the quality and safety of water supplies to its consumers."
  There follow quotes from the three Labour Members concerned. The hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West, who is himself a microbiologist, and on whose opinion we can therefore surely rely, commented:
  "I have been a resident of Wrexham all my life and have always found the water to be of good quality and very dependable."
  The shadow Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones), stated:
  "1 was very pleased to be given every assurance that the company's top priority is to deliver safe and wholesome water to every household it serves. I rate this aspect of the water industry of enduring priority."
  And the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) commented:
  "It is reassuring to see the dedication of the staff and the work they do to maintain a safe supply of water."
  The hon. Gentleman was reported as saying that he had been impressed with everything he had seen.
  Those are the comments of three Labour Members. They show that, behind the scenes, when they visit a
  924
  private water company, they acknowledge that water supplies can be kept perfectly safe. Under privatisation, the consumer has nothing to fear.
  9.2 pm
  Mr. David Hinchliffe: Having sat in the Chamber for five hours, it is a matter of concern to me that my contribution is limited to five minutes, but I shall try to make one or two serious points about issues that concern me.
  It has been interesting listening to a variety of speeches. Tonight, I learnt why my wife plays merry hell with me if I purchase food from supermarkets that is past its sell-by date. She realises that if I consume such food, my brain will end up in the same state as that of the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman). I have never before heard remarks of the kind that she came out with tonight. To say, as she did, that a good dose of germs each day is good for one sums up the Government's policies on food hygiene.
  The present Government have presided over a threefold increase in food poisoning. Their record is one of incredible complacency. Giving due justice to parliamentary answers I have received on the cook-chill issue, there are contrived cover-ups time and time again, with the Government refusing to divulge information that I know is available. As my hon. Friends have said, at the heart of the problem is that which is at the heart of so many other problems existing under the present Government: vastly increased profits are sought at the expense of wider considerations of safety and care of the environment.
  Alongside that political question there are deep moral issues. My hon. Friends have mentioned animal welfare, although that has not been taken up by any Conservative Member. In factory farming we see maximum output with minimum input. There is a complete disregard for animal welfare in many aspects of their treatment in factory farms. Animal transport is a matter for deep concern. Animals are crammed into lorries and poultry into cages to be carried about and that is a disgrace.
  Those conditions create stress, which in turn creates infection, often just before animals are slaughtered. Mass slaughter itself is new. Poultry are often slaughtered in flocks of 10,000 at a time. Abbatoirs have a huge through-put, carried out at such speed that cross-infection is a frequent occurrence.
  The huge increase in food poisoning is clearly linked to the way in which we have moved towards mass food production. It is as though nature is telling us that we are getting it wrong; that the food poisoning is a sign that what we are doing to the animal kingdom is wrong. We should address that issue as a nation.
  Alongside the mass production of food we have seen the development of mass catering techniques such as cook-chill, as my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) said. I wanted to spend a good deal of my speech looking at what is happening in the Yorkshire region where cook-chill methods are coming into our hospitals as part of the privatisation of NHS catering services. The extent of the problems that arise from cook-chill methods is not known. Conservative Members say that we have no figures, but the Government do not ask the questions in order to obtain them.
  Within the past 18 months in the Leeds area there have been six known deaths from listeriosis—three babies and three elderly people. Those deaths have been proven to be

  925
  the result of listeriosis related to food consumption. That fact comes from Professor Richard Lacey, who has been abused several times today by a number of Conservative Members. The hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock) left the Chamber a long time ago, no doubt to go for dinner. I wish that she would address her comments on Professor Lacey to the lady in Horsforth who lost her baby through consuming food purchased from a supermarket. The complacency that I have heard tonight from Conservative Members is incredible.
  If the six deaths in Leeds reflected the situation nationally—there is no reason to believe that they do not—that would mean 400 deaths per annum from listeriosis. That is a disgrace.
  I have had a bad day. I have sat here for five hours and have only five minutes at the end of the debate. I also sat through health questions today. My question was No. 15 but we reached only No. 12. I asked the Secretary of State for Health:
  "what proportion of perinatal deaths, still births and miscarriages which have occurred over the past year have been examined for the presence of listeria monocytogenes."
  The answer was:
  "Post-mortem examinations of still births or perinatal deaths to establish the presence of listeria monocytogenes would only be carried out at the request of clinical staff or a coroner, and we do not hold information on these requests centrally."
  That is why we know nothing about listeria. The figures are not asked for. The Government are covering up the reality of what is going on.
  It is a disgrace that I am limited to this small amount of time at this stage in the debate. My constituents are faced with the introduction within the next few weeks of cook-chill methods in their hospital. They cannot opt out of that. They do not have the great consumer choice about which the Government talk. They will have that method whether they like it or not. The people of Wakefield are frightened by what is facing them.
  9.8 pm
  Mr. Bill Walker: We have been exposed to substantial media scaremongering in recent weeks and months. One example of that is the so-called level of radiation said to be found in the Rannoch area of my constituency. At best that can be described as dangerous misinformation. It could have a damaging impact on the major industry—tourism—of that area. No thought was given to that by those who appeared on television to talk about it.
  It is interesting to hear that all the things that make us Scots so happy and enjoy being on this planet—whisky, haggis, lamb, red meat, fish and chips—are not good for one. What nonsense. We have to achieve a balance; a balance about the risk.
  Every aspect of human activity contains risk. We must look at the element of risk and what the choices are. In car driving, coach tours, travelling on ships, cycling or even walking on the roads there is a risk. We have to evaluate the risk and how we should deal with the problems. Sufficient levels of inspection and supervision are required, not repressive levels. Hon. Members on the Opposition Benches have leaned largely to repression.
  There is no question whatever but that the housewife and the farmer have a joint interest in this matter. To put the record straight on some comments that were made
  926
  earlier about farmers, the farmers in my constituency made it quite clear during the salmonella scare connected with eggs that the first thing that we had to do was to get the facts, the second was to deal with the facts when they were known and the third was, if any compensation was required in any area, to deal with that. The farmers approached the matter, as they have in my experience approached all such matters, responsibly and respectfully. I wish to put the record straight because I will not have Opposition Members calling the people in my constituency, who are the backbone of Scotland.
  9.11 pm
  Dr. David Clark: This has been an interesting debate, a debate of two halves. One half of the debate has been about facts and the other about false perceptions. I must say that from the beginning the majority of the facts came from the Opposition and the false perceptions from the Government.
  I found it rather strange that we on the Opposition Benches were being attacked for considering bringing in legislation to ban green top milk. It is not our proposal to do that; it is a proposal, if I understood correctly what he said as reported in the papers, that the Minister of Agriculture is considering. We were also attacked for making assertions about listeria in soft cheeses. It was not we who raised that matter; it was none other than the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture.
  I felt that Government Members were slightly unfair in accusing us on those points, but this emphasises perhaps the point that 1 am making, that they were talking about false perceptions and we were talking about facts.
  We have had a good, wide-ranging debate in which a great many hon. Members have been able to participate. I regret that we did not have longer, because I know that many hon. Members would have liked a little more time to develop some other arguments.
  I also think that it was unfair and unwarranted to accuse us of scaremongering. It is the duty of the Opposition to highlight the inadequacies of the Government. Indeed, if we had not done so, especially when public health is at risk, we would not have been doing our duty. So we reject and rebut absolutely the charge of scaremongering. My right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) made that point quite clear at the beginning of his excellent speech today.
  We are not attacking the farmers or the food manufacturers. We accept that the overwhelming majority of those people are trying to provide us with food of a high quality. But we feel that the Government have been acting in a manner which is not beneficial to the consumers.
  The theme that has come from all Opposition speakers is that we should really not be surprised at the Government's failure to protect food. Food safety and the basic philosophy of the Government are simply incompatible. For any Government to proclaim their priority to sweep away regulations and their ambition to reduce public expenditure and to cut the number of public servants in monitoring food, research and development is a recipe for an epidemic of food poisoning, and that is what we have in Britain. Incidents of food poisoning have doubled since 1985. That is a fact and we have approached the debate on the basis of facts.
  I shall examine some of the points in a little more detail. I asserted that the Government do not like regulations.

  927
  Ever since the Government came to office, they have made no pretence of their ambition to sweep away regulations because they have seen regulation as an unwarranted attack on free enterprise. The Opposition reject that view. We contend that, without minimal positive state intervention, the public will remain vulnerable in terms of safeguarding our food and the environment. Almost from their first day of office, the Government started dismantling and weakening the regulations that protect the general public.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn said that the chairman of the United Kingdom Renderers' Association, John Field, summarised the situation well in his comments on the Government's proposal to regulate protein processing plants. He said:
  "There was a change of heart when the Conservatives came into office. They were happy to drop the idea of a code and settle for random testing."
  As we now know, the result was that thousands of people suffered from salmonella poisoning as the regulations for protein processing plants were not strict enough.
  For almost 10 years, the Government have continued their unremitting campaign. In July 1985, they were bold enough to publish a White Paper called "Lifting the Burden", in which they made no secret of their views. They argued:
  "the impact of regulation takes its toll in diverting precious time and energy that would be far better used in generating products, services, sales."
  I might add, "and profits". Their intentions were clear and, as a consequence, they continued the process of removing statutory protection, at the cost of the health of the general public. I put to the Minister the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew): is it right that the public health regulations have been changed and that people with a positive salmonella test result could be working in the food processing industry or serving in food shops? That is a serious matter which affects public health directly and we need to know whether that is the case.
  Time and time again in the recent debate on the quality of food there have been examples of the Government pursuing that key theme and, by doing so, putting the public at risk. On listeria, we know that the Government had in preparation 20 months ago regulations that covered cook-chill foods. The Secretary of State for Health said that there was disagreement between scientists about that. Yes, there was, but the Secretary of State could have taken it further and said that there were disagreements between scientists in the Department of Health and scientists in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The two Departments were bickering and arguing and, as a result, we have not yet had those regulations. The sooner we have them the better.
  Of course, not only consumers are concerned. Our evidence is that most progressive manufacturers and food retailers support sensible regulation because that is the only way in which they can retain the confidence of consumers and customers and, therefore, stay in business. However, our criticisms do not concern only regulations. The Government have been involved in delay and procrastination all the way. From the beginning, they had a deliberate policy of cutting back on research and development, as well as on monitoring. Tragically, the pace is quickening, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) argued accurately at some length.
  928
  It is widely acknowledged that we are short of environmental health officers who are the first line of defence for the customer. However, although it may have gone largely unnoticed, there has been a swingeing decrease in the number of staff employed by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Between 1981 and 1984, there was a reduction in science staff of over 8 per cent. Between 1984 and 1988, there was a loss of a further 15 per cent. That means that since the Government came to office one quarter of the science posts in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food have been axed. That is not good news for food safety.
  Let us examine the picture in a little more detail. The state veterinary service is vital to animal and therefore to human health. Its role is critical to food safety because vets intervene at an earlier stage than environmental health officers. Although they are vital, in a written answer that I received yesterday from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, I was informed that the number of veterinary officers permanently employed in Great Britain since this Government came to office has fallen by nearly one quarter.
  Those drastic cuts have had an effect on food safety. They have resulted in a reduction in the level of abattoir monitoring for hygiene and welfare standards from 53 man years in 1983 to 45 man years in 1987. The monitoring of poultry slaughter premises over the same period shows a fall from 8·5 man years to 7·1 man years. Those are serious and significant reductions in the inspections undertaken in relation to meat and poultry slaughters.
  In turning to further examples to make my point, I emphasise that we are talking about facts. We are not speculating. It is clear that, although there is a growing link between problems in animal health and human health, the Government are failing to recognise that. Although the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has the greatest difficulty in recruiting veterinary officers, the Treasury is forcing the University Grants Committee to cut the number of veterinary schools. The proposals to close the two schools at Cambridge and Glasgow are indefensible and are yet another example of the Government putting short-term financial considerations before the long-term health of the British people.
  The Government's cuts in research and development are proceeding unabated. During the past four years, cuts in research and development in the Ministry have resulted in the loss of no fewer than 2,000 research posts—a reduction of 25 per cent. in staff numbers. On top of that, the Government are now proposing to cut research and development in agriculture by another 30 per cent., which will include vital research work in food and other environmental concerns.
  It is true that
  "public funding in this area has been significantly cut, and further reductions are in prospect. This is not in the long term interest of the United Kingdom."
  Those are not my words, but were given in evidence to the House of Lords Select Committee on Agriculture and Food Research. That was a considered view shared by a Committee with a majority of Conservative Members.
  Only last Friday the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food issued a statement warning pregnant women to stay away from sheep and new-born lambs because they could be risking their own health and that of their unborn baby in a condition known as enzootic abortion. That was

  929
  wise and sensible advice. The tragedy is that, while the right hand is issuing that advice, the left hand is making research cuts at the Moredun research institute in Edinburgh. What hypocrisy from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
  I shall not outline the cuts in research into salmonella but I feel that the Minister has been little more than disingenuous in his claims that research at the institute of food at Bristol has been completed. The research is complete but he knows that it will not be worth while until the development work takes place.
  I shall repeat the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley). He asked how the Minister could find £19 million at the drop of a hat to support the egg industry but not find £300,000 to allow this project to continue for another few years. That is the sort of question which I hope that the Minister will attempt to answer.
  At the Moredun research institute, vital research into listeriosis has also been cut back. Why? The Opposition submit that it is another example of the Government's actions not matching their words.
  Furthermore, the Opposition know of a range of cuts in agriculture and food research into milk and cheese production. I would have thought that cheese production was one issue about which the Minister would like to know more.
  The Government are culpable not only of cutting research and staffing but of delay in action. Their complacency in dealing with bovine spongiform encephalopathy—BSE—is little short of a scandal.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Donald Thompson): Rubbish!
  Dr. Clark: The Minister shouts rubbish, but it took 18 months before the Ministry could summon enough courage in June 1988 even to make the disease notifiable. We then had to wait another two months before it introduced a compulsory slaughter and compensation scheme. Compensation of 50 per cent. of the estimated market value is not good enough. It means that farmers stand to lose between £350 and £400 per cow. What is most serious is that reports show that as a result some farmers sell animals for slaughter—hence into the food chain—as soon as the first suspicious signs appear.
  In The Sunday Telegraph of 19 February, a senior National Farmers Union source is reported as saying:
  "It is common knowledge in the industry that infected animals have gone into the food chain."
  That could be lethal.
  It should be noted that BSE is increasingly widely recognised as constituting, eventually, a possible risk to human health. It already appears to have jumped species from sheep to cattle. It is widely acknowledged in medical circles that it has jumped to humans in the form of Creutzfeld-Jakob disease. All three forms of the disease affect the brain and the central nervous system. If hon. Members doubt that, I refer them to the British Medical Journal of 4 June—
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: Half the Cabinet have spongybrain.
  Dr. Clark: My hon. Friend appears to have other ideas.
  930
  This species jump appears to occur when the brain or spinal cord of an affected animal is eaten, yet the Government refuse to take steps to stop meat products made from sheep and cattle brains entering the food chain. It must be noted that the incubation period before the disease manifests itself may be two or three years, and many animals with the latent disease inevitably enter the food chain. Why do not the Government ban the sale of animal brains in the United Kingdom?
  There is a lighter side to the matter. I know that the Minister occasionally eats in the House. Is he aware that mock turtle frequently appears on the menu of the House and that it is made from calves' brains? Does that make a lot of sense? I urge the Minister to ban the sale of calves' and sheep brains.
  How can the Government justify cutbacks on research into BSE? Is the Minister aware that blood samples from infected herds are held in storage at the central veterinary laboratories because there are no resources to proceed with research projects jointly with the institute of animal health in Edinburgh? Why will the Government not release necessary monies for that vital research to go ahead?
  While we are on the subject of animal health, it is difficult for the public to assess accurately the extent of many of these events because of the excessive secrecy of the Ministry of Agriculture. We have seen this attitude especially during the drug trials by companies including Monsanto in which the milk-producing hormone BST has been tested. It is inexcusable that the Government have allowed 15 farms throughout the country to allow tests on cows to boost their milk production but then have allowed the milk to enter the food chain, so that consumers unwittingly drink milk produced in this way.
  We appreciate that the public safeguard to this lies in the veterinary products committee of the Ministry of Agriculture, which advises Ministers on the safety of BST. The committee advised the Government to go ahead with field trials and we have no grumbles about that. But does the Minister deny to the House tonight that that same veterinary products committee has on two occasions advised the Minister against granting a product licence to Monsanto chemicals in respect of BST on grounds of safety? Will the Minister come clean and confirm to the House the accuracy of that information?
  In the past few months the Government have been in a state of complete disarray and confusion. This would be amusing if public health had not been at risk. There can be no doubt that the Government have shown incompetence in handling this issue. They have been pushed in one direction by the powerful drug and chemical companies and in the other by the strength of public feeling. But the issue goes to the root of the Conservative party's approach to the quality of life. Food safety and environmental protection cannot be attained purely by market forces. The food issue proves that even wealth cannot guarantee food of safe quality. Increasingly, both prosperous and poor people in Britain are seeing a great reduction in their quality of life.—[Interruption.] I am most amused by the ribaldry on the Government's side. I am sure that that is not shared by the commuters coming into our big cities who are caught up in the traffic when they travel by road or who experience overcrowding and cancellation if they travel by rail, for that is the order of the day. Anyone who travels on the London Underground knows that that service has deteriorated and that cuts in investment lead to delays, overcrowding and poor safety standards.

  931
  The Government, in their bid to reward their friends by privatising water, not only openly announce that they do not intend to adopt the European Commission's standards of safety for water, but actively campaign for those safety standards to be lowered. They are condemning millions of people in Britain to inferior water standards. That is not accepted by the Opposition.
  In essence, the debate has highlighted the differences between the Labour Opposition and the Government. The time has now come when the people see that the Government's fundamental approach is not in the interests of protecting the quality of life, whether that is the safety of our food, our water, our environment or our transport system. The events of the past few days illustrate clearly that people will demand better and higher standards with regard to their quality of life, especially for those essentials—food and water. It is clear that the Government, with their philosophical hang-up, are incapable of meeting the demands of the British people.
  9.35 pm
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John MacGregor): We have had a debate—[Interruption.] TI at shows how little the Opposition are prepared to lis .en. We allowed the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) who wound up for the Opposition to make his speech, and I hope that I will be allowed to reply to the many points that have been made in this debate. I will endeavour to reply to as many as possible, but at the beginning I should like to set the general background.
  I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) and with my hon. Friends the Members for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland) and for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock), who emphasised the very high standards of food safety we have in this country, both compared with any earlier period and compared with most other countries, and who insisted that it is right that the Government continue to deal with food safety issues in a logical, carefully thought out, clear and unhysterical manner. That is what we have been doing.
  Let me start by stressing that we see it as our responsibility, first, to ensure the safety of all food supplies, regardless of their source; secondly, to ensure that the interests of consumers and of the industry are taken fully into account; and, thirdly, to ensure that, throughout the food chain, there is effective monitoring and a framework of fully adequate regulations and the right framework to enforce them.
  In carrying out these responsibilities, we act on three principles, which I think it is very important to bear in mind: first, thorough surveillance and monitoring; secondly, prompt action—[Interruption.] On all the issues that have been raised today I will demonstrate that we have taken prompt action, but—and this is a critical point—it has been based on the best scientific, medical and technical advice, which, of course, means not acting on supposition or rumour but only when we have the clear information and evidence. The right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) talked about deregulation and about the Government's desire not to overburden the industry. We do not burden any industry with regulations unless there is good reason to do so, but we take the necessary action when the evidence is there.
  932
  The third general principle is that the public should be given full information, including the results of research and monitoring, and timely health advice. I shall have something to say later about the substance—or, rather, the lack of it—of the right hon. Gentleman's speech. Let me say straight away that there are three points on which I agree with him. First, the Government must set and maintain standards of protection—and that we have done and are doing. Secondly, as he accepted, consumers need to handle food properly. I was grateful to him for saying that, because some of his hon. Friends have suggested that when, this point is made, the Government are endeavouring to shuffle off responsibility. I do not think that that is the case at all, and he agreed that it was right to advise consumers of the need to handle food properly. We have to acknowledge the fact that food hygiene issues apply throughout the food chain.
  Dr. Reid rose—
  Mr. MacGregor: I am not going to give way, because I have many points to answer.
  We are carrying out the food hygiene education programme following market research that we undertook last year. That research indicated, among other things, that a surprisingly low proportion of consumers actually regard the home as a potential hazard for food. We agree on that, and we are taking action on it.
  The third point on which I agree with the right hon. Gentleman is the importance, as he put it, of the British people not over-reacting to panic headlines. This is a very important point. Many of my hon. Friends have emphasised the importance of keeping food issues in perspective. I only wish that some Labour Members had heeded their own leader's advice, including what the hon. Member for South Shields said in his winding-up speech.
  Dr. Reid rose—
  Mr. MacGregor: I have to give answers to many hon. Members who have raised questions in the debate, and I intend to do so.
  The right hon. Gentleman and some others spoke in exaggerated terms that do nothing to keep the matter in perspective. Let me emphasise that we are certainly) not complacent. We recognise that we have some new and serious problems.
  Dr. Reid rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. This has been a quiet debate so far. I hope that hon. Members who were not present during the debate will not now interrupt the Minister.
  Mr. MacGregor: I have a lot to cover. Many important points were raised. If I can get through them, I will give way.
  I want to emphasise that we are not complacent. We recognise that we have new and serious problems, which we have tackled and are tackling. Equally, there is no cover-up. We have always made public the information that is available to us. Indeed, one of the problems in the whole food issue is that we publish so much information it is sometimes difficult to get the key facts through consistently. So let me get the perspective clear.
  Our consumers are better protected than ever before in terms of our knowledge of potential risks and the action taken to reduce them. I emphasise the point on reduction

  933
  of risks since it is impossible to live in a risk-free environment. Those who ask that we should be salmonella-free do not understand the nature of the problem. Salmonella has existed ever since man can remember. [Interruption.] There is nothing odd in saying that. Salmonella is in the environment. It is not possible to eradicate it and no country has succeeded in doing so.
  What we aim to do is to reduce salmonella to the absolute minimum. I am told, for example, that each gramme of soil contains 10 to 100 million bacteria. It is self-evident that we cannot control birds and rodents or avoid muck among livestock. So problems always exist. What we can do is to observe all rules that protect the food chain. This we have done by regulations on what animals eat, what additions can be made to their diet and what medicines they can be treated with. For arable and horticultural crops, we have greatly increased the controls and regulations over pesticides and the quantities in which they can be used on land. There are strict controls over diseased animals. There are controls at slaughterhouses and throughout the distribution chain down to the retail cabinet in the supermarket.
  That demonstrates that the Government are very active in pursuing a science-based reduction of risk. In all areas where improvements can be made we are seeking to enhance safety margins. Often safety margins are ultra-safe.
  Dr. Reid rose—
  Mr. MacGregor: That is a clear response to the charge of the right hon. Gentleman that our emphasis is on protecting producers. On the new legislation on pesticides, on the fact that we have 17 measures dealing with the new strain of salmonella—[Interruption.] They are all in parliamentary answers. It would be pointless to reply to them now. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman does not do his homework. He does not read Hansard; they are all there. I shall happily send him the parliamentary answers.
  In all these ways, we have been taking measures to deal with the problems in the industry. On mineral hydrocarbons, despite the fact that the advice to us is that there is no food risk, to be ultra-safe we have taken further steps which the industry will have to follow. We are guided by various advisory bodies.
  Dr. Reid rose—
  Mr. MacGregor: We have a wide range of advisory bodies with outside experts on whose advice we act. I will demonstrate in answer to some of the issues that have been raised how quickly they have acted. These produce a stream of reports and we act on them promptly.
  Dr. Reid rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Opposition Front Bench spokesman was listened to quietly. I hope that the Minister will be accorded the same courtesy.
  Mr. MacGregor: With the background I have given, I come to some of the charges. We get advice and we publish reports. There was prompt action on Chernobyl lamb, on BSE, on dialdrin in eels, on salmonella and on mineral hydrocarbons, to give a few recent examples. Until very recently, we were constantly taking action based on the advice we received, but the reports of surveillance and the
  934
  action that we took normally did not get much press coverage. That did not mean that they were ineffective. They were doing a job and appropriate action was being taken in the interests of consumers.
  Dr. Reid rose—
  Mr. MacGregor: I want to get through the points that were made and then I shall give way.
  Of course, the industry, from the primary producers right through the food manufacturers to the retailers, has an equally strong interest, as some of my hon. Friends have been pointing out, in ensuring the highest possible standards of food safety and quality. After all, they depend on their customers, and increasingly their customers are demanding higher standards of quality. I believe that the industry has responded extremely well over recent years, and let me illustrate that by two points.
  British food exports have increased by nearly 140 per cent. over the last 10 years—and in the added-value food sector exports rose by 20 per cent. in the last year alone. One does not get that standard of performance of increased exports unless our food standards and quality are of the highest. That is the proof. British industry is spending substantial sums on investment. One company is spending £200 million in two years to improve food standards and quality. Those hon. Members who mentioned the importance of what supermarkets do to ensure high standards were quite right. Much has been happening recently.
  I would like to bring out a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen, when she drew attention to the fact that this country and Denmark are the only two member states in the European Community which have been accorded high standards of milk hygiene. When we reached that status at the end of last year it received a lot less publicity than a single food poisoning story, but I have to say that it was of much greater significance to the consumer. It was evidence of very high standards.
  As to the charge that we do not take the consumer into account when we are considering food issues, let me make it clear that my Department takes full account of consumer interests across the whole range of its activities. We have always been ready to meet representatives of consumer organisations and Ministers have always responded when asked to do so. Last year, in addition, my officials had 31 meetings with consumer organisations. My Department also requests written consultation with consumer organisations on a wide variety of issues. Much of the consultation is and can be taken into account in writing. In 1988 we consulted 40 consumer organisations on no fewer than 225 occasions on 35 different issues. We always consult under the Food Act when subordinate legislation is being proposed and last year we did so on 38 occasions. So consultation with consumers is intense.
  Now let me come to the salmonella issue, because I have indicated how we have taken prompt action on others. This is a new and growing problem, as everyone recognises. It is an international problem, which is being met in many other states. When the problem first came to the attention of our scientists, they had to investigate it carefully and closely towards the end of 1987 to be sure of the evidence before we acted. When it became clear that there was a problem with raw eggs, the Department of Health acted promptly both in relation to the hospital

  935
  service and the consumer. When it became clear in November of last year—and it only became clear then—that there could, in addition, be a problem directly related to lightly cooked eggs, on 21 November a health notice and an announcement were issued straightaway. In the period from August until the end of November my officials were working flat out with the Department of Health and with the industry to develop the measures we now see. As I told the Select Committee, a package was put in front of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary and myself in early November. We took decisions within a fortnight, strengthened them, and the first announcement was made in December. Since then we have taken 17 measures, and we can fairly claim that they are among the most comprehensive in any country in the world, because I have consulted all my ministerial colleagues in the Community, and I am confident that that is so.
  Similarly, with mineral hydrocarbons, we received the advice of our food advisory committee on 2 February this year. Within a week we had not only taken a decision but announced it to Parliament. That is the promptness with which we act.
  Let me turn now to BSE—[Interruption.] I will answer the point that the hon. Gentleman asked earlier about food protein and salmonella. He is quite right that I owe him an answer on that. The answer, as with so many of the issues concerned with salmonella, is that until this new and growing strain became clear, it was not necessary to take the kind of measures we take now, and that applied also to food protein. Incidentally, the hon. Gentleman ought to know that there are very few cases of salmonella enteritidis virus type 4 coming from food protein, whether imported or domestic.
  Nevertheless, one of the 17 measures that we have implemented is to take powers to stop the protein going from the plant. Those powers have been in operation since 2 February, and we will use them whenever the evidence is there. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) must not start shouting from a sedentary position. He has had his questions answered.
  Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones) raised the question of BSE. He is right to say that this is a new problem which must be taken seriously. Here, too, we acted promptly. The moment that it became clear that the probable source—not yet proved at that stage—was protein from other ruminants, namely sheep, we banned it. I also set up a committee under Sir Richard Southwood to advise us. Sir Richard will acknowledge that within days I accepted the exact advice and recommendations set out in his two interim reports and we took the necessary action.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours rose—
  Mr. MacGregor: I have a lot more to say.
  Very recently, Sir Richard put before me his final report. Ministers are now examining the report and its recommendations. We shall take a very quick view of it and publish it in full: I give that promise to the House.
  Hon. Members have given examples of food poisoning resulting from unpasteurised milk. The Government made a number of decisions to deal with the problem in England and Wales by limiting substantially the number of outlets for unpasteurised milk. We have a problem here. Let me
  936
  say to some of my hon. Friends who are unhappy about my recent announcement that I thought long and hard. It could be argued that straightforward information enabling the consumer to take his own view about a product is sufficient, but there is increasing public concern about food safety and we are constantly seeking ever higher standards. That is why we decided that in this instance such considerations outweigh freedom of consumer choice in relation to the continued sale of untreated milk.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that the Secretary of State is going to give way.
  Mr. MacGregor: I hope that my hon. Friends will forgive me for not giving way. There will be other opportunities for them to speak, and I must get through the rest of my reply.
  Effective heat treatment is known to be the only way in which to minimise the risks of transmitting milk-borne diseases to the consumer through unpasteurised milk. I therefore feel that it is right to take that step now. We shall be publishing—[Interruption.] Opposition Members want issues such as research and development to be discussed, and I am anxious to deal with them.
  We shall be publishing the consultative document later this week. Issues concerned with unpasteurised milk and other milk products will be included in that document. May I make it clear, however, that there is no intention of banning cheese.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. If the Minister will not give way, the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) and other hon. Members must not persist.
  Mr. MacGregor: I have some serious points to respond to about research and development. I hope that, despite the hubbub, I have made clear the position on cheese from unpasteurised milk. We do not propose a general ban, as will be clear from the consultation document.
  I have defended the position relating to near market research and development many times in the House. But it is not the case that the industry funding of near market research and development applies to issues of public good and food safety. We shall still be spending more than £200 million a year on research and development.
  With regard to salmonella, I am currently considering the recommendations of the working party's report and we have increased the amount of research into BST in the past year.
  The Leader of the Opposition charged us with the task of anticipating, planning and providing for change. One of the big challenges these days in relation to food safety is the fast-changing food technology, food processing and food innovation. We have been doing that regularly by bringing forward necessary regulations based on scientific advice such as the food hygiene regulations to which my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State referred.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours rose—
  Dr. Reid rose—
  Mr. MacGregor: Since October 1987 there has been a review of food legislation and when parliamentary time permits we propose to introduce a new Food Bill.
  We announced last year that we accepted the expert advice that under prescribed conditions irradiated food is safe and wholesome, but we also stated that we wanted to make sure that we had proper advice on the scope and format of regulatory controls before doing so. We expect a report from officials on that point.
  Because of the lack of time I have not been able to cover many issues that have been raised, but I have demonstrated that there has been no cover-up, no conspiracy with the industry and certainly no complacency, but regular and prompt action based on a wide range of scientific advice.
  The criticisms levelled against the Government and the British food industry today have been misleading and alarmist. They are also out of date and inaccurate. Labour's feeble claim that the British food industry is no more than a capitalist conspiracy against consumers is even dottier than suggesting that the Leader of the Opposition uses words as sparingly as Clement Attlee. If the Labour party is so concerned about food safety, why did it not initiate a single Opposition day debate on the subject between 1979 and 1989? Was it because Labour Members were satisfied with and supported our policies or was it because they lacked interest in and knowledge of the subject? The answer is yes to both questions. Now, suddenly they try to belittle our policies, which some of them have supported for the past 10 years and others have ignored.
  I refer to the exchanges in the House on 5 December 1988 when my right hon. Friend reported on salmonella in eggs and the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) responded—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker: I doubt whether it is a point of order, but I shall hear it.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: At 4.50 pm the Secretary of State gave me a promise that I would receive an assurance from the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food that all protein feedstuff supplies from the producer were free from salmonella. I still have not received such an assurance. What am I to do?
  Mr. Speaker: Order. That is patently not a point of order from me. It is a point of argument with the Minister.
  Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman raised that point of order for the simple reason that he is afraid of what I am about to say.
  In his reply on 5 December, the hon. Member for Livingston did not refer to the food safety aspects of salmonella; he simply called for the resignation of my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie).
  The Labour party lacks credibility on food issues and the performance of Labour Members today has shown us why. Their grasp of the subject has been scanty and their knowledge even scantier and that was reflected in the speech by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. By contrast, we have increased the number of food scientists and surveillance of the food chain. We have
  938
  increased expenditure on food safety and we have taken promptly all the necessary action based on the scientific advice.
  Another point of interest to the consumer is food prices. I noted that the Labour party is now suggesting a new food agency. I shall talk about that on another occasion. However, when the Labour Government had a Department of Prices and Consumer Protection, there was a massive increase in food prices much larger than has ever occurred under this Government. That is why we say that we are proud of our record. We are proud of the scientists, doctors and veterinary surgeons who monitor the changes with skill and probity. Today was expected to be the Leader of the Opposition's big day. He failed to make his case. I rest mine on our record.
  Mr. Derek Foster rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
  Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 199, Noes 289.

  Division No. 107]

  [10.00 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Darling, Alistair

  Alton, David

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Anderson, Donald

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Dewar, Donald

  Ashton, Joe

  Dixon, Don

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Dobson, Frank

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Doran, Frank

  Barron, Kevin

  Douglas, Dick

  Battle, John

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Beckett, Margaret

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Beith, A. J.

  Eadie, Alexander

  Bell, Stuart

  Eastham, Ken

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Fatchett, Derek

  Blair, Tony

  Fearn, Ronald

  Blunkett, David

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Boateng, Paul

  Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)

  Boyes, Roland

  Fisher, Mark

  Bradley, Keith

  Flannery, Martin

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Flynn, Paul

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Foster, Derek

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Foulkes, George

  Buchan, Norman

  Fraser, John

  Buckley, George J.

  Fyfe, Maria

  Caborn, Richard

  Galbraith, Sam

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Gordon, Mildred

  Cartwright, John

  Gould, Bryan

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Graham, Thomas

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Clay, Bob

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Clelland, David

  Grocott, Bruce

  Cohen, Harry

  Hardy, Peter

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Corbett, Robin

  Haynes, Frank

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Cryer, Bob

  Henderson, Doug

  Cummings, John

  Hinchliffe, David

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  939

  Holland, Stuart.

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Home Robertson, John

  Patchett, Terry

  Hood, Jimmy

  Pendry, Tom

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Pike, Peter L.

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Radice, Giles

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Randall, Stuart

  Illsley, Eric

  Redmond, Martin

  Ingram, Adam

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Janner, Greville

  Reid, Dr John

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Richardson, Jo

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Lambie, David

  Robertson, George

  Lamond, James

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Rooker, Jeff

  Leighton, Ron

  Ruddock, Joan

  Lewis, Terry

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Litherland, Robert

  Sheerman, Barry

  Livingstone, Ken

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Short, Clare

  Loyden, Eddie

  Skinner, Dennis

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  McCartney, Ian

  Smith, C. (Isl'ton & F'bury)

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)

  McFall, John

  Snape, Peter

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Soley, Clive

  McKelvey, William

  Spearing, Nigel

  McNamara, Kevin

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  McTaggart, Bob

  Steinberg, Gerry

  McWilliam, John

  Stott, Roger

  Madden, Max

  Strang, Gavin

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Straw, Jack

  Marek, Dr John

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Turner, Dennis

  Martlew, Eric

  Vaz, Keith

  Maxton, John

  Wall, Pat

  Meacher, Michael

  Walley, Joan

  Meale, Alan

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Michael, Alun

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Wilson, Brian

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Winnick, David

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Morley, Elliott

  Worthington, Tony

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Wray, Jimmy

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Mullin, Chris

  Murphy, Paul

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Nellist, Dave

  Mrs Llin Golding and

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths.

  O'Brien, William

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Body, Sir Richard

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Boswell, Tim

  Amess, David

  Bottomley, Peter

  Amos, Alan

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Arbuthnot, James

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Bowis, John

  Ashby, David

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Baldry, Tony

  Brazier, Julian

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Bright, Graham

  Batiste, Spencer

  Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Beggs, Roy

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

  Bendall, Vivian

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Benyon, W.

  Burns, Simon

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Burt, Alistair

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Butcher, John

  940

  Butler, Chris

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Butterfill, John

  Holt, Richard

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Carrington, Matthew

  Howard, Michael

  Carttiss, Michael

  Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)

  Cash, William

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Chope, Christopher

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Churchill, Mr

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Colvin, Michael

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Conway, Derek

  Irvine, Michael

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Irving, Charles

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Jack, Michael

  Couchman, James

  Jackson, Robert

  Critchley, Julian

  Jesse], Toby

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Day, Stephen

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Devlin, Tim

  Key, Robert

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Kilfedder, James

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Dover, Den

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Dunn, Bob

  Knapman, Roger

  Durant, Tony

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Knowles, Michael

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Knox, David

  Evennett, David

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Lang, Ian

  Fallon, Michael

  Latham, Michael

  Favell, Tony

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Forman, Nigel

  Lightbown, David

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Lilley, Peter

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Forth, Eric

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Lord, Michael

  Franks, Cecil

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Freeman, Roger

  McCrindle, Robert

  French, Douglas

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Gale, Roger

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Gill, Christopher

  Maclean, David

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Madel, David

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Matins, Humfrey

  Gow, Ian

  Mans, Keith

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Maples, John

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Marland, Paul

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Marlow, Tony

  Gregory, Conal

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Grist, Ian

  Mates, Michael

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Mellor, David

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Hannam, John

  Mills, Iain

  Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Harris, David

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Hayward, Robert

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Heddle, John

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Needham, Richard

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hill, James

  Norris, Steve

  Hind, Kenneth

  Pawsey, James

  941

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Raffan, Keith

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Riddick, Graham

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Thorne, Neil

  Ross, William (Londonderry E)

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Thurnham, Peter

  Rowe, Andrew

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Ryder, Richard

  Tracey, Richard

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Trippier, David

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Trotter, Neville

  Scott, Nicholas

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Viggers, Peter

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Walden, George

  Shersby, Michael

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Sims, Roger

  Waller, Gary

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Walters, Sir Dennis

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Ward, John

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Watts, John

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Wells, Bowen

  Speed, Keith

  Wheeler, John

  Speller, Tony

  Whitney, Ray

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Squire, Robin

  Wilkinson, John

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Steen, Anthony

  Wolfson, Mark

  Stern, Michael

  Wood, Timothy

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Woodcock, Mike

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Yeo, Tim

  Stokes, Sir John

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Sumberg, David

  Summerson, Hugo

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle, and

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Mr. Tom Sackville.

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments):—
  The House divided: Ayes 287, Noes 199.

  Division No. 108]

  [10.14 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Body, Sir Richard

  Amess, David

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Amos, Alan

  Boswell, Tim

  Arbuthnot, James

  Bottomley, Peter

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Ashby, David

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Bowis, John

  Baldry, Tony

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Batiste, Spencer

  Brazier, Julian

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Bright, Graham

  Beggs, Roy

  Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

  Benyon, W.

  Buck, Sir Antony

  942

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Burns, Simon

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Burt, Alistair

  Hind, Kenneth

  Butcher, John

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Butler, Chris

  Holt, Richard

  Butterfill, John

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Howard, Michael

  Carrington, Matthew

  Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Cash, William

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Chapman, Sydney

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Chope, Christopher

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Churchill, Mr

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Colvin, Michael

  Irvine, Michael

  Conway, Derek

  Irving, Charles

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Jack, Michael

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Jackson, Robert

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Jessel, Toby

  Couchman, James

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Critchley, Julian

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Key, Robert

  Day, Stephen

  Kilfedder, James

  Devlin, Tim

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Knapman, Roger

  Dover, Den

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Dunn, Bob

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Durant, Tony

  Knowles, Michael

  Dykes, Hugh

  Knox, David

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Lang, Ian

  Evennett, David

  Latham, Michael

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Fallon, Michael

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Favell, Tony

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Lightbown, David

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Lilley, Peter

  Forman, Nigel

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Lord, Michael

  Forth, Eric

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  McCrindle, Robert

  Franks, Cecil

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Freeman, Roger

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  French, Douglas

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Gale, Roger

  Maclean, David

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Gill, Christopher

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Madel, David

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Malins, Humfrey

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Mans, Keith

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Maples, John

  Gow, Ian

  Marland, Paul

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Marlow, Tony

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Gregory, Conal

  Mates, Michael

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Grist, Ian

  Mellor, David

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Mills, Iain

  Hannam, John

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Harris, David

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Hayward, Robert

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Heddle, John

  Needham, Richard

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  943

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Norris, Steve

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Pawsey, James

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Raffan, Keith

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Riddick, Graham

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Ridsdale Sir Julian

  Thorne, Neil

  Roberts, Wyn ,(Conwy)

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Thurnham, Peter

  Ross, William (Londonderry E)

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Rowe, Andrew

  Tracey, Richard

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Trippier, David

  Ryder, Richard

  Trotter, Neville

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Scott, Nicholas

  Viggers, Peter

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Walden, George

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Waller, Gary

  Shersby, Michael

  Walters, Sir Dennis

  Sims, Roger

  Ward, John

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Watts, John

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Wells, Bowen

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Wheeler, John

  Speed, Keith

  Whitney, Ray

  Speller, Tony

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Wilkinson, John

  Squire, Robin

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Wolfson, Mark

  Steen, Anthony

  Wood, Timothy

  Stern, Michael

  Woodcock, Mike

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Yeo, Tim

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Stokes, Sir John

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Sumberg, David

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Summerson, Hugo

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle and

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Mr. Tom Sackville.

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Alton, David

  Cartwright, John

  Anderson. Donald

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Clay, Bob

  Ashton, Joe

  Clelland, David

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Cohen, Harry

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Barron, Kevin

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Battle, John

  Corbett, Robin

  Beckett, Margaret

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Beith, A. J.

  Cryer, Bob

  Bell, Stuart

  Cummings, John

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Darling, Alistair

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Blair, Tony

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Blunkett, David

  Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)

  Boateng, Paul

  Dewar, Donald

  Boyes, Roland

  Dixon, Don

  Bradley, Keith

  Dobson, Frank

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Doran, Frank

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Douglas, Dick

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Buchan, Norman

  Eadie, Alexander

  Buckley, George J.

  Eastham, Ken

  Caborn, Richard

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  944

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Meacher, Michael

  Fatchett, Derek

  Meale, Alan

  Fearn, Ronald

  Michael, Alun

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Fisher, Mark

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Flannery, Martin

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Flynn, Paul

  Morley, Elliott

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Foster, Derek

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Foulkes, George

  Mullin, Chris

  Fraser, John

  Murphy, Paul

  Fyfe, Maria

  Nellist, Dave

  Galbraith, Sam

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  O'Brien, William

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Gordon, Mildred

  Patchett, Terry

  Gould, Bryan

  Pendry, Tom

  Graham, Thomas

  Pike, Peter L.

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Grocott, Bruce

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Hardy, Peter

  Radice, Giles

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Randall, Stuart

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Redmond, Martin

  Haynes, Frank

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Reid, Dr John

  Henderson, Doug

  Richardson, Jo

  Hinchliffe, David

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Robertson, George

  Holland, Stuart

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Home Robertson, John

  Rooker, Jeff

  Hood, Jimmy

  Ruddock, Joan

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Short, Clare

  Hume, John

  Skinner, Dennis

  Illsley, Eric

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Ingram, Adam

  Smith, C. (Isl'ton & F'bury)

  Janner, Greville

  Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk ds E)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Snape, Peter

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Soley, Clive

  Lambie, David

  Spearing, Nigel

  Lamond, James

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Leighton, Ron

  Stott, Roger

  Lewis, Terry

  Strang, Gavin

  Litherland, Robert

  Straw, Jack

  Livingstone, Ken

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Loyden, Eddie

  Turner, Dennis

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Vaz, Keith

  McCartney, Ian

  Wall, Pat

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Walley, Joan

  McFall, John

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Wareing, Robert N.

  McKelvey, William

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Wilson, Brian

  McTaggart, Bob

  Winnick, David

  McWilliam, John

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Madden, Max

  Worthington, Tony

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Wray, Jimmy

  Marek, Dr John

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Mrs. Llin Golding and

  Martlew, Eric

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths.

  Maxton. John

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  MR. SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House expresses complete confidence in the Government's policies for protecting the safety and quality of the nation's food and water supplies.

  Rating
  10.25 pm
  The Minister for Local Government (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer): I beg to move,
  That the draft Rate Limitation (Councils in England) (Prescribed Maximum) (Rates) Order 1989, which was laid before this House on 14th February, be approved.
  Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I draw your attention to the fact that the Order Paper notes:
  "The Instrument has not yet been considered by the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments"?
  I am happy to tell you that the instrument has been considered by the Committee and that there is nothing in the instrument to which we wish to draw the attention of the House. However, may I draw it to your attention that if there had been, the Committee would not have had time to ask for a memorandum or to take evidence and report to the House? Opposition and Government members of the Committee wanted me to express our deprecation that the order was being taken on the same day that it was being considered by the Committee. Such an arrangement should not be repeated because it hampers the work of the Committee.
  Mr. Speaker: Although I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern, I am pleased to hear that the Committee made no objection to the instrument. However, I am sure that members of the Government Front Bench have noted the hon. Gentleman's comments.
  Mr. Gummer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman that that was the case. As he knows, this is the last time that this particular format will be used. There are specific legal problems about timing that make this extremely difficult, but I apologise to all members of the Committee that this has happened.
  The order specifies rate limits for four of the seven authorities subject to rate capping in 1989–90. It marks the end of the rate-capping process, not only for the recent round, but for ever, for rate capping, of course, is not part of the new system of local government finance we are introducing from April 1990 and the system of charge capping, which we have provided in the new system, is rather different from rate capping both as regards its purpose and its operation.
  We introduced rate capping to protect ratepayers of those relatively few authorities which, due to their extravagances and incompetence, had a history of excessive spending—and rate capping has done its job. Gradually, the spending of the worst offenders has been brought down, so that this year we have been faced only with a hard core of seven authorities. We have lost some of our old favourites such as Liverpool and Lambeth, whose spending this year is now only modestly above their grant-related expenditure, or GRE—our needs assessment—although I would certainly not pretend that all is well in those authorities as regards the management of their finances and services.
  Even in the case of the seven authorities capped this year, we have made real progress in bringing down their spending. In 1984–85, Greenwich spent at nearly 60 per cent. over GRE. That compares with around 30 per cent. if it spends next year at the level implied by the limit we are
  946
  proposing in the draft order. Camden in 1984–85 was 85 per cent. over GRE compared with some 19 per cent. for next year, Lewisham nearly 53 per cent. in 1984–85 compared with 15 per cent. next year and Thamesdown 90 per cent. over GRE in 1984–85 compared with 37 per cent. next year. The average overspending of those authorities in 1984–85 was 69 per cent. Next year it will be a little over 20 per cent. That shows that rate capping has not only benefited ratepayers, but that it has enabled the more moderate and sensible of those authorities to bring their spending under control.
  Of course, I accept that some authorities have used creative accounting to camouflage for a time their true level of spending and to put off the day when real reductions have to be made. This, of course, made the reductions all the more painful when they had to be made.
  Mr. Peter Shore (Bethnal Green and Stepney): Simply as a point of information, may I say that I believe that three other local authorities are subjected to rate limitation but are not included in the order because agreement had already been reached with them. Can the Minister give the equivalent figures for their alleged over expenditure of GRE in 1984–85 or for whatever base year he was using, and what that figure is today?
  Mr. Gummer: I shall be happy to do so. Although I cannot give those figures now, I shall give them to the right hon. Gentleman later. In all cases, including those that have agreed with the final figures, we have gone into these matters in great detail. I pay tribute to all the authorities that have given information to us, especially the three that have reached agreement with us.
  Over the last couple of years we have been seeing authorities making real strides in reducing their excessive spending. As to rates, over the years there have been substantial reductions amounting to several hundred million pounds. Next year alone, ratepayers in those seven authorities will be contributing £40 million less than this year, with rate reductions of up to nearly 50 per cent., averaging 11 per cent. overall. I believe the position today is a tribute to the success of the rate capping system over the past five years.
  Turning to the current round, my right hon. Friend announced last July that he had designated seven authorities for rate limitation. They were budgeting to spend from 13 per cent. to 69 per cent. over their grant-related expenditure. He also informed the seven rate-capped authorities of the expenditure levels that he had determined for them using general principles as required by the statute, and they were given until 14 October to apply for redetermination of their expenditure levels—that is, to seek an increase.
  We received five applications and, as ever, examined them carefully. We looked at the individual circumstances of each authority and it was in the light of those circumstances that I took my decisions, which I announced to the House on 19 December. Those decisions had been delegated to me because of my right hon. Friend's visit to China. As hon. Members will recall, I decided in four cases—Greenwich, Hackney, Southwark and Tower Hamlets—that it would not be appropriate to
  redetermine their expenditure levels at a higher figure. I also decided, as I told the House in December, that given its particular circumstances it would not be appropriate to

  947
  grant Camden any increase in its expenditure level. In each case where I granted some redetermination, I imposed conditions as I am empowered to do under the statute.
  I emphasise that the purpose of the conditions is to encourage the authorities concerned to focus on their areas of greatest inefficiency. The problem facing us is not necessarily a party political argument. It is a question of efficiency in the attempt to use the ratepayers' money and the grant in the best possible way.
  It was against that background that I took my redetermination decisions. These conditions are to help those authorities which, for a variety of historical reasons, have real management problems. In many cases, if there has been poor management over a long period, it is extremely difficult to put the management right. I wanted the authorities to continue the process of putting their house in order and getting their management into shape. Sound management is a prerequisite of any political debate by those authorities about the level of the services that they wish to provide for their communities—[HoN. MEMBERS: "What about Westminster?"' Well, if we are talking about Westminster, we are not talking about rate capping because it is a well-run authority that does not charge high rates. What do Opposition Members want to do about Westminster? Do they want to refuse employed people their statutory rights? I am sure they do not.
  I see every sign that authorities are viewing the conditions positively. The rigorous self-examination that the conditions necessarily require of the authorities will be to the benefit of all concerned, leading to greater value for money for the ratepayers. We all want that.
  Mr. Clive Soley (Hammersmith): Talking of greater efficiency and better management of ratepayers' money, let us return to Westminster. If ever there was a case for a Minister to step in, it was there. We know that the money was not just what was legally due to the man, but that the council bought silence by an agreement—that is public.
  Mr. Gummer: When the hon. Gentleman is willing to say that outside the privilege of the House, I shall listen to him. He knows perfectly well that what he said is not true.
  I must return to my narrative of the events behind the order. On 19 December, all seven authorities—[interruption.] These are important matters for the authorities concerned. If they want to debate Westminster, no doubt Opposition Members can table a motion to enable them to do so; however, I am discussing important decisions taken over a long period. Some of us care about them strongly, which is why we redetermined the grant and gave the authorities more money when we thought that that was right. If Opposition Members do not care about Camden, Hackney, Lewisham, Greenwich, Southwark, Tower Hamlets and Thamesdown and prefer to make party-political points, that will be noticed in all those places.
  On 19 December all seven authorities were also informed of the rate limits that I proposed for 1989–90. They were given the opportunity, as statute allows, to accept their proposed limit within a specified deadline—by 20 January. In passing, I may tell the hon. Member for Bradford. South, who so courteously raised the point about the Select Committee, that the deadlines make it difficult to offer the Select Committee the courtesy that it deserves. I apologise again to him for that.
  948
  When councils did not accept their proposed limit, it was open to them to make representations for a higher limit. As hon. Members who have been following these matters closely will know, Tower Hamlets accepted the rate limit I had proposed, but the other six authorities did not. They made representations for a higher rate limit. We received a large amount of material from most of these authorities seeking to persuade us that in their particular circumstances we should allow some relaxation of the rate limits.
  I had meetings with representatives of Camden, Greenwich and Lewisham; I had also met Thamesdown and Greenwich councillors earlier in the rate limitation round. Officers from Hackney, Lewisham and Southwark met my officials. All these meetings were frank, but courteous, and my right hon. Friend and I found them of help to us. Indeed, the contact we had with authorities was a measure of the progress we have made in the past few years in tackling extravagance, waste and inefficiency in local government. All the capped authorities—[Interruption.] It is a little difficult to discuss these councils if Opposition Members want to talk only about Westminster. I should be happy to do that, except that, as the council is not rate capped, I should be out of order if I did.
  None of the authorities was seeking a confrontation and their dealings with us were restrained and, as I have said, courteous. With Hackney and Southwark we were able to reach agreement on higher limits. So we were left with the four authorities in the draft order—by far the fewest we have had in the five years of rate capping and, as I said earlier, a vindication of its success. But I must not. even on the occasion of such felicitations from both sides, paint too rosy a picture.
  These four authorities, and indeed the three authorities with whom we have agreed limits, still have much to do to get themselves on a sound footing. As well as keeping expenditure down, they could do more to get income up. Their council house rents are still generally low compared to those charged by other councils. There are often problems in completing right-to-buy sales. Camden and Lewisham had a backlog of almost 5,000 cases between them at the end of December last year. That means that those who want to buy their homes have not been able to do so, and also that the receipts from those sales are not available to the authorities concerned.
  Some authorities continue to maintain considerable and valuable portfolios of surplus land. Opposition Members say that this is unacceptable, but many of them represent areas where Labour councils would be ashamed to have such large backlogs. There is an embarrassment where authorities are not competent in dealing with these matters when compared with other authorities, such as Barking and Dagenham and the way in which it is able to deal with its rent and rates arrears. It is a Labour authority with more than 30,000 houses, yet is able to deal efficiently with the collection of rents and rates. It is difficult I o understand why, if that authority can do it, some other authorities seem unable to do so. It cannot be that there is something wrong with it politically or because it is in London; the reason must be, in the case of many of the rate-capped authorities, that an authority is not running its organisation efficiently enough.
  Mr. Bernie Grant (Tottenham): Does the Minister accept that there is a difference on the question of poverty

  949
  between an outer London borough such as Barking and Dagenham and an inner London borough such as Hackney, because the Minister's own index of deprivation puts Hackney at the very top, whereas Barking and Dagenham is a lot lower than Hackney?
  Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman puts that argument, but a comparison between, say, Wandsworth and Southwark shows that the hon. Gentleman would be wrong. Those are both inner London boroughs, one having a reasonably good record in rent and rate arrears and the other a very poor one.
  But let me compare Brent with the London borough of Barking and Dagenham, two outer London boroughs. I am speaking from memory, but I recall that Barking and Dagenham has rent arrears in the range of 5 to 6 per cent. whereas Brent has rent and rate arrears amounting to 100 per cent. of each rent roll, or certainly very nearly that.
  The reason in such cases must be very often that the council officers do not get support from the elected members in dealing with these matters whereas in other authorities they do. This is not a party political matter. Labour-controlled Brent is bad at doing it, and Labour Barking and Dagenham is good at doing it. They ought both to be good at it for the benefit of the ratepayers and those who rent their houses.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover): There is another way of looking at the question of arrears. Does the Minister accept that in 1988 the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that there would be arrears on the balance of payments in Britain of about £4 billion, but at the end of the year they were more than three times higher, at £14 billion?
  Mr. Gummer: That does not have much to do with the fact that in Barking and Dagenham the council collects the rents whereas in Brent it does not. It is easier to collect the rents if an example is set by the elected councillors, and the officers know that the councillors will support them in their actions.
  Southwark, for example, told us that it was owed about £53 million in total in rent and rates. Hackney has rent and rate arrears of £19 million. The conditions that I have imposed on both of those authorities are designed to address that situation. The remedy is one of more effective collection arrangements, coupled with more realistic accounting should the debts appear no longer likely to be collectable. Such measures would do much to improve the financial position of these authorities.
  When authorities in deprived areas—whether they be Labour or Conservative—despite difficulties, manage to do this properly, it is reasonable for them to ask why others find it impossible. It is necessary to say that it is a matter of competence and not of party politics.
  We looked very carefully indeed at the material we received from the four authorities to which the draft order refers, but I have to say that my right hon. Friend remains convinced that the rate limits for these authorities that were proposed in December are reasonable and appropriate in their circumstances. All four authorities are planning to live within their means. Also—and this is truer of some authorities than of others—they have plans afoot to cut costs in an organised, rather than an ad hoc, way.
  950
  We believe that the best way to ensure that this trend continues is by not allowing any relaxation of the rate limits.
  As I have indicated previously, there is an air of realism pervading local government today, and with these limits I am confident that the authorities will continue along the sensible path, on which they have all embarked, of seeking to provide the services their communities need at a cost their communities can afford.
  But I am afraid that there are still some silly things going on which, although not often significant in financial terms, show that authorities have still not completely learnt the lesson that it is their ratepayers' interests that count—not ideological nit-picking. Lewisham, with all its much-trumpeted cost-cutting and staff reductions—which I accept it has made—still thought it a priority to appoint an arts adviser at £11,000 a year to advise on locations for municipal sculpture. Greenwich found time to discuss in one meeting having a street named after Ms Deirdre Wood.
  As for Camden, its ventures in lesbian propaganda amongst its caretakers may have given many people a good deal of innocent amusement. Less amusing have been Camden's advertisements for a director, direct services, at £40,000 a year, and an assistant director, business management, at £28,000 a year—both dedicated to keeping services in Camden in-house, among them refuse collection and street sweeping, for which Camden council's incompetence is now a byword.
  People are being taken on at that price to try to keep services within the local authority when, if ever there were local authorities that needed to seek advice from professionals outside, for the benefit not only of their ratepayers but of everyone else, this is one. After all, bad street sweeping and bad refuse collection affect especially those who are least able to look after themselves. That is why this is a matter of very considerable concern to many of us.
  Of the assistant director, business management, we learn that
  "ensuring that essential public services are provided in house is one of the more demanding and rewarding activities in local government today."
  It does not seem to me a rewarding and demanding activity to try, for ideological reasons, to retain a particular series of services which, as is obvious to anyone who knows the borough, are not very well run in-house. Would it not be well to see if others could provide them better and more cheaply, giving better value for money? I am sure that that would result in savings and that the money saved could be spent on all sorts of things that most of us realise the ratepayers of Camden would like to have.
  Mr. Frank Dobson (Holborn and St. Pancras): Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that there are officials employed by his Department and the Department of Health whose task is to further the privatising of services? What is the difference?
  Mr. Gummer: I cannot answer for the Department of Health. The purpose of the officials in my Department is to try to ensure that people in local government have a choice. They go out to tender and decide what is best. No, the choice lies in the local authority deciding what is best for the ratepayer. What we are talking about here is the appointment of officials to decide what is best for the

  951
  ratepayer but to make sure, for ideological reasons, that the ratepayer is not getting the choice, because services are provided in-house.
  I have to say to the hon. Gentleman, who represents part of Camden, that I hope he will go back and ask people there whether they are entirely satisfied with the street cleaning and the refuse collection. If the first 10 people asked at random agree, I shall be extremely surprised, and I shall certainly withdraw my comments about that matter.
  To be completely fair to Camden, I want to point this out: both advertisements emphasise the need for quality services, competitiveness and even entrepreneurial skill—three requirements which are somewhat new in Camden's vocabulary. But the way to give Camden's ratepayers a better deal is simply to put its services out to competition and try to find the best way to deal with them.
  Mr. Dobson: Can the Minister tell us the last time the district auditor commended Camden's refuse collection services?
  Mr. Gummer: I think that the hon. Gentleman knows that in the decisions about these matters I have to consider as a whole the various information which I receive about Camden. I will tell the hon. Gentleman much more directly. I know very well that if Camden runs a good service it has nothing to fear from going out to competition. It has something to fear only if it runs a bad service. Why does Camden want to employ somebody to make sure that it does not lose the contract? We want competition to ensure that the people of Camden and of all the other boroughs—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) and his views about religion are well known. He is an expert on the subject. [Interruption.] From a seated position, he continues about it.
  Mr. Allan Roberts (Bootle)rose—
  Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman has been spouting his views on religion from a seated position for some time. The hon. Gentleman must listen to this—
  Mr. Allan Robertsrose—
  Mr. Gummer: I am not giving way. [Interruption.] There is nothing abusive about that. I am sure that he has very good views about religion.
  The three authorities—Camden, Greenwich and Lewisham—have in total budgeted to spend over £2 million on lesbian and gay, women's and race committees in 1988–89. The Government are committed to equal opportunities, but I doubt whether highlighting matters by having a women's committee or a gay and lesbian committee is anything other than expensive and counterproductive. That £2 million could be better spent, even on the very subjects that are supposed to be covered, than on such committees.
  Last, but by no means least, I would not want hon. Members to think that I had forgotten Thamesdown. Indeed, one cannot easily forget the Thamesdown councillors after the riveting account in the rate support grant debate on 19 January by my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) of their "naughty but nice" activities. There was, he said, "money for everything". Rather than cut back on its extravagances, Thamesdown resorted to creative accounting, selling the largest park in the centre of Swindon. All this was to finance every kind of extravagance, including grandiose
  952
  twinning schemes with central American countries. I wonder whether the people of Thamesdown would prefer to own their own park rather than find themselves twinned with parts of Nicaragua.
  I return to the draft order. At an individual authority level, the changes in the rates of these four authorities range from a reduction of 16 per cent. in Lewisham to an increase of 11 per cent. in Greenwich. Taken together with the rate limits already accepted by Hackney, Southwark and Tower Hamlets, the rate reduction is equivalent to £40 million.
  I believe the rate limits specified in the order to be reasonable and appropriate to the individual authorities concerned in all their circumstances. I believe, too, that the overall result for local ratepayers is good. There is every sign that authorities are buckling down to the task of living within these rate limits. I ask the House to have regard to ratepayers' interests in this final year of rate limitation. I remind hon. Members that many of those who are asked to pay rates are less well off than many for whom the services are provided. We have to remember that many ratepayers find it difficult to pay the very high rates which have been levied in many parts of London. I say that with some feeling, coming from the London borough of Ealing, but the coming of rate limitation has brought down the rates in many authorities. Many authorities have learnt to live within those rate limitations, and many of them have found that it is perfectly possible to provide the necessary services without hitting the ratepayer in an unacceptable way. I commend the order to the House.
  10.55 pm
  Mr. David Blunkett (Sheffield, Brightside): I feel a sense of nostalgia this evening, on the fifth occasion of rate orders being laid against authorities. If it were not so late, there would be a great deal that I could say, but I want to put on record that I do not think that this House should sit, except in very unique circumstances, after 10 pm, and, given that the weight of numbers overrides the weight of reason on these occasions, there is little point in trying to persuade Government Members that the rate capping that they have imposed over the last five years has been both futile and unsuccessful.
  It has been futile because each action that they have taken has led them inexorably into another turn of the screw and another piece of legislation, and there is no question whatsoever that what has been imposed through rate capping has distorted the making of budgets, the planning of the financial management of authorities, the use of capital resources, and the stretching of ingenuity in a quite unhelpful way in terms of delivering services and improving the lot of those whom we seek to serve.
  If I might just go over the history of rate capping, with which I am all too familiar, it was, of course, way back in the early 1980s that the suggestion was made that local authorities' expenditure and rates should be fixed from the centre, a suggestion which is unmatched anywhere else in the world, and which is unjustified financially and politically. We went through with the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) the performance of putting forward proposals for a referendum, which were then withdrawn on the ground that the electorate might actually vote to spend money and provide services rather than agree with the Government.

  953
  We then came to the rate capping issues of 1984–85 and promises that authorities, if they behaved responsibly and responded to Government demands that services should be reduced and the rates lowered, would actually be treated in a responsible fashion. Tonight we see the results of that: five years of rate capping. The four authorities that we are dealing with tonight find that each Government budget and rate set for them determine that they will be rate capped the following year, because the Government set the criteria. The Government have set the rate for five years, rigged the criteria in the first place, then adjusted it. That is what they did. That resulted in the inevitable. The authorities being debated tonight could not escape from rate capping, whatever they did. Their spending and their rate levels were fixed by the Government and they could not free themselves from that yoke.
  Ironically, those authorities which used ingenuity in the first year of rate capping and used means that have since been condemned and outlawed by the Government actually escaped from the second and subsequent years of rate capping. For instance, deferred purchase deals, which have been abused so roundly by the Government, not only ensured that the accepted spending levels were lower because of the recognition of income for that criteria to be applied, and that those authorities which used it effectively escaped from rate capping, but maximised their grant income. A more stupid system one could never have imagined.
  Of course, when we changed Secretaries of State, and the present Secretary of State for Education temporarily assumed the mantle of the Department of the Environment, he pronounced, in May 1986, that he found rate capping intellectually indefensible. He did not last more than two months after that. He was moved on to pastures new where he could perform more readily in relation to his prospects.
  None of us could intellectually accept, justify or defend rate capping, because it cannot be defended. Only the authorities whose budgets were already above a certain level were eligible for rate capping anyway—a neat way of ensuring that very high-rating authorities with a lower spending level would automatically escape. That is why the authority in the Minister's constituency has not been rate capped. Since 1981 Suffolk, Coastal has increased its rate by 218 per cent. and its budget by 132 per cent. Small authorities such as Selby have almost equalled it. Selby has increased its rate by 177 per cent. The City of London, of course, has exceeded the expectations of everyone except those who would have a vote in the area, but do not, with a rate increase of 79 per cent. but an expenditure increase of 180 per cent. Brentwood's expenditure has risen by 322 per cent., which I do not think can be matched anywhere.
  Hon. Members may say, "It is not the expenditure level but the amount over grant-related expenditure assessment that determines the rate cap." The present Secretary of State for Northern Ireland had something to say about that when he was Minister of State at the Department of the Environment. On 1 April 1980—a very appropriate date to pronounce on the matter—he said that it was not suggested that grant-related assessment prescribed a specific level of spending for any particular authority. He said that he wanted to make it clear that that was not the intention and that he was seeking to find the fairest way to
  954
  distribute public money to local authorities. It did not take four years to denounce that. In July 1984 the Secretary of State—now Lord Jenkin—summed it up by saying that that was then, and that now was now. In other words, whatever Conservative Members may say, it may not last 24 hours if they feel that the circumstances have changed sufficiently.
  Now that we have reached the fifth year, let us examine what is happening to local authorities. Let us take the district of Thamesdown, which has been so roundly abused by the Minister tonight. If its expenditure had been slightly lower in 1984 it would never have been rate capped in the first place, and could have joined the authorities that can spend as much as they like above grant-related expenditure because they do not already fall within the criteria. It could join authorities such as the City of London which have constantly exceeded grant-related expenditure levels—in the case of Brentwood by the enormous figure of 276·7 per cent. The City of London has done so by 99·6 per cent.
  I got on to the wrong train on Friday. Instead of going to Southampton I made my way towards Guildford. Luckily I got off at the wonderful junction of Surbiton, but had I gone to Guildford I would have found that its expenditure over GREA was 98 per cent. That seems a peculiar justification for treating certain Labour authorities in hard-pressed urban areas in the way in which they have been treated.
  When Thamesdown councillors met the Minister on 24 November they put a reasonable case to him, suggesting that the amount allowed to them for poll tax preparation—£164,000—had fallen short by £500,000, their real expenditure for next year being £658,000 on implementation. The Minister listened carefully and acknowledged that that was a reasonable point. He also acknowledged that it was reasonable to take into account the historic debt of a town that had developed rapidly in the 1960s and 1970s, but when the rate-capping order was laid the case of Thamesdown was ignored.
  I do not consider that any of the authorities had a fair and reasonable hearing because they were condemned to rate capping from the beginning as they were unable to avoid meeting the criteria. Given their existing expenditure, the extent of their problems and the fact that those in London have to cope with the preparations for the transfer of ILEA and taking over education, and taking into account the fact that, using the GDP deflator, there has been a cut of more than 17 per cent. in their expenditure, it would not have been unreasonable for the Government to have lifted rate capping completely in the final year before the poll tax and to have allowed local authorities to budget sensibly.
  Poll tax was suggested as the antidote to rate capping. The Green Paper "Paying for Local Government" contained no suggestion that there would be poll tax capping. Only when the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) asked a planted question on 28 October 1987 did the Government reveal that they had changed their mind, that the poll tax was not so accountable, responsive and democratic after all and that poll tax capping would have to be introduced.
  The hon. Member for Hallam is not here tonight because he has one of the occasional days off that Conservative Members get under their rota system.
  Mr. Skinner: Bisques.
  Mr. Blunkett: I would call them beasts rather than bisques, if that is not an unparliamentary term.
  The hon. Member for Hallam knows all about rate capping because just after Sheffield was rate capped in 1985, and a tremendous debate took place in the city, just two months after the rate was set there were two local government by-elections. The other two Tories who contested the Broom Hill ward in Sheffield decided to bail out, given the political climate. Both seats fell to the Labour party for the first time in history and in 1988 so did the seat held by the hon. Member for Hallam. That was the democratic verdict of the people of Sheffield on the introduction of rate capping. They will reach the same verdict on the poll tax and poll tax capping.
  The Minister should make absolutely clear what criteria will be applied for poll tax capping. How will authorities know whether their expenditure levels and poll tax levels will subject them to the poll tax regime? If they do not know, they cannot plan and will be condemned after the event. They will not have a chance to plan sensibly with financial management that assists the people of their areas, as all the treasurers and members of the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy have said for many years. Those are important questions, because we are involved not in a game, but in issues affecting the lives of people who need home helps, want decent education, care about what happens to the under-fives, want to invest in the future of their children and want to live in a decent environment. Everyone wants those things and steps need to be taken to ensure that expenditure is handled fairly, reasonably and competently. Of course, housing rents need to be collected and no one could justify the Minister's figures. But when we compare those figures with the activities in which some Conservative authorities are indulging, the matter is brought into perspective.
  It is not just the sale of cemeteries for 15p, or the £1 million handout to the chief executive of Westminster city council; it is the contempt that authorities such as Westminster show towards the people whom they are supposed to serve. Some Conservatives in local government—for example, Philip Merridale in Hampshire have bailed out because they have had enough of the abuse, intimidation and degradation that is handed out to them.
  A number of local authorities were taken before the district auditor over rate capping. Lambeth and Liverpool were surcharged. Islington still awaits the district auditor's decision. Lambeth—in my view, quite outrageously—is threatened again, four years later, with a return visit of that kind. If anybody deserved to be taken in front of the district auditor and to be accused of wilful misconduct and the threat of surcharge, it is Lady Porter and her colleagues on Westminster city council.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not stray too far from the terms of the order.
  Mr. Blunkett: I accept your judgment, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The sums of money that were allegedly lost because of delayed rate making under the rate-capping regime and the action that was taken by those councillors to defend services bear no comparison with the millions of pounds to which I have just referred.
  Let us look to the future. After the turning of the screw, capping, abolition, the Local Government Bill, the poll tax
  956
  and the Local Government and Housing Bill, the Government may now realise that enough is enough. They have introduced 50 Bills that affect local government in one way or another—and if they do not realise that, the electorate will make their views clear. They want to be free to decide for themselves. They want the dead hand of the state to be removed. They want to be able to enjoy diversity, to take advantage of pluralism and to raise money and spend it on services that will benefit them. Those issues will be so important that they will form a major plank in ensuring that once and for all we get rid of the Minister and his colleagues.
  11.3 pm
  Mr. John Maples (Lewisham, West): The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) chose to defend rate-capped authorities in reasonable terms, but he has completely failed to come to grips with what so outrages my hon. Friends and me. It is not that these authorities are choosing to levy high rates to help poor people in their boroughs; it is the outrageous waste, inefficiency and extraordinarily distorted sense of priorities that they have demonstrated. If the hon. Gentleman cannot come to grips with that fact, it is an amazing reflection on his party's attitude to local government—that it condones some of the matters to which the Minister referred and some of the matters that affect Lewisham.
  The best thing about the order for my constituents and me is that it still contains a rate limitation on the London borough of Lewisham. That will be welcomed by the borough's residents. They are intelligent and perceptive people. At least, they were in 1970 and 1983, although they had a lapse in between. It was during the time that they had that lapse that they found that in every year when there was no council election their rates increased by 20 per cent. That happened four or five years in a row, until the rates reached almost astronomical proportions. If they had continued to increase at that rate, rates for the average householder in Lewisham would now be about £1,200 a year. Rate capping has meant that during the last five years rates in Lewisham have remained fairly constant. There is to be a 9 per cent. cut this year, which will be worth between £50 and £60 for each household in the borough.
  The Labour party petitioned for a redetermination. It wanted the rates to be increased by 19 per cent., which would have resulted in an additional £100 rates burden on each household. The difference between rate capping and what the council wanted to do is well over £3 a week for the average ratepayer in Lewisham.
  We have discovered during the last five years in Lewisham that, despite the prediction that the world would come to an end, the borough has managed to survive within its rate-capped limit and that at last it is beginning to take some of the tough decisions which, if they had been taken some time ago, would have made their financial position now much easier.
  I will give some examples of the waste and inefficiency to which I referred and of some of the distorted priorities that we find in rate-capped councils such as Lewisham. In the housing department, a basic function of local government, the rent arrears in Lewisham are £7…5 million, what I thought was an astronomical figure until the Minister mentioned the level of rent arrears in other boroughs such as Brent and Southwark.

  957
  The rate arrears of non-council tenants in Lewisham are also £7.5 million. We have 80 tenants who owe over £3,000 each and one tenant, who has not paid any rent for seven years, now owes £8,500 to the council. We have 132 overseas students each of whom owes over £600. Nobody can suggest that this policy is helping poor, deprived and disadvantaged people in Lewisham.
  To continue this saga of horror stories from the housing department, we have plenty of empty properties, but one house has been empty and totally unoccupied for 14 years, since December 1975, even though we have a homeless family problem in Lewisham. We spend £30 million subsidising the rents out of the rates, which is an average of £15 per house. Labour Members know this because we had a public meeting about it and they were surprised to learn that that was the level. The level of subsidy is running at £750 per house.
  This is evidence of rank bad management. It is not evidence of an attempt to move resources from the better-off in society to the less well-off. It is no wonder, with that record of bad management, that, even with the money that is spent by the housing department, the tenants are unhappy. They cannot get repairs done, they can never get a transfer and there is a mass of empty houses and a long waiting list of homeless families who want them.
  The council is not short of money. It is short of the ability to direct that money in a sensible way. There are many other stories of inefficiency and an extraordinary sense of priorities in Lewisham. We have a children's home containing two children and 11 staff. We spent £500,000 on a construction industry training programme sponsored by the council to train 30 people, which managed to lose ?500,000, so it cost us £17,000 for each person trained over the course of a year.
  Staff sickness in the transport department of the council is running at an average of two months per employee per year and, unsurprisingly, the level of sickness went up when the employees discovered that they could still collect their bonuses regardless of whether they went sick. Early last year we had 1,500 more staff than we had in 1979, yet we are supposed to have been subjected to the most awful cuts. We have a council propaganda sheet on which the council spends £80,000 a year, a fraction of the budget that its PR department manages to spend.
  It also has an extraordinarily warped sense of priorities because at the same time as it is threatening to cut basic social services the council has taken on 10 staff from the London strategic policy unit at a cost of £150,000 a year. We have a mobile creche with a £74,000 grant which works out at a unit cost of £1,000 an hour. During a council committee meeting at which Conservative councillors asked for that grant to be examined for its efficiency and effectiveness, the council refused to do that, but at the same time froze the grant for disabled people's holidays at £25,000. That is Lewisham council's sense of priorities. It is prepared to spend £150,000 on a political propaganda unit and freeze the budget for disabled people's holidays at £25,000.
  A few months ago it looked as though the council was going to abolish its rates and sex equality units, a piece of news which was greeted with joy by my constituents and the other voters of Lewisham. But that joy was premature
  958
  because they found that they were not being abolished. A new equality unit, which would cost more£250,000 a year—was being set up in their place.
  My right hon. Friend mentioned our borough artist. We had one a few years ago who cost £10,000 and who produced a bit of art. The present one is getting £11,000 and his only task is to advise on whether there is scope for putting art in public places. Lewisham is also spending £12 million on a new town hall. All that comes at a time when my constituents are being told how short of money is the council, that vital services are being theatened, that repairs to council property cannot be effected, and so on.
  A report that the council itself commissioned shows that it cannot keep the borough's streets clean. Pensioners in lunch clubs are made to do their own washing up to save money—and, I repeat, the grant for disabled people's holidays has been frozen. But there is plenty of money available for the pet political projects of Lewisham council's Labour group.
  One of the good points about rate capping is that it forces down the level of the community charge. The first exemplifications suggested that, after the safety net expired, Lewisham's community charge might be nearly £700. Simply as a result of rate capping in the last two years, the figure is now below £600. The council's Conservative group believes, as I do, that a community charge of £300 is attainable, but to achieve that there must be a safety net reduction over four years of £300. That is £54 million—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not go too far down that road. The order makes no mention of the community charge.
  Mr. Maples: I shall be careful not to stray out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was merely endeavouring to explain to my right hon. Friend the beneficial effects of rate capping in Lewisham and that to reduce future expenditure to a level that ratepayers will find acceptable we must make savings of ?54 million on a budget—after we take responsibility for education—of £400 million.
  Such a saving is distinctly achievable—mainly by paying regard to the items I mentioned. The council makes no effort to redeem part of the enormous debt that it has run up over the years—which now totals £450 million, and costs nearly £50 million per year in interest—yet there is a simple way of doing so. If the council gets rid of some of the right-to-buy backlog that it refuses to process, it could easily clear a substantial part of that debt.
  Rate capping has been good for Lewisham. For four years it has been welcomed by the residents of the borough, and it will be again this year. The council is finally seeing sense and finding ways of saving money, and, despite its blackmail tactics in respect of cuts in social service provision, it is realising that sensible economies can be made. I am delighted that my right hon. Friend is taking power to continue capping of the community charge, but I hope that, come next year, we shall be able to offer him a far better alternative—a Conservative-controlled council, so that no further such action will be necessary.
  11.22 pm
  Mr. Matthew Taylor (Truro): This is the first time that I have had an opportunity to speak in the House on the subject of rate capping, and it may be appropriate to begin by making clear my party's position—which is one of

  959
  opposition to such powers being given to the Minister. We oppose it in the same way that we opposed it on each occasion in the past. I shall explain why that is, and why the House should not agree to the order—any more than it should have accepted earlier orders.
  I am opposed to rate capping because it is an attack on the principle of local democracy, and because it is a crass way of trying to meet the needs of areas having special and particular problems—some of the poorest, most needy areas of the country. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister refers to needs and expenditure assessment, but they are in each case a matter of his assessment and that of his Government—not of the local people who are forced to suffer the impact of such changes.
  No one defends the excesses of the Labour Left that the Minister attacked. I agree with much of what he said, and accept the veracity of many of the examples he gave of local government going wrong. However, I will defend to the last the right of local people to decide whether they agree with their council's actions—rather than the Minister, or this or any Government, making that decision for them. I defend also the needy, who have seen services cut back—yet they have no power, through the ballot box or by making representations to their councillors, to influence what happens. In effect, the Minister and the Government have taken that power to themselves. That should not come as any surprise because throughout the Government have taken the same attitude. They say that they have identified problems in local authorities and identified local authorities which are getting matters substantially wrong, and their response is to take power to sort matters out rather than let the local electorate make their choice.
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett: As the hon. Gentleman should be aware, in the boroughs of Lewisham, Greenwich and Camden especially, less than one third of the electorate pay rates. We intend to change that by introducing the community charge which will affect all voters, creating a direct correlation between those who vote and those who pay for the services that they receive. Why did the hon. Gentleman's party vote against that?
  Mr. Taylor: I shall come to that later.
  First, let me quote the Secretary of State for the Environment in 1987, who commented very much along the lines of the hon. Gentleman, when he said:
  "We must either have more and more central control or local electors must exert real local control. We vote for local control."
  The hon. Gentleman is trying to say that through the poll tax local control will be given to people in a way that does not exist under the present rating system. That is the justification that Ministers have given. They have said that rate capping is needed because local authorities are unrepresentative. They have referred to near one-party states. They have frequently said that such a step was necessary because so few people contributed to the rates, so few people responded to high rate increases.
  The problem is that we now find that the Government are to introduce poll tax capping. If what the hon. Gentleman was saying is correct, they would not have had to do that. The truth is that the Government do not believe that that is what it is about. The Minister sincerely believes that he knows better than the local people what should happen; that it is necessary for him to reserve the power to
  960
  override the electorate. It is not rate capping or poll tax capping; it is electorate capping. The Government are telling the local electorate the point beyond which they cannot go.
  That should not be much of a surprise because it has been reflected in a host of other Government policies, whether restricting councils' abilities to build housing to meet local needs, the abolition of the local business rate to create a national business rate, or rule after rule on expenditure, quite apart from rate capping.
  I do not deny that there are a handful of extreme Labour-controlled authorities which have acted wrongly, as the Minister said. I do not deny that on occasions, as a result of some policies, Labour-controlled authorities have given the Minister the opportunity to criticise them for maladministration and extravagance, allowing the Government to introduce their policies. But it is not for the Minister to judge that. The principle of local government is that that judgment lies with the local electorate. That is why we have local government. Otherwise we would have a local bureaucracy. We do not need to elect people to translate Government decisions.
  Let me deal now with poll tax capping—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the House again that there is nothing in the order about the community charge.
  Mr. Taylor: I hope that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will allow me to develop the argument because it relates specifically to why we should not pass this order tonight. It reflects entirely on the argument that we have been given for passing it tonight, just as we have been given it in the past.
  Last year we were told that this would he the penultimate occasion when a rate-capping order would be before the House and it was supposed to be the last time that councils came under such control. The introduction of the poll tax would make it unnecessary for this sort of control to be exercised.
  On each occasion the Minister has justified its introduction by saying that it is because he and the Government believe that local authorities are not adequately controlled at present that ratepayers are not significant in the local elections, that there is a need to make the local authorities accountable and that they do not respond as they should to the needs and desires of local people. All of that was thrown out of the window; it was shown to be quite false justification. Yet we heard it again tonight when the Government introduced poll tax capping. It has all proved to be a disreputable misleading of the House.
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify for us once and for all what his party's position on this is? Is he saying that, regardless of what any council did, the Liberal party would not impose any restrictions upon local authorities? Could we be quite clear on that?
  Mr. Taylor: We would not have poll tax capping or rate capping or any other sort of capping of the ability of local authorities to raise expenditure; that is their local decision. But we would want one fundamental change that the Government have avoided on every occasion. They specifically excluded it from what Widdicombe was allowed to look at and from all consideration of local

  961
  authority expenditure. It is the one glaring, obvious way of making local authorities more accountable to their electorate, of ensuring that one-party states do not exist and that every person in a local authority area is able to have his or her voice heard properly. That is proportional representation, and there are people of that view now throughout the House. But the Minister is not even prepared to look at it. He was not prepared to have Widdicombe even consider whether that would be the most appropriate way of bringing local authorities under control.
  That is why the Minister has to resort to these measures, because he wants to exercise that control centrally and he thinks that he knows better. He dare not trust what local authorities do. He feels free to criticise them for being unrepresentative, but is not prepared to ensure that they properly reflect what people want.
  The result is that we debate again tonight what we have debated in so many different ways before: yet another in the battery of powers that the Minister feels obliged to adopt as an attack on local democracy. We are seeing an unwillingness to create genuine local democracy in which people are free to take decisions that reflect the needs of their area as they see them rather than as the Minister sees them.
  11.32
  Mr. Simon Coombs: I have listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) and would say only this to him. The level of support for democracy which has brought all right hon. and hon. Members to the House is far greater than that which has elected the councillors whose behaviour the House attempts to control with this order tonight. It is therefore reasonable that we should say that democracy is indivisible and that we on the Government Benches have a mandate to carry out this policy.
  I sometimes wonder whether Members of the Opposition ever wonder why the local authority in the constituency which I represent is so frequently to be found on the list of rate-capped authorities. One can understand why London boroughs might be there, with the problems they have, but surely the fastest growing town in western Europe ought not to be on the list of rate-capped authorities.
  The fact is that Thamesdown has been on the list in each of the five years that we have had to consider orders of this nature. Right from the start Thamesdown borough council was opposed to the idea of rate capping and made it abundantly clear, with a strong political propaganda campaign, that if the borough council were rate-capped it would be the end of services and support for a vast range of activities which it regarded as essential. I have to tell the House that, after five years, none of those threats has come to pass. The threat to withdraw grant from a variety of voluntary bodies and the threat to take away services from the disabled and the elderly have not come to pass.
  When I stood for re-election to the House in 1987, after three years of rate-capping, I was told that such was the disgust of my electors with my support for the policy that I would be thrown ignominiously from the House. I remember the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) saying that from the Front Bench. Conservative Members
  962
  who follow these matters will know that, as a result of my support for this policy and others, I was re-elected with a majority of three and a half times greater than in the first place. I took that as an endorsement of rate capping from a turn-out of 75 to 80 per cent. of the electorate, because the people of Thamesdown participated to a far higher degree in that election than in the local elections, which returned my political opponents. There we had turn-outs of 30 to 40 per cent.—half those in the general election. The reason is that only one third of the population of Thamesdown pays rates. The other two thirds had a vested interest in voting in councillors committed to high-spending policies using the money raised by the minority—the ratepayers in the borough—and they continue to do so. Frankly, I am not surprised by that and that is why I welcome the change in the philosophy of local government finance.
  Mr. Harry Barnes: The hon. Gentleman referred earlier to the much-vaunted mandate on these matters that the Conservative Government had after the last general election. But there was nothing in the Conservative manifesto on poll tax capping. The terms in which poll tax capping have been laid down are contrary to the Conservative's position at the last general election.
  Mr. Coombs: I am not sure that I can see how to answer the hon. Gentleman's question, Mr. Deputy Speaker, without transgressing the strict rules that you have laid down for the debate. However, I shall return to the point later and crave your indulgence then.
  I want first to deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett). He said, rightly, that Thamesdown councillors had come to see my right hon. Friend to press their case and that my right hon. Friend listened carefully to what was said, but was not able to make a redetermination. The hon. Gentleman should know that under the rules approved by Parliament the local authority in question has to apply formally for a redetermination. The simple fact is that over the five years of rate capping Thamesdown council has never made that formal application. It is the only rate-capped council that has never asked the Minister formally to redetermine its rate. I believe that if it had done so, it would have been allowed to increase its rate, but it has never tried. We must look to the councillors of Thamesdown to tell us why they will not do what Labour councillors in every other rate-capped borough have done naturally year upon year.
  Instead of doing that, the councillors of Thamesdown have indulged in creative accountancy and have found ways of keeping within the rate limitation imposed on them by Parliament, but at the same time they have continued to allow expenditure to rise in a variety of ways. My right hon. Friend referred to twinning with a town in Nicaragua and I could mention the quite unbelievably unattractive statues that now adorn most public places in Thamesdown. As far as I am aware, nobody wants them.
  The most recent attempt to get round the law is the method of raising finance known as factoring. I understand that that is to be the subject of a test case shortly, so it may not be proper to say what is likely to happen.
  My right hon. Friend also referred to the idea of selling assets and observed that the borough councillors in Thamesdown had decided to sell a large public park in the centre of the town. That was a little unfair on them—it is

  963
  only a small part of a large public park in the centre of Thamesdown. However, that is a step that other Labour councillors may want to follow in future. The only people who are determined to stop them are the Conservative councillors who represent the ward in question.
  Under its Labour masters, the borough council has never been prepared to consider a sensible policy of disposing of assets. The wealth of Thamesdown has been created over many years by its success and by its location as an attractive place in which to relocate industry. The borough has been the beneficiary of that wealth, but it has never been prepared to capitalise on it because Socialists say that all property belongs to them and should never be used for the wider benefit of the community—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] Well, if Opposition Members who scoff at that can tell me any other good reason for hanging on to a shopping centre in the centre of the town and if they believe that is the right and duty of a Labour council to be responsible for shopping in the town, let them say so instead of scoffing from sedentary positions.
  The order is essential, and may I say in answer to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) that the successor policy of charge capping is also essential. If we were not to have rate capping in Thamesdown this year, the local labour councillors admit—in private—that the rates would rise by over 60 per cent. My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess), who is sitting next to me—
  Mr. Blunkett rose—
  Mr. Coombs: I shall give way in a moment.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon has just told me that, as a result of his local authority being taken out of the provisions of tonight's order, rates in Basildon will rise by 74 per cent. That is the alternative for my constituents if we do not pass the order. I am not prepared to vote against an order that protects my constituents from a rates increase of over 60 per cent.—nor am I prepared to see them submit to that level of increase with a new regime of local authority finance next year. It is right that under the community charge we shall see greater accountability, but that will not happen straight away. Therefore, it would be foolish to withdraw the protection of capping in the first year of the new system.
  The hon. Member for Brightside said that if Thamesdown had been only a little more moderate in its spending in 1984–85, it need not have been rate-capped. What does he call 90 per cent. above GRE? What does he call the reduction that would have been needed from 90 per cent. to 10 per cent. of GRE to avoid being rate-capped? I do not call that a small reduction in expenditure. It would have been catastrophic. Of course, there was no way in which the council could have escaped it in the first year, but now I am happy to report that the overspending on GRE is down to a modest 37·3 per cent.—still the highest of the four authorities listed in the order, and still impossibly above any level that could be acceptable.
  Mr. Blunkett: At the risk of wasting my breath, the point that I was making earlier was that the level that had been set by the Government at which rate capping would start to apply was such that districts such as Thamesdown, having spent slightly less in the years before 1984, would have been exempted for ever, like Suffolk, Coastal and
  964
  Brentwood and Guildford, or any of the other authorities that have increased their spending and rates far in excess of Thamesdown, Greenwich, Lewisham or Camden.
  How does the hon. Gentleman square what he said earlier about rate capping being necessary because not everybody pays rates and therefore some people could vote for increased spending without feeling the pain of that with what he has just said, which is that in any case it does not matter because poll charge capping would be justified anyway?
  Mr. Coombs: I come back to what I said before: the level was 90 per cent. above GRE, compared with the target of 10 per cent. set at the beginning of the rate-capping saga. That is is an enormous disparity, so it is no good the hon. Gentleman talking about other councils. Under those circumstances, Thamesdown was bound to be rate-capped, and it has never managed to avoid it since because it has not been prepared to tackle the overspending it has indulged in every year since 1984–85. If the hon. Gentleman reads again what I have said this evening he will realise that there was no contradiction between his second point and my remarks.
  I join my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Maples) in welcoming the order for the protection it affords my constituents from the depredations of a high-spending Labour authority. I welcome, too, the introduction of a new local government finance system which will give every person in Swindon a vested interest in watching how his money is being abused and wasted by the local authority. I am sure that that will result in a year or two's time in Labour councillors beginning to lose their seats.
  11.46 pm
  Mr. Paul Boateng: The hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) had the gall to lecture us about democracy and to parade his own re-election as having been a manifestation of the people's will triumphing over the excesses of local government. If the voting procedures being applied under the Housing Act 1988 had been applied to the hon. Gentleman's election—if those who abstained were counted as having voted in the affirmative, and the undead were given a vote—he would not be here today. So his lecture was shot through with the double standards that are typical of Conservative Members when they talk about local government. There is one rule for local councils, and another for the Government: one rule for Conservative councils, and another for Labour-controlled councils.
  I apologise to the Minister. I was serving time on the Committee examining the Water Bill during his speech, but I left word with my hon. Friends to let me know if he attacked Brent. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have given Conservative Members generous latitude to explore the foibles and failings of other boroughs and the Minister cannot resist the temptation to get Brent in too when discussing the rate capping of other authorities. The Government never miss an opportunity to be vindictive about Labour authorities, or to drag in arguments that they believe can be used against local government in general.
  The Minister should not have chosen Brent as an example of a council with excessive rent arrears. Those who advise him can tell him about the measures that Brent has introduced to curb arrears. He knows of the action

  965
  that has been taken to step up the collection of arrears and to move against people who fail to pay their rent or rates. He should be generous enough to admit that Brent is trying to come to grips with its problems. But he has not shown that generosity when talking about Thamesdown, Camden, Greenwich or Lewisham.
  The measure is not to do with protecting ratepayers and residents. It is about superimposing the will of the Government on that of the locally elected representatives of the people. It is about substituting the will of the grey-faced, grey-suited men sitting in their little offices and cubby holes in Whitehall, where my constituents cannot get at them—with their calculations of what we should spend on the care of the elderly and of children, or on education, or on the gamut of services that should be run locally—for the will of the elected representatives.
  The Minister launched an attack on Brent while talking about Thamesdown, Camden, Greenwich and Lewisham. We know that he could not resist that opportunity. But he ought to consider the experience of Brent. Rate support grant has been reduced during the lifetime of this Government from 65 per cent. of the borough's net needs to some 38 per cent.
  Can Conservative Members put aside for a moment their spite and vindictiveness against a steadfast Labour authority? Can they imagine the impact of that reduction on the meals on wheels service or on care for the elderly and the disabled? Can they imagine the impact on bed and breakfast accommodation in my borough? When they talk about empty properties, they really ought to look at their own abysmal record. The biggest owner of empty properties in the country is none other than Her Majesty's Government. They should take that reality on board and not come here to lecture us about democracy and value for money. We know about democracy, we know about value for money, and that is why we are opposing the order.
  Mr. Gummer: I knew that the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) was not in the Chamber when I opened the debate. I made the comparison with another Labour authority in reply to a point that one of his hon. Friends raised with me.
  I do not believe that my attack on Brent was vindictive. The vindictive attack was by his neighbour, a Labour Member, the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) who referred to it as being worse than the Pol Pot regime. I remind the hon. Gentleman that my point was directed to rate-capped authorities. One of the most important points was that they should collect the rents in arrears. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the local authority in Brent has said that it will take some new action, but after all that follows newspaper revelations that it did not know who its tenants were, let alone collected the rents, and that keys to flats in Brent were on sale in Nigeria. It was only after those revelations, which were not denied by the borough of Brent, that the changes took place. I do not think that that is vindictive.
  Mr. Boateng rose—
  Mr. Gummer: No, I do not think that the borough of Brent is in any position to complain, until it has changed its ways. Some of the worst examples of those with rent
  966
  arrears were among the elected councillors of Brent, which was why it was difficult for the officers to get support when they set out to make those changes.
  Mr. Blunkett rose—
  Mr. Gummer: I have only three minutes to reply, and I do wish to reply to the hon. Gentleman's question. It is only fair of me to do so.
  The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) said that it was very unfair because several authorities, including my own authority of Suffolk, Coastal did not get themselves rate capped. That is not surprising, considering that it has the 206th lowest rate in Britain. It is below the national average. If there is a high percentage increase, it depends where one starts from; if one adds a penny to 2p one could say that that is a 100 per cent. increase. But the real question is what is the level of rates. I find it difficult to compare the 206th lowest in Britain with the position of rate-capped authorities.
  Taking Lewisham as an example, if we had allowed Lewisham to put the rate at the level that it wanted, it would have put another 46p in the pound on top of our proposed limit. That would be £100 per household. That is why we are defending the people of Lewisham. The hon. Member for Brightside attacked the City of London. Let me point out to him that the local authority there increased the rate by a mere 4 per cent. and that the domestic rate in the City, even after allowing for the ILEA precept, is the second lowest in the country. How dare he make the suggestion that he made?
  I am sorry that his hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) is not here, because I was rather careful not to answer him until I had received the exact facts. The truth is that Camden did indeed draw my attention to what the auditor had said, but it quoted only one sentence from the letter, so I asked for the full letter. I got the full letter, and it turns out that the auditor stated that in 1987–88 Camden's street sweeping costs per kilometre of road were £9,000 per annum, compared—
  It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 ( Exempted Business).
  The House divided: Ayes 176, Noes 109.

  Division No. 109]

  [11.55 pm

  AYES

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Amess, David

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Amos, Alan

  Burns, Simon

  Arbuthnot, James

  Burt, Alistair

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Butler, Chris

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Butterfill, John

  Ashby, David

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Baldry, Tony

  Carrington, Matthew

  Batiste, Spencer

  Carttiss, Michael

  Bendall, Vivian

  Cash, William

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Chope, Christopher

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Churchill, Mr

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Boswell, Tim

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushclifte)

  Bottomley, Peter

  Conway, Derek

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Bowis, John

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Brazier, Julian

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Bright, Graham

  Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)

  Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  967

  Day, Stephen

  McNair-wilson, Sir Michael

  Devlin, Tim

  Malins, Humfrey

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Mans, Keith

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Maples, John

  Dover, Den

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Dunn, Bob

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Durant, Tony

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Dykes, Hugh

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Mills, Iain

  Evennett, David

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Favell, Tony

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Norris, Steve

  Forman, Nigel

  Pawsey, James

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Forth, Eric

  Raffan, Keith

  Franks, Cecil

  Renton, Tim

  Freeman, Roger

  Riddick, Graham

  French, Douglas

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Gale, Roger

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Rowe, Andrew

  Gill, Christopher

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Hannam, John

  Speller, Tony

  Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Squire, Robin

  Harris, David

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Steen, Anthony

  Hayward, Robert

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Heddle, John

  Summerson, Hugo

  Hind, Kenneth

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Howard, Michael

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Thorne, Neil

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Trippier, David

  Irvine, Michael

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Jack, Michael

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Jessel, Toby

  Walden, George

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Waller, Gary

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Watts, John

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Wells, Bowen

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Wheeler, John

  Knapman, Roger

  Whitney, Ray

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Wilkinson, John

  Knowles, Michael

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Lang, Ian

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Latham, Michael

  Wood, Timothy

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Woodcock, Mike

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Yeo, Tim

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Lightbown, David

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Lord, Michael

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Maclean, David

  Mr. Michael Fallon and

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Mr. Sydney Chapman

  NOES

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Blunkett, David

  Alton, David

  Boateng, Paul

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Bradley, Keith

  Ashton, Joe

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Barron, Kevin

  Buckley, George J.

  Battle, John

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Beith, A. J.

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Clay, Bob

  968

  Clelland, David

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Cohen, Harry

  Marek, Dr John

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Cryer, Bob

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Martlew, Eric

  Darling, Alistair

  Meale, Alan

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Michael, Alun

  Dewar, Donald

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Dixon, Don

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Dobson, Frank

  Morley, Elliott

  Doran, Frank

  Mullin, Chris

  Eadie, Alexander

  Murphy, Paul

  Eastham, Ken

  O'Brien, William

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Patchett, Terry

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Pike, Peter L.

  Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Foster, Derek

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Fyfe, Maria

  Redmond, Martin

  Galbraith, Sam

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Rooker, Jeff

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Gordon, Mildred

  Skinner, Dennis

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Hardy, Peter

  Soley, Clive

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Spearing, Nigel

  Haynes, Frank

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Henderson, Doug

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Holland, Stuart

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Home Robertson, John

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Turner, Dennis

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Vaz, Keith

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Wall, Pat

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Walley, Joan

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Illsley, Eric

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Ingram, Adam

  Wilson, Brian

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Winnick, David

  Lamond, James

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Leighton, Ron

  Worthington, Tony

  Lewis, Terry

  Wray, Jimmy

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Tellers for the Noes:

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths and

  McWilliam, John

  Mr. Jimmy Dunachie.

  Madden, Max

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Rate Limitation (Councils in England) (Prescribed Maximum) (Rates) Order 1989, which was laid before this House on 14th February, be approved.

  Rating
    STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.]
    STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

      AGRICULTURE
      That the draft Code of Recommendations for the Welfare of Goats, which was laid before this House on 23rd January, be approved.
      That the draft Code of Recommendations for the Welfare of Farmed Deer, which was laid before this House on 23rd January, be approved.
      That the draft Code of Recommendations for the Welfare of Livestock-Sheep, which was laid before this House on 23rd January, be approved.—[Mr. Heuthcoat-Amory.]
      Question agreed to.

    WAYS AND MEANS

      WEIGHTS AND MEASURES (AMENDMENT) BILL
      Resolved,
      That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Weights and Measures (Amendment) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund. —[Mr. Hearhcoat-Amory.]

    RIGHT OF REPLY BILL [MONEY]
    Queen's recommendation having been signified—
    Resolved,
    That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Right of Reply Bill it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

    (a) any sums payable under the Act by way of reimbursement for loss of earnings suffered, or expenses incurred, by members of the Press Commission established by the Act;

    (b) the remuneration and expenses of the Right of Reply Advisor so established and of the Secretary and staff of that Commission; and

    (c) any increase attributable to the provisions of the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other Act.—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]

  PETITION

    Mr. Charles Bester
    12.7 am
    Mr. David Alton: I have the honour to present a petition which has been signed by 58,789 Christians from churches of all denominations situated in all parts of this country. The petition is addressed
    To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland assembled.
    The Humble Petition of residents of the United Kingdom showeth
    That we call for the release of Mr. Charles Bester, the 18-year old Christian gaoled by the South African authorities for six years following his refusal on conscientious grounds to join the South African Armed Forces.
    Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House request the Government to make appropriate representations …to have Mr. Bester freed.
    And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, &c.
    This petition has been organised by the Jubilee Campaign, which works for prisoners of conscience. Mr. Bester is an 18-year-old Anglican facing a harrowing ordeal of six years' imprisonment, which must seem like a lifetime for someone of his youth, for refusing to take up arms against his fellow countrymen.
    As a Christian, he unequivocally rejects apartheid as being morally repugnant. He is supported by 93 Members of Parliament of all parties, who have signed early-day motion 176, and by the Archbishop of Capetown, Desmond Tutu, Sir Richard Attenborough and Mr. Donald Woods, all of whom sent messages of support to a meeting held in Westminster earlier today in the Jubilee Room.
    I trust that her Majesty's Government will take every possible step to support the petition.
    To lie upon the Table.

  Transplant Organs
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]
  12.9 am
  Dame Jill Knight: Our doctors, like our policemen, are wonderful. They can save lives or sight, which would inevitably have been lost just a few years ago—or at least they could have, but they cannot, because the necessary organs are not available. Instead, these precious pieces of human tissue are discarded wastefully and uselessly every day. They die in the bodies they are part of, though they could give life to another human being.
  At present 3,700 people are waiting for kidneys, 420 for hearts, 48 for livers and 600 for corneas to give them sight. That does not mean that we need 4,768 donors—the total number of needed organs—because one donor could give two kidneys, one heart and so on. We are not talking about an impossible target. It could, I think, easily be achieved, and the time has come when we must resolve to achieve it.
  It is over two and a half years since the Hoffenberg report on the subject was published. Recommendations were made but to my knowledge none has yet been adopted, and I believe that the matter is now urgent. People are dying needlessly; impoverished peasants are being prevailed on to sell their kidneys; doctors are talking about breeding animals to use their organs in human beings; other doctors are talking about using the organs of aborted babies for the same purpose. That is the stuff of scandal.
  Where shortages exist, human ingenuity works automatically to overcome those shortages. When the matter is one of life and death, entrepreneurs will go to any lengths to provide the missing items. If something is not done, the scandals will get worse.
  What, then, should be done? Should the "required request" be brought in—that is, should a legal obligation be placed on hospitals to ask relatives whether the dying person's organs can be used? Sir Raymond Hoffenberg did not recommend that in his report, although the committee discussed it. It is possible, however: there is nothing illegal about asking. Some hospitals already do it, and I am told that the practice exists in many American states, where it is said to result in many more organs becoming available. But what worries me, and what I think worried the Hoffenberg committee, is that not all hospitals can deal properly with the matter—which is, after all, highly delicate and acutely sensitive. The agony of the bereaved, or those about to be bereaved, must be respected; it cannot be trampled on. That must be considered and balanced with the desire to save someone else's life.
  I am ready to agree that sometimes the bereaved are comforted by the thought that the death has not been a total waste. Not all, however, feel that way. Besides, how on earth would such a directive be policed? Any law that cannot be enforced is a bad law. I do not see how anyone could be certain that the law was being carried out if Parliament directed that it should be. Instead the Hoffenberg report recommends a strong campaign of information, both for the general public and for hospital personnel, to encourage more people to become donors, and I urge that course on the Government.
  I cannot agree—and nor did Hoffenberg—with the suggestion that everyone going into hospital should be
  972
  asked whether he would be willing to donate his organs. I can envisage truly horrendous circumstances arising. Someone might go in for a relatively minor operation, perhaps to have a bunion dealt with, and be asked first the name of his next of kin and then whether he would donate his organs. That course would, I feel, spread alarm and despondency, and I cannot agree with it.
  I think that the time to ask the donor volunteers is when people are fit, well and flourishing and not expecting to die. Let us have a sustained poster campaign. Posters could be very well designed and very effective. They could be placed in health clubs, universities and sports facilities. Let us also use television. I am sure that if we embarked on the kind of campaign that the Hoffenberg committee recommended we would find more donors.
  Only 20 per cent. of people carry donor cards. We could easily quadruple that, and with the right publicity and effective appeals we could make it the norm and not the exception to carry a card. Some people favour introducing a system which assumes that everyone is willing to be a donor unless they specifically say that they are not. The committee rightly discarded the opting-out system. I pay tribute to the committee and the sensitivity with which it approached a highly sensitive subject. We are dealing with individual freedom and everyone has the right to decide what is done with their bodies and their organs. The opting-out system would not always allow that.
  Even when a person carries a donor card, his organs may not always be used, first because if a person is involved in an accident in the street, it is normal practice for him to be rushed into an intensive care unit, where all his clothes are quickly removed, bundled up and taken away. It is not usually the practice to search the injured person's clothes for a donor card, which gets left in the clothing. Secondly, the next of kin must agree, although the person has signed a card to say that he is willing to donate his organs. The next of kin may be the person's wife, who is likely to have been involved in the accident with the injured person. I am told that one difficulty is when they cannot ask the next of kin whether he or she is agreeable. Sometimes the next of kin is too upset to agree or cannot be found quickly enough, because obviously such cases are urgent and if organs are to be used successfully they must be removed within a fairly short time. A great deal could be done to improve hospital practice when donors are known to have agreed to the use of their organs.
  The Hoffenberg report said that:
  "organ donation should always be considered when brain stem death is diagnosed".
  I do not have time to discuss that point, but it is extremely important because there has been a great deal of controversy as to whether that is right or wrong. Many people have been made nervous by the suggestion that life support machines may be switched off too quickly, with more thought for the person to be helped by the organs than for the person donating them. That, too, is a matter of extreme sensitivity.
  Some say that we could ask on the census, but I know that my hon. Friend the Minister will say that the Government have turned their face against that suggestion for very good reasons which I do not have time to go into.
  The committee suggested that the donor card should be attached to the driving licence. I think that there would have to be an EEC agreement on that, since driving licences come under EEC regulations.

  973
  The report is not very long, but it is all very interesting. The main thrust of the report is on a national and local campaign to inform the public of the need for more organs and the ease with which they can be donated. The report concludes:
  "The goodwill of the public can be maintained and increased by publicity about the successful long-term results of transplantation. The wishes of potential donors should be made better known. Health professionals should be encouraged to respond to the generosity and compassion of the public."
  The public are most wonderfully generous and compassionate. When they see that there is a need, and when they understand the length and breadth of that need and its importance, they respond, but they need to be given a lead by the Government. I think that they need to be given that lead now.
  Sir Michael McNair Wilson rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Does the hon. Member have the leave of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) and the Minister to take part in the debate?
  Dame Jill Knight indicated assent.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Roger Freeman)indicated assent.
  12.16 am
  Sir Michael McNair Wilson: I am most grateful to my hon. Friends.
  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) on her admirable speech on a most important subject. She referred to the kidney donor card. All of us have congratulated ourselves on the number of cards that have been issued. At least 8 million cards were issued in 1987 and 1988. However, when I asked Ministers how many of those carrying donor cards have ended up as kidney donors, they were unable to supply me with that information. That suggests to me either that the card carries no weight with the medical profession, which therefore does not seek it out when people are taken into hospital, or that the card does not have the force of law that donors believe it carries when they sign it.
  If that is the case, we should look into the matter and ensure that the card is what it purports to be—the consent of the person carrying the card to have his or her organs taken in the event of death without recourse to next of kin. I understand that in law there is no requirement for hospitals to ask next of kin to remove organs.
  We know how many cards have been issued. We do not know how many cards are being carried by donors. There is no national, centralised computer register of donor cards, so I do not think that the Minister will be able to tell me that the Department knows that X number of cards are being carried in people's pockets. All that I was able to glean from his predecessor was the statement:
  "We wish to see an evaluation of the registers being established by the Manpower Services Commission, for example, in Birmingham and Sheffield, and of a similar scheme operating in Wales before giving further consideration to this question."— [Official Report, 14 July 1988; Vol. 137, c. 364.]
  974
  I do not think that that is good enough. I wholeheartedly endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston said. If only we could garner all the kidneys and other organs that are available but that are being lost through neglect, we should not have the problem of the waiting list to which she referred.
  12.18 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Roger Freeman): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) on her success in the ballot and on choosing a subject that is of such great importance to a growing number of patients. I congratulate also my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson) on his brief but trenchant contribution. I pay tribute to him for his fortitude over his own personal disabilities and the great experience, consideration and sympathy that he always brings to these debates.
  As transplant surgery becomes increasingly successful, demand grows and we have to concentrate on ways of stimulating the donation of organs. As a Government we have been extremely active in this area during the last year, and in a few minutes I will explain both what we have been doing and the sensitivities which many people feel on the subject.
  The United Kingdom record on organ transplants is a credit to all those involved in it. Although we do not yet have firm totals for 1988, provisional figures for the number of transplants show that it was another record year. Last year, the National Health Service carried out 1,544 cadaveric kidney transplants, 332 heart and heart-lung and 212 liver transplants. For kidneys, this implies a rise of 35 per cent. compared with five years ago. Heart and heart-lung transplants rose sixfold, and liver transplants over tenfold over the same period.
  Compared with our European neighbours, we are among the leaders both in terms of transplants performed and the technical excellence of our programmes. In terms of numbers of kidney transplants per annum, Germany and France are slightly ahead of us but have about the same activity rate per million of population.
  We do not have good figures on the number of heart and liver transplants performed in other European countries, but we know that our programmes are held in high regard by our neighbours. We commenced our transplant activities much earlier than other European countries.
  Despite the record figures, the numbers waiting, particularly for kidney transplants, are too high, and I agree with my hon. Friends about that. We are not alone in this. Most countries have substantial waiting lists and in many they are growing significantly. In round terms, the United Kingdom waiting list for kidneys is 3,500, that for hearts and heart-lungs stands at 400 and livers at between 40 and 50. The figures given by my hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston probably included those for the Republic of Ireland, whereas I am giving figures for the United Kingdom. In the case of cadaveric kidneys, about 35 per cent. of patients wait for less than a year. Those with rare tissue types may face a much longer wait because of the difficulty of providing a well-matched donor.
  Organs for transplant can be obtained from two sources. They can be donated after death or from living organs. Live donation applies only to kidneys. Since

  975
  humans are endowed with two kidneys, and it is quite possible to function with one, close relatives sometimes donate a kidney. Where the genetic relationship between donor and recipient is very close, this can often produce a good match and lead to a successful graft.
  With other organs live donation is not possible, except in one special and rather interesting case. In recent years our surgeons have been successfully transplanting the heart and lung as a single unit. This is often carried out on patients whose lungs are in chronic failure, as happens, for example, with cystic fibrosis. In such patients, the heart is often in good condition, so instead of wasting it the cardiac surgeons put it into another patient needing only a heart transplant. Providing the donor consents—and why should they refuse?—this is one way of maximising the use of available organs.
  Our largest heart transplant centre, Harefield hospital, has performed these so-called "domino" operations successfully in significant numbers in the last two or three years, and we pay tribute to their skill. However, this is a special case. The point remains that live donation is essentially possible only with kidneys. But live donation, even between close relatives, is not our preferred source of supply of kidneys. European Health Ministers held a special meeting on transplantation in November 1987, and agreed that
  "the use of organs from living donors should be restricted and, where possible, gradually eliminated."
  The best way of making this happen is, of course, to boost donations from those who have died to make live donation less necessary. In the United Kingdom we are fortunate in not having to rely heavily on live kidney donors; in 1987 well over 90 per cent. of our transplants were from those who had died.
  One source of organs is totally unacceptable both to this and other European Governments. This is the purchase of kidneys from unrelated donors. Recent allegations of trading in organs have evoked feelings of disgust in virtually all of us, and the Prime Minister has denounced the practice in this place. Hon. Members will be aware that the health authorities concerned have moved quickly to investigate the allegations, and that the cases have been referred to the General Medical Council, which will consider whether professional misconduct has occurred. We are urgently considering legislation.
  The Government have been concerned about the shortage of cadaveric organs for some years. In 1986, as my hon. Friend said, the Department of Health sought advice from the Royal medical colleges on why there was a shortfall, and ways of remedying it. The colleges set up a working party under the chairmanship of Sir Raymond Hoffenberg, the then president of the Royal College of Physicians, which reported in 1987. The working party stressed that many factors contributed to the shortage, and accordingly made recommendations covering several areas. We have acted on two proposals in the report which appear to be the key points.
  The first recommendation was that each health authority should have an operational policy for organ donation, including procedures for identifying potential organ donors an referring them to the transplant units. Associated with that was the recommendation that a national audit be undertaken of deaths in intensive care, to show how many potential donors exist and the reasons why sometimes donation does not take place.
  976
  In December 1988, we issued a health circular giving effect to that recommendation. Health authorities were asked to report to the Department by 30 June this year, confirming that procedures have been drawn up. They began the audit on 1 January. It is too early to reach a conclusion, but we shall be reviewing the first three months' data so that any problems encountered in conducting the survey can be sorted out. After six months, we expect to see some useful pointers emerging—but given the relatively small number of donors, it may be one year before reliable patterns can be discerned. The audit will run for two years, with the possibility of extending it if necessary.
  I hope that my hon. Friend accepts the value of the action we have taken to establish in as many cases as possible the circumstances surrounding a death, the existence of a donor card, procedures followed by the intensive care unit and by the doctors and nurses involved, the reactions of the relatives concerned—all of which will enable us to reach a conclusion as to how best we can improve the methodology and hospital procedures.
  The working party's other key recommendation concerned publicity. Numerous surveys showed that the public generally are in favour of organ donation. About three-quarters of the population state that they would be willing to become donors after their death. But those sentiments are not always translated into action. The working party recommended more publicity both among the general public and among the medical profession. In response, we increased the Department's publicity expenditure. In the current financial year, 1988–89, we are allocating about £250,000 for that purpose. That sum is split between publicity directed towards the professions and that aimed at the general public.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston asked whether that was the right order of magnitude and whether we would consider also the use of television and poster advertising. I give my hon. Friend an assurance that I shall look further into how that money is being spent, and at how best to improve the carrying of the message to the general public of the donor programme's importance.
  In 1988 we distributed more than 14 million donor cards, compared with about 5 million in 1987. In October 1988, in collaboration with the Healthcare Foundation, we began an initiative to make donor cards available in high street stores. In January, I was delighted to participate in a venture by the Reader's Digest, which carried an article on transplants coupled with the issue of more than 5 million donor cards. In the spring, we plan to release a video, displays and leaflets for use by transplant co-ordinators, who perform valuable education and publicity work.
  The donor card has attracted its critics. My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury asked me questions on that aspect, which I shall answer in a moment.
  Dame Jill Knight: I am delighted to learn that so many donor cards have been made available. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson) made the point that we do not know how many cards were signed, or the addresses of those who signed them. As far as I know, no register is kept of those people. Can something be done about that?
  Mr. Freeman: My hon. Friend reminds me of the criticisms made by my hon. Friend the Member for

  977
  Newbury. The first concerned the status of the card and whether it is a valid legal document. I assure my hon. Friends that it is, and that it conveys the necessary consent to the doctors concerned. However, as was mentioned, the clothing of the victim of a tragic accident is sometimes removed, and the card goes unnoticed. In such circumstances, it is quicker for the nurses and doctors involved to consult the victim's relatives. The donor card stands on its own as a valid legal document, which is all that is needed in the absence of relatives.
  The second question that my hon. Friend asked is whether we can have a computer register of those who sign the donor cards so that we know exactly who in the general public have them. It has occurred to me that we have no firm record of who holds the millions of cards in existence and of their age profile. However, the prime purpose of the card is as a signal to the friends and relatives of an individual that that individual wants his organs donated. Thus the donor card has two purposes. One is as a personal declaration to the medical profession and the other is as a signal to friends and relatives.
  The donor card has proved a valuable peg on which to hang numerous publicity campaigns, both local and national, but I shall reflect on my hon. Friends' suggestion about a computer register. However, as I am sure they understand, it is fraught with difficulties.
  In the last minute available to me let me deal briefly
  978
  with the "required request" legislation. Various American states have enacted laws in recent years which require hospitals to request the donation of organs in all suitable cases. Those were followed by federal legislation along the same lines in 1987. Some believe that we should enact similar legislation here. The Hoffenberg working party advised us that there was a better approach, which I have described already, and we intend to give those measures time to work before considering any other proposals. American evidence on the effect of its legislation is unclear. It is by no means certain that the laws have had a sustained impact on donation which we cannot achieve by alternative means.
  I would be most reluctant to move down the path of opting out at present. We have to carry British society with us in that regard. Although that is the practice in France, I should hesitate to move down that path at this time.
  I hope that I have shown that the Government have been vigorously tackling the issue of organ donation in the past few years. For the sake of all those waiting for transplants by our skilful surgeons we need to encourage the public to a greater consciousness of the value of donations after death, and our medical professions need to review hospital procedures to ensure that all possible acts of generosity in agreeing to donations at times of often tragic circumstances are followed up. I hope that 1989 will see yet another advance in transplant activity.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-three minutes to One o'clock.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Vietnamese Refugees
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, in the light of the agreement by the United States of America, Canada and Australia to admit more Vietnamese refugees, he will now confirm the agreement to increase the United Kingdom quota announced on 22 December 1988; what the arrangements will be for the increased numbers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  We have been encouraged by the responses to our call for a new international effort to take more Vietnamese refugees from Hong Kong. We are now considering whether we can confirm the decision announced on 22 December 1988.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Immigration
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action is to be taken in respect of Cynthia Wright, a foreign national living in the London borough of Brent, in respect of her visitor's visa which expired 14 years ago.

  Mr. Renton
  Consideration is being given to whether the original deportation order should now be enforced.

  Commonwealth Refugees
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Commonwealth refugees have been assisted under the terms of section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966 in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. John Patten
  Grant under section 11 of the local Government Act 1966 is paid to local authorities only in respect of the employment of staff. No information is available on the numbers or status of persons assisted by such staff, though some will have been refugees.

  Cheshire Constabulary—Expenditure 1979–80 and 1987–88

  1979–80 cash

  £s 1979–80 real terms (1987–88 price base)

  1987–88 (provisional) cash

  Net expenditure (relevant for grant)

  20,008,493

  35,130,353

  47,267,338

  Other expenditure

  288,843

  507,143

  674,000

  Net revenue expenditure

  20,297,336

  35,637,496

  47,941,338

  Expenditure met by police specific grant1

  10,004,246

  17,565,177

  24,106,342

  Expenditure met by Government blockgrant and by the rates2

  10,293,090

  18,072,319

  23,834,996

  Police (Assaults)
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what information he has concerning the total number and category of assaults perpetrated upon serving police officers in each different force and in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available;

  (2) what information he has concerning the total number of days lost through absence on sickness leave following assaults upon serving police officers in each different police force in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available;

  (3) if he will make a statement summarising his Department's achievements since 1979 in giving protection to serving police officers against assaults.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  There has been no central record of assaults on police officers or of sick leave following assaults. Arrangements have, however, been made for information relating to assaults to be collected in 1989 and subsequent years. This will be published in the annual reports of Her Majesty's chief inspector of constabulary.

  Cheshire Constabulary
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current establishment of the Cheshire constabulary in terms of(a) police officers and (b) civilian personnel; and what was the establishment in 1979.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The information requested is as follows:

  Establishment (at 31 December)

  Police

  Civilian personnel

  full time

  part time

  1979

  1,805

  378

  129

  1988

  11,860

  499

  129

  1 Will increase to 1,868 from 1 April 1989.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the expenditure upon the Cheshire constabulary from(a) central Government and (b) Cheshire county council; and what were the comparable figures in (i) real terms and (ii) cash terms in 1979.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The information is as follows:
  537
  1 Police specific grant paid directly by the Home Office was at 50 per cent, until 31 March 1986 and at 51 per cent, since 1 April 1986.

  2 The expenditure met by Cheshire country council is made up by a contribution through block grant by the Department of the Environment together with the local ratepayers contribution. Through police specific grant and block grant it is estimated that the Government contributed about 62·9 per cent, of total expenditure on the police in Cheshire in 1987–88. Comparable information is not available for 1979–80.

  Pensioners
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will consider creating a standing committee of representatives of the pensioners' movement together with the Minister and senior civil servants dealing with the areas mainly affecting the retired in matters for which he is responsible.

  Mr. John Patten
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 17 February 1989 at column 404.

  Drink-driving
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list in rank order, starting with the police force with the highest number of breath tests, the number of breath tests administered in each police force area, the percentage of positive tests and the number of accidents in each police force area expressed per head of population for the Christmas period 1985, 1986, 1987 and 1988.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions for drink-driving offences were made during the Christmas period in the Bolton area, for each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  [holding answer 31 January 1989]: The information available centrally is given in the table; corresponding figures for earlier years could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Comprehensive information is not collected on the date of offence but sample inquiries indicate that court proceedings for drink-driving offences take on average, throughout England and Wales, about three months from offence to completion.

  Proceedings completed at Bolton magistrates' court for offences ofdriving etc after consuming alcohol or taking drugs by month

  Month of completion

  1986

  1987

  January

  38

  41

  February

  43

  41

  March

  44

  48

  April

  48

  34

  May

  39

  36

  June

  36

  53

  July

  34

  47

  August

  32

  36

  September

  33

  56

  October

  33

  48

  November

  31

  63

  December

  39

  46

  Total

  450

  549

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Self-employment
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the total growth in self-employment since 1979.
  538
  Mr. Major
  Between June 1979 and September 1988 the number of self-employed people in Great Britain rose by 60 per cent. to nearly 3 million.

  EC Budget
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on how many occasions and how much money cumulatively has been transferred each year from one chapter of European Community budget appropriations to another by decision of the European Parliament against the wishes of the Council.

  Mr. Brooke
  This information could not be made available without disproportionate cost. However, unsigned explanatory memoranda are provided in respect of all transfer proposals and, following a request last year by the Select Committee on European Legislation, the memoranda indicate the positions taken by the Council and the European Parliament.

  Civil Servants (Incentives)
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about incentive schemes for civil servants.

  Mr. Brooke
  We have introduced a number of schemes in the Civil Service for encouraging and rewarding high performance.

  At senior levels, additional discretionary awards can be paid to grade 2 and 3 staff for sustained high performance. Below this, new flexible pay arrangements which include provision for performance related pay are in place for grades 5–7, professional and scientific grades and staff in the Inland Revenue.

  Performance pay is also a feature of the provisional agreements that the Treasury has recently reached with the National Union of Civil and Public Servants and the Civil and Public Services Association. If those provisional agreements are endorsed, nearly all the non-industrial Civil Service will be covered by new performance-related pay schemes.

  Private Medical Insurance
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what is his estimate of the cost of private medical insurance tax relief for each of the five years following its introduction;

  (2) how many elderly persons would be eligible for tax relief as private income; what is his estimate of the number who currently hold private medical insurance; and how many more he estimates will take out health insurance under this new scheme;

  (3) what proportion of the cost of private medical insurance tax relief he estimates will be paid out to those who already have private medical insurance;

  (4) what proportion of the cost of private medical insurance tax relief he estimates will go to taxpayers paying tax at 40 per cent.;

  (5) how many persons over 60 years have private medical insurance; and what is his estimate of how many would be entitled to tax reliefs under his proposals;
  539
  (6) what is the estimate of the average cost of tax relief at the top rate for the typical private medical insurance policy for a person at the age of (a) 60 years, (b) 70 years and (c) 75 years.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will estimate the cost of tax relief on premiums for health insurance for those aged 60 years or over under the National Health Service White Paper;

  (2) if he will estimate the average cost per year of tax relief as proposed in the National Health Service White Paper for a person over 60 years who has private health insurance.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what will be the deadweight cost of giving income tax relief from April 1990 on medical insurance premiums for those aged 60 years and over.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what he estimates the cost to be of introducing tax relief on private health insurance for the elderly, as proposed in "Working for Patients," Cm. 555.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answers 6 February 1989, 9 February 1989, 16 February 1989 and 17 February 1989]: Estimates of the cost of this relief will be announced in the 1989–90 Financial Statement and Budget Report. The number of people affected and the average value of the relief will depend on the precise details of the scheme, which are under consideration.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Kampuchea
  Mr. Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether, further to its recent decision to share in funding projects supported by Christian Aid in Kampuchea, the Government will now consider substantial reconstruction and development aid for Kampuchea.

  Mr. Eggar
  I refer the right hon. Member for the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Stoke on Trent, North (Ms. Walley) on 20 February. The decision to support projects in Cambodia proposed by voluntary agencies, including Christian Aid, does not affect our policy of not giving Government-to-Government aid to the regime in Phnom Penh.

  Development (Education)
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the amount spent on education about development, including separate

  Imports to rest of the EC from the United Kingdom Million pairs

  Total EC market2 Million pairs

  Imports from the United Kingdom as a proportion of total EC market Per cent.

  Imports from South Korea as a proportion of total EC market Per cent.

  Imports from Taiwan as a proportion of total EC market Per cent.

  1983

  10·4

  1,090·1

  1·0

  —

  —

  1984

  11·8

  1,139·3

  1·0

  —

  —

  1985

  11·7

  1,140·8

  1·0

  —

  —

  19861

  12·9

  1,276·0

  1·0

  3·8

  6·3

  1987

  14·0

  1,374·8

  1·0

  5·7

  7·8

  540
  figures for internal expenditure and grants to outside bodies, for each year since 1979, in constant 1988 prices, and in current prices.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Overseas Development Administration has a programme of press, publications and other information activities about Britain's official aid programme. The cost, excluding staff and general administrative costs, for each year since 1979 was:

  £ thousand

  Financial year

  Current prices

  Constant 1987 prices

  1979–80

  110

  193

  1980–81

  130

  193

  1981–82

  143

  193

  1982–83

  153

  193

  1983–84

  159

  192

  1984–85

  176

  202

  1985–86

  208

  226

  1986–87

  207

  218

  1987–88

  265

  265

  Expenditure on grants to non-governmental organisations for their development activities was:

  £ thousand

  Calendar year

  Current prices

  Constant 1987 prices

  1979

  385

  698

  1980

  450

  682

  1981

  331

  450

  1982

  154

  195

  1983

  158

  189

  1984

  104

  119

  1985

  118

  128

  1986

  121

  126

  1987

  141

  141

  Note: 1988 prices are not yet available.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Footwear
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what has been the EEC market share of footwear imports from Taiwan and South Korea, for each of the last five years; and what have been the corresponding figures for the EEC market share of the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Atkins
  The EC market share of footwear imports from the United Kingdom was 1 per cent. for each of the years 1983 to 1987.

  Figures for the EC market share of footwear imports from Taiwan and South Korea are available for 1986 and 1987 and are given in the table:
  541
  1 The EC includes Portugal and Spain from 1986.

  2 Defined as apparent consumption viz. production less exports plus imports.

  Source: British Footwear Manufacturers Federation annual statistical reviews.

  Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) what will be the scope of the consultations he will have before further descriptions of institution are specified under section 174 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 as educational establishments for the purposes of parts I and II of that Act; and what educational organisations will be consulted over the substance of the order to be made;

  (2) what consultations his Department is having with educational organisations with a view to formulating advice as to what further descriptions of institution it would be appropriate to specify as educational establishments for the purposes of parts I and II of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

  Mr. Forth
  We are giving careful consideration to the question of which educational establishments should, in addition to schools, benefit from the limited exceptions to copyright to be provided by the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. It is our intention to consult both copyright interests and educational bodies before finalising the terms of any order under section 174. I hope to be in a position to do this very soon.

  Paper Products
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will take steps to make statutory the provisions of the good manufacturing practice guide for soft tissue paper products.

  Mr. Atkins
  I have no plans to do so.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will consider initiating research into ways of curbing the increased consumption of paper products because of the environmental implications of production and disposal thereof.

  Mr. Forth
  I see no reason to do so.

  Clothing Industry
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has received from the knitwear industry about the need to extend the multi-fibre arrangement after it expires; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  I met representatives of the knitwear industry on 31 October 1988 to discuss the future of the multi-fibre arrangement and other matters of interest to them. Several hon. Members have also drawn to my attention a statement on this subject issued by the Knitting Industries' Federation in co-operation with other textiles associations. I explained to the industry, and to the House during the debate on the MFA on 9 December 1988,Official Report, columns 553–618, that although the United Kingdom, as part of the European Community, is already committed to examining the "modalities" for returning trade in textiles and clothing to GATT rules, the Community has continued to make clear in negotiations that any such return must be accompanied by a
  542
  strengthening of those rules and include liberalisation of trade by all countries, including the better of developing countries. This remains the United Kingdom's and the Community's objective in negotiations.

  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he will raise in the European Council of Ministers the possibility of maintaining some cross-border scrutiny of knitwear moving within the European Community after 1992, so as to maintain statistical information on imports; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  A proposal for an EC Council regulation, which sets out a revised methodology for the collection of trade statistics between member states of the European Community after 1992 to replace the current procedure based on Customs documentation, has been prepared by the EC Commission and will be considered by EC Ministers over the coming months.

  Trade statistics will continue to be collected both for intra-EC trade and for trade with third countries. But the level of detail for commodity classification will be the subject of related legislation and will be discussed by a working party of officials from member states later this year. The Government are seeking to ensure that the collection of these statistics does not impose unnecessary burdens on business involved in trade between member states.

  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he will raise in the European Council of Ministers the possibility of permitting the expression "Made in the European Community" to be attached to garments made in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  No. It is already possible to do so.

  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what recent representations he has received from the knitwear industry regarding(a) the general state of trade at present and (b) the imports of garments from China; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  My hon. Friend the Minister for Trade and officials have received various representations from the knitwear industry about concerns on the current general state of trade and imports of garments from China.

  Negotiations between China and the European Community for a new bilateral textiles and clothing agreement under the multi-fibre arrangement were concluded in December 1988. The text of the agreement reached is set out in the annex to the Council decision 88/656/EEC which is published in the official journal of the European Communities, dated 31 December 1988, reference OJL 318, which is available in the Library of the House.

  Full details of the application of the agreement in each member state, in the form of an EEC implementing regulation, are still awaited from the Commission. The agreement has been provisionally applied by the Council of Ministers from 1 January 1989. The agreement will be submitted to the Council for final approval in due course.

  Betting
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he will initiate an inquiry into the concentration of power in the betting industry.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 17 February 1989]: It falls to the Director General of Fair Trading in the first instance to keep competition in the United Kingdom economy under review. I understand that he is continuing to monitor developments in the betting industry under the competition legislation for which he is responsible.

  Remote-sensing Satellite (Purchase)
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he expects the decision on purchase of a remote-sensing satellite, the polar platform to be taken by the European Space Agency; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 17 February 1989]: The European Space Agency and its member states are currently examining which configuration the polar platform (an important element in the Columbus programme) should have. Studies have been conducted by British Aerospace and Matra on the basis of two alternative concepts. The merits, and costs, of each are now being reviewed. The ESA hopes to be able to take a decision at the meeting of its council on 13 and 14 March.

  Earth Observation Data Centre
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what are the implications for the British space industry of the development of the earth observation data centre as a result of the ESA recommendation on the polar platform order; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 17 February 1989]: The Government are supporting the creation of the earth observation data centre at Farnborough because of the key role that it will play in the progressive commercial development of the United Kingdom's capabilities in this field. We expect that the private sector will, in due course, take over the EODC as a wholly commercial facility. The centre will receive data from various satellites, and not merely from the polar platform. But it remains a United Kingdom objective to achieve a polar platform series which will facilitate effective commercialisation.

PRIME MINISTER

  Scotland
  Mr. Ron Brown
  To ask the Prime Minister when she next expects to pay an official visit to Scotland.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend has at present no plans to do so.

  Whales
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will raise, when next she meets the Prime Minister of Japan, the issue of Japanese whaling operations in the Antarctic.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I have been asked to reply.
  544
  My right hon. Friend will not be meeting the Japanese Prime Minister immediately, but the Government have expressed their views firmly on the current operations to the Japanese Government both directly and through the International Whaling Commission and have asked that the operations cease.

  Hillmorton, Rugby
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has any plans to make an official visit to Hillmorton, Rugby.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friend has at present no plans to do so.

  Bristol, Fast
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Prime Minister when she next expects to pay an official visit to Bristol, East.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friend has at present no plans to do so.

  Citizens Advice Bureaux
  Mr. Harry Ewing
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has any plans to meet the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friend has at present no plans to do so.

  Research Bases
  Mr. Warren
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will review the operation and current value of the Rothschild principle adopted in 1972 establishing the relationship between Government Departments and research bases; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government reviewed this matter in 1987. I refer my hon. Friend to paragraph 21 of the White Paper on civil research and development (Cm 185) which the Government published in response to the First Report of the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology.

  Engagements
  Mr. Patnick
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 21 February.

  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 21 February.

  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 21 February.

  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 21 February.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 21 February.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 21 February.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 21 February.

  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 21 February.
  545
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 21 February.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I have been asked to reply.

  This morning my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was in Germany for an Anglo-German summit. This afternoon she is attending the memorial service in Belfast for those who died in the air crash at Kegworth.

  University Teachers (Pay)
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will give the figures for university academic pay increases for the years 1986–87, 1987–88 and 1988–89 and the comparative figures for the police, doctors and dentists, local authority clerical staff, National Health Service administrative and clerical, primary and secondary teachers and university clericals.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information is set out in the table below.

  Percentage settlements

  Period 1 August to 31 July in

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  University non-clinical academics

  116·6

  7·4

  4—

  University clinical academics

  8·25

  8·1

  4—

  University clerical staff

  5·8

  5·1

  4—

  Police

  7·5

  7·75

  8·5

  Doctors and Dentists

  7·7

  7·9

  8·2

  Local authority clerical staff

  26·04

  5·4

  4—

  NHS administrative and clerical staff

  5·0

  5·5

  4—

  School teachers

  310·25

  4·73

  56·3

  1 To cover 1985–86 as well as 1986–87.

  2 Equates to 7·5 per cent. over full year.

  3 Equates to 16·4 per cent. over full year.

  4 Not yet available.

  5 The overall pay bill in the financial year 1989–90 will rise by about 7·5 per cent. as a result of changes made to the structure of teachers' pay in 1987 and 1988.

DEFENCE

  Rear-Admiral Sir Anthony Miers
  Mr. Cyril D. Townsend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether his Department is going to carry out an internal inquiry into the actions of the late Rear-Admiral Sir Anthony Miers, VC, DSO, when in command of the submarine Torbay in the Mediterranean in 1941.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No. I am advised that all records relating to this case are already accessible to the public.

  Condor Base (Hospital Facilities)
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on proposals to develop hospital facilities at Condor Base, Arbroath.

  Mr. Neubert
  As stated on 6 May 1986 at column 102 of the Official Report, we have made part of the Royal Marine base, Condor at Arbroath available to the United States Navy for development of facilities for storage of medical supplies and equipment in peacetime and to accommodate a hospital unit, which would be activated in the event of war.

  Racial Discrimination
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many of the complaints submitted to senior officers in the 10 military districts in the United Kingdom involved allegations of racial discrimination or abuse in the last five years.

  Mr. Neubert
  No complaints under section 181 of the Army Act 1955 involving racial discrimination or abuse are recorded as having been received at district level in the United Kingdom in the last five years.

  United States Army (Munitions Store)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will provide a list of the categories of munitions stored at the United States Army munitions store at Caerwent, Wales.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I have nothing to add to the answer given to the hon. Member by my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman) on 9 May 1988 at column 1.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Schools (Opting-out)
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what assessment he makes when deciding whether to allow a school to opt out of local education authority control of the extent to which the school may be seeking to avoid the consequences of local education authority rationalisation programmes.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend judges applications for a school to become grant maintained at the same time as he considers any parallel statutory proposals, for example, to close the school in question. In such circumstances, both proposals or sets of proposals will be considered on their merits and each will be evaluated against the other.

  Teachers (Convictions)
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish in the Official Report for each of the past 10 years and for each local education authority the number of serving teachers convicted of a criminal offence, separately distinguishing the type of offence, including those of a sexual nature.

  Mr. Butcher
  This information is not available.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how his Department conveys information to local education authorities regarding serving teachers convicted of a sexual offence.

  Mr. Butcher
  When a serving teacher is convicted of a criminal offence it is the responsibility of the chief officer of police for the area in which the offence is committed to report the conviction both to the teacher's employer and to the Department. So it is not primarily a matter for the Department to inform the local education authority.

  All cases reported to the Department by the police are, however, considered to determine whether action by the

  547
  Secretary of State under the power conferred on him by the Education (Teachers) Regulations 1982 to bar or restrict a person's employment as a teacher is necessary, and in the case of a serving teacher the Department routinely informs his employer of the outcome of that consideration.

  Academic Staff
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science and if he will set out in the Official Report details of intakes and outflows of full-time wholly university financed academic staff from each year from 1979–80 to 1986–87.

  Mr. Jackson
  The information is shown in the table.

  Intakes and outflows of full-time wholly university financed academic staff

  Great Britain

  Academic year beginning in

  Total intake1

  Total outflow1

  1979

  ..

  ..

  1980

  1,573

  1,629

  1981

  1,182

  1,606

  1982

  816

  2,187

  1983

  1,365

  1,969

  1984

  1,686

  1,635

  1985

  1,595

  1,294

  1986

  1,439

  1,435

  1987

  1,336

  1,582

  ..not available.

  1 Figures exclude transfers between universities.

  "Intake" covers new recruits to university service or staff returning after a period in other employment. "Outflow" covers members of staff leaving university service.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will give further details of the criteria which he will adopt in deciding upon an application for grant-maintained status from a school which is full but for which a section 12 closure procedure is proposed as part of a wider secondary review arising from falling rolls and surplus places in other schools; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend will consider proposals by a local education authority for the closure or reorganisation of a school in accordance with the Education Act 1980 at the same time as he considers any proposals by the governing body of the school to become grant-maintained under the Education Reform Act 1988; but he will determine the latter proposals first. He will consider and decide all such proposals on their merits, taking all relevant factors into account.

  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will set out in tabular form the progress, since the initial resolution of the governors, of each individual school which has expressed the desire to his Department to transfer to grant-maintained status; and how many firm inquiries have been made to his Department prior to an initial resolution of governors or a signed requisition by parents under the Education Reform Act 1988.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Department continues to receive a large number of inquiries from parents and governors 548
  about making an application for grant-maintained status. It receives formal notification of only two stages of such an application:the result of a ballot of parents; and
  where the parents have voted in favour of proceeding with an application, the subsequent publication of formal proposals by the governing body.

  The Education Reform Act 1988 requires the Secretary of State in due course to determine any such proposals. The table shows the stage which individual schools have reached:

  School and LEA

  Ballot result "Yes/No"

  Proposals published

  Skegness Grammar School, Lincs

  —

  Yes

  Audenshaw County High School,Tameside

  —

  Yes

  St. James's CE School, Bolton

  —

  Yes

  Wilson's School, Sutton

  —

  Yes

  Hendon School, Barnet

  —

  Yes

  Queen Elizabeth's Grammar School, Alford, Lincs

  —

  Yes

  Queensbury School, Beds

  —

  Yes

  Wilmington Grammar School for Girls, Kent

  —

  Yes

  Sir James Altham School, Herts

  —

  Yes

  London Oratory School, ILEA

  —

  Yes

  Queen Elizabeth's Boys' School, Barnet

  —

  Yes

  Blessed Hugh More RC School, Lincs

  Yes

  —

  Castlemount School, Kent

  Yes

  —

  Heckmondwike Grammar School,Kirklees

  Yes

  —

  South Park High School, Lincs.

  Yes

  —

  London Nautical School, ILEA

  Yes

  —

  Netherthorpe School, Derbyshire

  Yes

  —

  Ramsden School for Girls, Bromley

  Yes

  —

  Bankfield County High School,Cheshire

  Yes

  —

  The King's School, Grantham, Lincs

  Yes

  —

  Southfield School for Girls, Northants

  Yes

  —

  Baverstock School, Birmingham

  Yes

  —

  Small Heath School, Birmingham

  Yes

  —

  Colyton Grammar School, Devon

  Yes

  —

  Foster's Grammar School For Boys,Dorset

  Yes

  —

  Lord Digby's Grammar School For Girls, Dorset

  Yes

  —

  Castle Hall Middle School, Kirklees

  Yes

  —

  549

  School and LEA

  Ballot result "Yes/No"

  Proposals published

  Ravensbourne School For Girls, Bromley

  No

  —

  Sale Grammar School For Boys, Trafford

  No

  —

  Queen Elizabeth High School, Rochdale

  No

  —

  Chesterfield School, Derbyshire

  No

  —

  Millais School, West Sussex

  No

  —

  Wilmington Grammar School For Boys, Kent

  No

  —

  Chichele School, Northants

  No

  —

  Droylsden County High School, Tameside

  No

  —

  Siddal Moor High School, Rochdale

  No

  —

  Hadham Hall School, Herts

  No

  —

  In addition, I understand that the following schools have received a request from parents or passed governors' resolutions requiring that a ballot be held:

  Hindley Park High School, Wigan

  Gaynes School, Havering

  Bacup and Rawtenstall Grammar School, Lancashire

  Weald of Kent Grammar School For Girls, Kent

  St. Francis Xavier's School, Liverpool

  Beechen Cliff School, Avon

  Claremont High School, Brent

  St. Helena School, Derbyshire

  Ribston Hall High School, Gloucestershire

  Marling Grammar School, Gloucestershire

  Stroud Girls' High School, Gloucestershire

  Cardinal Vaughan Memorial School, ILEA

  Knowsley Ruffwood Comprehensive School, Knowsley

  Long Field High School, Leicestershire

  Kettering Boys' School, Northamptonshire

  The Guildford County School, Surrey

  Secondary School Teachers
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many vacancies exist for secondary school teachers in Greater London.

  Mr. Butcher
  The latest vacancy figures, which are collected annually, relate to January 1988, when the total number of secondary teacher vacancies in Greater London was 660.

  Teacher Shortages
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information he has regarding shortages of science and craft, design and technology teachers in Greater London.

  Mr. Butcher
  In general, teacher shortages are at a higher level in London and the south-east, partly reflecting the higher costs in housing in these areas. The number of unfilled posts reported by LEAs in maths, physics, chemistry and CDT in Greater London over the past two years was as follows:

  1987

  1988

  Maths

  90

  71

  Physics

  31

  21

  Chemistry

  23

  12

  CDT

  75

  48

  My Department and the teaching as a career unit are in regular touch with LEAs about measures to increase teacher supply

  Further Education
  Mr. Ken Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how further education courses provided at institutes within the new polytechnics and colleges funding council sector will be funded for 1989–90; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The Education Reform Act 1988 places a duty on local education authorities to secure provision for their area of adequate facilities for further education. Consistent with this, the local authority associations have encouraged their member authorities to maintain support for further education courses, including those of national significance, provided now by polytechnics and colleges in the new sector. Practical steps are also being taken by the LEAs collectively to consider the reform of the existing arrangements under which local education authorities can mutually recoup the costs of places on the FE courses they provide which are taken up by students whose homes are in the area of other authorities.

  The Government have accordingly decided that the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council will not generally be put in funds to support further education provided in the institutions under its control. However, exceptionally for 1989–90 alone, we have put the PCFC in funds to support further education courses running now in the voluntary and other colleges currently grant-aided by the Department of Education and Science. This is in order to allow these institutions time to find local authorities to support the further education courses they provide.

  Student Fees
  Mr. Ken Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what guidelines have been issued about fees for students on courses of further and higher education in the academic year 1989–90.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  For the academic year 1989–90 I have indicated the following maximum amounts for the reimbursement of fees through the awards system for home students and for students from other European Community countries on full time courses (fees for 1988–89 are shown in brackets):
  551

  £

  £

  Postgraduate courses

  1,890

  (1,800)

  First degree and diploma courses

  607

  (578)

  Higher Education

  Further Education

  Full-time

  £609

  (£578)

  £429

  (£390)

  Sandwich/block release (weekly rate)

  £16·80

  (£16·00)

  £12·00

  (£11·00)

  Part-time per course hour

  57p

  (54p)

  41p

  (37p)

  Part-time annual fee for one session per week

  £60·90

  (£57·80)

  £43·00

  (£39·00)

  The Government's policy is that students from outside the European Community should pay fees that reflect the full cost of their education here. It is for the institutions and local authorities to determine the actual fees to be charged to overseas students in the light of this policy and of their own circumstances.

TRANSPORT

  Railways (Electrification)
  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has yet received British Rail's submission for the electrification of the cross city line from Lichfield to Redditch via Birmingham New Street.

  Mr. Portillo
  No I have not.

  Pensioners
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will consider creating a standing committee of representatives of the pensioners' movement together with the Minister and senior civil servants dealing with the areas mainly affecting the retired in transport.

  Mr. Portillo
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on Friday 17 February at column 404.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received concerning route one of the proposed Channel tunnel high speed rail link.

  Mr. Portillo
  We have received a large number of representations about all of BR's route proposals for this link.

  Buses (Greater London)
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to establish a licensing and regulatory body for bus services in Greater London which has no direct or indirect commercial interest in the operation of such services.

  Mr. Portillo
  London Regional Transport has a statutory duty to provide or secure the provision of public transport services for London, and to consult the relevant authorities and persons when it proposes to introduce, vary or withdraw bus services. Operators of bus services other than these under the control of LRT must obtain a licence from the traffic commissioner, which is an independent statutory authority.
  552
  In relation to other courses, I understand that the Council of Local Education Authorities has recommended fees for 1989–90 for home and EC students as follows (fees for 1988–89 are shown in brackets):

  Lockerbie Air Disaster
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has raised aviation security aspects of the Lockerbie disaster with the International Civil Aviation Organisation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Channon
  On 15 and 16 February I attended a special ministerial meeting of the council of the International Civil Aviation Organisation in Montreal. The meeting was the result of a joint United Kingdom and United States initiative, to discuss aviation security following the Lockerbie disaster.

  The meeting was successful. It was attended by Ministers (in most cases the Transport Minister) from 12 member states of the 33-strong ICAO council, and by senior officials from seven other member states. Our immediate objectives were all achieved; they were:

  (i) to register concern at the sabotage of PAN AM 103,

  (ii) to call upon states to ensure that existing international security standards were being fully implemented,

  (iii) to gain agreement to the strengthening of the ICAO security secretariat, and

  (iv) to set in progress work in ICAO under an eight-point plan to establish tighter standards to counter sabotage.

  My eight-point plan calls for international action on the following:

  (i) New standards for the screening of checked passengers' baggage both at check-in and when transferred between flights;

  (ii) A requirement that airline baggage reconciliation procedures should be 100 per cent. reliable.

  (iii) New higher standards for screening cargo and mail, including that placed on flights by courier companies;

  (iv) New higher standards for controlling access to sensitive areas at airports, including searches of people and vehicles entering these areas and searches of aircraft, particularly for high risk flights;

  (v) A new approach to the carriage of items which cannot be searched, such as radios, computers and other electronic and electric equipment that cannot be easily opened;

  (vi) A new drive to develop equipment for the reliable detection of explosives and explosive devices; those countries with the scientific and industrial capabilities should now redouble efforts to develop equipment in this field;

  (vii) Continuing consideration of proposals for building security into the design of aircraft, such as inexpensive modifications to make it harder to hide a bomb and easier for security staff to search cabins, toilets and galleys;

  (viii) The strengthening of the powers and organisation of ICAO to enable it to play a more active part in implementing these new standards; this would include developing the provision of training for administrators and managers; the provision of advice to states on the formulation of aviation security regulations; the setting up of an inspectorate for the systematic checking of standards at airports.

  553
  A joint United Kingdom and United States resolution was unanimously agreed at the meeting. The resolution condemned the destruction of Pan American flight 103 on 21 December 1988 called upon states to intensify their efforts for the implementation of existing standards and set out a plan of action for ICAO embracing all the points in my eight-point plan.

  Light Dues
  Sir David Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what decisions he has taken concerning light dues in 1989–90; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Channon
  I am pleased to report that the general lighthouse authorities continue to make progress in containing and reducing their costs. This will permit a further reduction of just over 10 per cent. in the overall amount of light dues collected in the coming year; this includes the abolition of deck cargo dues. This means that light dues will be 40 per cent. lower in real terms than eight years ago.

  I am grateful for the constructive comments received from bodies consulted about the possible reforms of light dues, which I announced on 7 November last. Some of these reforms, including a change from net to gross tonnage for assessment purposes, require further consideration before they are implemented, but I am able to announce the following changes effective from 1 April 1989:

  (a) Abolition of deck cargo dues on foreign-going voyages, to bring foreign trade ships into line with those in the home trade. This will be particularly welcome to shipping engaged in container and other part-cargo traffic.

  (b) A merging of the tariffs for home trade and foreign going ships based on a standard charge of £3·06 per 10 net registered tons up to a maximum of seven voyages. This represents a 2 per cent. cash reduction in the basic tariff.

  (c) A new separate tariff for roll-on/roll-off ferries, which will be charged on the same number of voyages as other ships at the following rates: £3.06 per 10 net registered tons on the first 1,000 NRT and £6.12 per 10 NRT on any excess over 1,000 NRT. The objective here is to secure a modest increase in the very small contribution currently made by such vessels to the general lighthouse fund. The change will less than double the ferries' present contribution of around 1·5 per cent. to light dues.

  Other minor changes will be introduced. The payment period for fishing vessel dues will be brought into line with the financial year, and a half-yearly charge will be introduced for this class. The concessionary light dues scale for visiting cruise ships will be terminated. A minimum payment of £25 per voyage will be introduced for vessels paying on a voyage basis. Home trade vessels will be given the option of paying light dues on no more than two voyages a month (currently three voyages). I am minded to extend this facility to foreign-owned ships in 1990 and at the same time to replace the present complex rules defining chargeable voyages in this sector.

  These changes represent a continuing reduction of the burden of light dues combined with a first round of constructive reforms to simplify the light dues system. The necessary order will be laid shortly.

  I have previously stated that the British Ports Federation is conducting a feasibility study into possible ways in which owners of pleasure crafts might contribute
  554
  to the cost of lighthouse authorities. But, whatever the outcome of the feasibility study, I would not envisage any changes in 1989–90.

  Aircraft Safety
  Sir Ian Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how many tests have been conducted since 1986 in aircraft requiring certification in the United Kingdom to demonstrate the current requirement that all passengers and crew should be able to leave the aircraft through 50 per cent. of the exits in 90 seconds;

  (2) how frequently examinations are conducted of civil aircraft on the British register to ensure compliance with the provision that a minimum distance of 12 in is observed between seats on either side of safety exits.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Matters concerning aviation safety are the statutory responsibility of the Civil Aviation Authority. As the questions require detailed technical answers, I suggest that my hon. Friend contacts the chairman of the CAA direct.

  Southwold Harbour
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects his Department to resolve its consideration of the navigation and coast protection interests relating to the repair scheme for Southwold harbour put forward by Waveney district council; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 20 February 1989]: This application gave rise to a number of problems which took time to resolve. Consideration has now been completed and a consent to the repair works, with a modification, will be issued shortly.

  Road Haulage
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the figures from 1976 to 1987 on goods lifted by road.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  [holding answer 20 February 1989]: Estimates of total goods lifted by road between 1976 and 1987 are shown in the table. The figures include work done by heavy goods vehicles (over 3·5 tonnes gross vehicle weight) and also by small commercial vehicles (less than 3·5 tonnes gross vehicle weight). These figures are also published in "Transport Statistics Great Britain 1977–1987" (tables 1.13 and 7.3).

  Tonnes (million) lifted by road: Great Britain: 1976–1987

  million tonnes

  1976

  1,505

  1977

  1,419

  1978

  1,491

  1979

  1,487

  1980

  1,383

  1981

  1,286

  1982

  1,376

  1983

  1,349

  1984

  1,395

  1985

  1,451

  1986

  1,476

  1987

  1,542

  Heavy Lorries
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the total numbers from 1976 to 1987 for lorries over 7·5 tonnes, over 16 tonnes, over 24 tonnes, over 32·5 tonnes and over 38 tonnes.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The information requested is shown in the table, but with a number of qualifications. No information was collected on goods vehicles over 38 tonnes prior to 1983. Since then only about 50 have been identified each year. Information is available for goods, vehicles over 32 tonnes but not for those over 32·5 tonnes. Before 1982, information was not available for vehicles over 7·5 tonnes, so the number over 8·5 tonnes has been included in the table. There have been a number of changes in tax class definitions and in the vehicle census methodology, which make some of the earlier figures less reliable.

  Heavy goods vehicles currently licensed in Great Britain1976 to 1987

  Thousands

  >7·5tonnes

  >16tonnes

  >24tonnes

  >32tonnes

  1987

  289

  227

  138

  83

  1986

  284

  218

  131

  79

  1985

  285

  212

  127

  76

  1984

  291

  212

  127

  78

  1983

  294

  208

  124

  75

  1982

  299

  206

  125

  76

  1981

  1328

  214

  128

  75

  1980

  1361

  236

  144

  90

  1979

  1369

  234

  138

  88

  1978

  1361

  223

  128

  50

  1977

  1357

  215

  119

  67

  1976

  1374

  147

  89

  2—

  1> 8·5 tonnes.

  2 Not available.

  Roads (North Devon)
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the road construction projects which were started and completed since 1959 in north Devon in the areas adjacent to Barnstaple, Ilfracombe and South Molton.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The following trunk road schemes were started and completed since 1979 in the areas adjacent to Barnstaple and South Molton. There are no trunk roads in the vicinity of Ilfracombe.

  A39 Severn Brethren Bank, Barnstaple

  A39 Yelland Improvement

  A39 Improvement at Higher Road, Fremington

  A361 Improvement at East Kerscott, Swimbridge

  A361 Stags Head junction improvement, Filleigh

  A361 New Moor Cross, Bishops Nympton

  A361 Improvement at Aller Cross, South Molton

  A361 Improvement at Woodside, Newton

  A361 Improvement at Haache Lane, South Molton

  A361 Layby at Swimbridge

  A361 Mini-roundabout, Victoria Road, Barnstaple

  A361 Visibility improvement, Taw Vale, Barnstaple.

  Details of trunk road schemes prior to 1979 are not available. Devon county council has details of its own roads.

  US Federal Aeronautical Administration
  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many security bulletins he received from 556
  the United States Federal Aeronautical Administration in the last 12 months; and what action was taken in each case.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Department received 26 such bulletins during 1988, most of them containing a wide variety of specific and general information. This information was collated with other information received. All identifiable threats emerging from the collated information were subjected to the assessment process my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State described to the House on 10 January; and, when appropriate, the relevant provisions in the aviation security programme were adjusted accordingly.

  Rail Freight
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the average costs per tonne from 1976 to 1987 of(a) a tonne of rail freight and (b) a tonne of road freight.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The only available estimates are from total user expenditure on road and rail freight expressed as an average per tonne lifted. The table shows average expenditure per tonne lifted for road and rail freight in current prices (cash) and in 1987 prices. Such simple expenditure comparisons between road and rail give a misleading picture of the comparable costs of the two modes because of the different types of freight carried services provided. Rail freight consists of mainly bulk commodities; full train loads accounting for over 90 per cent. of tonnes lifted. By comparison, road freight IIS largely concerned with individual loads often of several different commodities for several destinations—bulk loads accounting for about 35 per cent. of tonnes lifted.

  Estimates of average expenditure per tonne lifted for road and railfreight—United Kingdom

  Expenditure (£ cash) per tonne lifted

  Expenditure (£ 1987 prices1) per tonne lifted

  Road

  2Rail

  Road

  2Rail

  1976

  6·1

  2·3

  16·1

  6·2

  1987

  17·2

  4·7

  17·2

  4·7

  1 Adjusted by using implicit GDP estimates of deflation.

  2 Includes parcels traffic.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Mental Handicap Nurses
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many mental handicap nurses from each of the old grades have been assimilated to each of the new grades in Northern Ireland; and whether he will list them by board.

  Mr. Needham
  The information requested is not held centrally. However all mental handicap nurses in Northern Ireland who were subject to the new clinical grading criteria have been assimilated to the new grades.

  Social Security Payments
  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what information he has on the numbers of single parents claiming income support at each social security
  557
  office in Northern Ireland in 1988 and the number of single parents who claimed supplementary benefit in each social security office in 1985, 1986 and 1987.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 13 February 1989]: Reliable information is not available in the form requested. The available information is as follows:—

  Numbers of single parents on— (i) Supplementary benefit (all SSOs):

  Year

  Number

  1986

  17,240

  1987

  19,830

  Source: Annual survey—5 per cent. Sample.

  (ii) Income support1

  19881

  Social Security Office

  Andersonstown

  1,382

  Antrim

  880

  Armagh

  306

  Ballymena

  624

  Ballymoney

  320

  Ballynahinch

  125

  Banbridge

  313

  Bangor

  527

  Carrickfergus

  457

  Coleraine

  742

  Cookstown

  226

  Corporation Street

  1,912

  Downpatrick

  301

  Dungannon

  398

  Enniskillen

  413

  Falls Road

  1,657

  Holywood Road

  1,143

  Kilkeel

  104

  Knockbreda

  637

  Lame

  341

  Limavady

  271

  Lisburn

  765

  Londonderry

  2,147

  Lurgan

  636

  Magherafelt

  358

  Newcastle

  124

  Newry

  658

  Newtownabbey

  751

  Newtownards

  434

  Omagh

  485

  Portadown

  404

  Shaftesbury Square

  811

  Shankill

  789

  Strabane

  569

  Total

  22,010

  1 Represents the numbers of single parents under pension age excluding those receiving a disability premium.

  Supplementary Benefits
  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what information is available on the numbers and total value of supplementary benefit single payments made in each social security office in Northern Ireland from 1 January to 10 April 1988 and from 11 April 1988.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 20 February 1989]: The available information is as follows:

  Single payments from 11 April 1988 to 31 December 1988

  Social security office

  Number

  Amount£

  Andersonstown

  4,018

  739,192·15

  Antrim

  2,831

  253,469·08

  Armagh

  3,607

  455,148·99

  558

  Social security office

  Number

  Amount £

  Ballymena

  1,518

  157,518·65

  Ballymoney

  1,115

  123,64761

  Ballynahinch

  128

  15,018·83

  Banbridge

  1,721

  193,304·54

  Bangor

  332

  36,870·38

  Carrickfergus

  437

  40,37232

  Coleraine

  2,224

  260,900·73

  Cookstown

  1,891

  387,12535

  Corporation St·

  6,714

  842,364·54

  Downpatrick

  1,006

  109,188·11

  Dungannon

  3,876

  1,152,194·82

  Enniskillen

  4,750

  731,23313

  Falls Road

  5,756

  658,433·29

  Holywood Road

  3,231

  480,851·84

  Kilkeel

  553

  69,13621

  Knockbreda

  1,096

  97,950·85

  Lame

  522

  53,626·13

  Limavady

  1,845

  262,925·72

  Lisburn

  1,918

  263,77980

  Londonderry

  11,069

  2,330,529·55

  Lurgan

  4,391

  744,72525

  Magherafelt

  2,915

  802,960·59

  Newcastle

  686

  78,371·09

  Newry

  9,423

  1,016,837·59

  Newtownabbey

  2,244

  188,745·75

  Newtownards

  638

  81,780·30

  Omagh

  3,121

  672,624·40

  Portadown

  2,811

  312,845·44

  Shaftesbury Square

  2,475

  253,196·47

  Shankill

  815

  71,894·19

  Strabane

  3,073

  654,48135

  Totals

  94,750

  14,593,245·04

  Note: The figures are incomplete because of industrial action at some Social Security Office

  Single payments from 13 January 1988 to 8 April 1988

  Social security office

  Number

  Amount £

  Andersonstown

  4,483

  706,19439

  Antrim

  5,447

  452,190·87

  Armagh

  3,922

  385,629·44

  Ballymena

  3,260

  284,98033

  Ballymoney

  1,590

  186,41638

  Ballynahinch

  443

  43,03503

  Banbridge

  2,408

  226,343·31

  Bangor

  1,442

  138,71703

  Carrickfergus

  1,494

  137,838·02

  Coleraine

  2,736

  288,248·64

  Cookstown

  1,665

  314,563·92

  Corporation Street

  8,050

  861,205·41

  Downpatrick

  1,479

  158,98596

  Dungannon

  2,049

  362,457·16

  Enniskillen

  1,993

  185,05232

  Falls Road

  8,232

  841,834·82

  Holywood Road

  4,304

  364,150·08

  Kilkeel

  691

  83,290·10

  Knockbreda

  2,109

  173,064·98

  Lame

  2,279

  174,39466

  Limavady

  2,856

  299,271·32

  Lisburn

  4,940

  609,19436

  Londonderry

  4,006

  546,109·94

  Lurgan

  3,714

  577,27486

  Magherafelt

  2,080

  359,551·61

  Newcastle

  1,285

  101,22030

  Newry

  7,697

  867,90956

  Newtownabbey

  1,458

  122,407·21

  Newtownards

  762

  80,19429

  Omagh

  2,130

  293,522·55

  Portadown

  2,865

  291,23431

  Shaftesbury Square

  6,695

  585,880·59

  Shankill

  3,605

  331,62787

  Strabane

  1,948

  306,526·26

  Totals

  106,117

  11,740,517·88

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has had any discussions with the Irish Minister of Agriculture regarding the occurrence of bovine spongiform encephalopathy in the Republic of Ireland, and on the possibility of bovine spongiform encephalopathy infected products being imported into the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I have not discussed the recent case of BSE in the Republic of Ireland with its Minister of Agriculture. However, there is contact at official level, including between veterinarians, in relation to this issue. The Republic is shortly to introduce legislation which will require the compulsory slaughter and destruction of all animals affected with BSE. This is in line with the precautionary measures adopted here last August.

  Listeria
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will specify the number and occurrence of warnings which have been issued to United Kingdom cheese producers over the past 12 months concerning possible incidence of listeria infection; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  [holding answer 16 February 1989]: Where listeria contamination has been found, local staff, working closely with environmental health officers, have taken action directly with the producers concerned to eliminate the problem. Detailed analysis of all such occurrences are not readily available.

EMPLOYMENT

  Bonnybridge Employment Office
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what attempt he has made to assess the opinion of unemployed people before proposing to close the part-time employment office at Bonnybridge.

  Mr. Lee
  The Secretary of State has not sought to assess the opinion of unemployed people in Bonnybridge because the office that he proposes to close is a small part-time unemployment benefit office outhouse which is open only two hours per week.

  Wages Councils
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the number of responses to the consultation document on wages councils received(a) by the closing date and (b) after the closing date; and whether those received after 3 February will be considered.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Three hundred and three responses were received by the closing date and 68 subsequently. Replies received shortly after 3 February are being taken into account.

  Employment Training
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give a breakdown by region and 560
  travel-to-work area of the numbers of participants on the old community programme, and indicate how many in each case have transferred to the employment training programme and how many have declined to do so.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information is not available in the precise form requested. The following table gives the number of filled places on the community programme (excluding managers and supervisors) nationally and by region on 2 September 1988. At the end of December 1988, the latest date for which information is available, it is estimated that more than 9,000 people had transferred from the community programme to employment training. The number who have declined to do so is not available.

  Filled places (excluding managers and supervisors) on thecommunity programme at 2 September 1988

  Numbers

  South East

  7,100

  London

  11,100

  South West

  10,400

  West Midlands

  20,500

  East Midlands and Eastern

  13,000

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  20,600

  North West

  29,200

  Northern

  25,100

  Wales

  16,400

  Scotland

  25,500

  Great Britain

  179,000

  Labour Force Survey
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will state the figures from the 1988 labour force survey showing, according to the International Labour Organisation/Organisation For Economic Co-operation and Development measures of unemployment, the number of(a) men, (b) women and (c) all unemployed, the number not in the claimant count, and the number of claimants; what are the comparable figures according to the labour force measure of unemployment; in both cases, what are the changes since spring 1987; and what is the claimant count both unadjusted and seasonally adjusted for 1988.

  Mr. Lee
  Results from the 1988 labour force survey are not yet available.

  Health Workers
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement about the health of workers employed in the manufacture of disposable nappies styled superabsorbent.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I am not aware of any specific health problems among these workers.

  Legionnaire's Disease
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will draw up a licensing system for all wet cooling tower air conditioning installations in urban areas to assist the locating of potential sources of legionnaire's disease.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Such a licensing procedure would be of limited value in locating the source of outbreaks of legionnaire's disease. The existing system of controls based
  561
  on general powers under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and guidance material is adequate to deal with the problem of legionnaire's disease. The Health and Safety Commission and Health and Safety Executive will, however, be keeping this matter under review.

  Earnings
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information he has about the number of people in full-time work who earn less than two thirds of median male earnings by standard region.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information available from the distribution of gross weekly earnings which most closely spans the figure for two-thirds of median full-time adult male earnings in Great Britain is provided in the table:

  Proportion with gross weekly earnings less than £140 and £150, by standard regions of Great Britain Full-time adult employees whose pay was not affected by absence,April 1988

  Per cent

  >Standard region

  Less than £140 per week

  Less than £I50 per week

  South East

  17·7

  21·9

  East Anglia

  27·2

  32·7

  South West

  29·5

  35·1

  West Midlands

  28·6

  33·9

  East Midlands

  29·6

  35·5

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  28–8

  34·3

  North West

  28·4

  33·8

  North

  28·7

  34·3

  Wales

  30·9

  36·1

  Scotland

  30·9

  36·9

  Source: New Earning Survey

  Job Clubs
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the average cost per job entry for each unemployed person finding work through (a) a jobcentre job club and (b) an agency job club for the latest available year.

  Mr. Lee
  During the period 1 April 1988 to 30 December 1988, the average cost for an unemployed person finding work through a jobcentre job club was £249. In the same period, the average cost per job entry for an agency job club was £396.

  Figures on a comparable basis are not available prior to 1 April 1988.

  Wages Councils
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of workers covered by visits from the wages inspectorate was shown as being paid below the relevant wages council rate for the latest available year.

  Mr. Nicholls
  In 1988 9·1 per cent. of workers whose pay was checked by visit were found to be underpaid. This cannot be taken as indicating the general level of compliance with wages council orders because the inspectorate concentrates its visits on establishments where underpayment is more likely to be found.

  Tourism
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he expects to publish a Green Paper on tourism; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  The tourism review report is currently under consideration. An announcement will be made in due course.

  Training Agency (Research)
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give the reasons why the Training Agency does not undertake specific research into the opinions of employers about courses provided by individual managing agents; and if he will institute such research.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 20 February 1989]: As part of its evaluation of YTS, the training agency seeks the opinion of employers through a range of surveys and studies, targeted external market research and local monitoring of schemes including work experience placements. In addition, training agency welcomes comments from individual employers about their experience in participating in YTS whether on local or more general aspects.

ENVIRONMENT

  Toxic Waste
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the current level of imported toxic waste that travels through Yorkshire and Humberside; what proportion remains within the three counties of Yorkshire; if he will list in each of the three counties of Yorkshire the number of toxic waste sites that accept imported toxic waste; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Statistics on imported waste are not collected centrally in a manner that allows the question to be answered exactly.

  The figures available to Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution indicate that some 19,273 tonnes of waste were imported into the United Kingdom via ports in Humberside in the calendar year 1987. This waste was destined for disposal in Greater Manchester, west midlands, Essex and Gwent. All this waste was destined for either specialised treatment or incineration. Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution has no record of any waste disposal site in the three counties of Yorkshire which received imported toxic waste during that period.

  Greenhouse Effect
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table showing his assessment of the disaggregated contribution made to the increase since 1979 in greenhouse effect cases from(a) the electricity generating sector, (b) transport, (c) agriculture and (d) the industrial sector; and if he will make a statement on his Department's policies to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases from United Kingdom sources.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Emissions of carbon dioxide for each year since 1977 for the different sectors will be
  563
  given in the Department's "Annual Digest of Environment Protection and Water Statistics", to be published later this month. Copies will be placed in the Library of the House.

  The Government are actively supporting the international efforts to tackle the greenhouse effect, which is a global problem. Our policy is to press ahead with improving our scientific understanding of the greenhouse effect and meanwhile to take actions to mitigate it which are justifiable on additional grounds. We have called for a cut of at least 85 per cent. in worldwide emissions of CFCs by the turn of the century. To take this proposal forward my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will participate in a conference next month which is to be hosted by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on "Saving the ozone layer".

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to exemplify the figures for a system of local government finance based on capital value rates plus local income tax, in the proportions of 80:20, respectively, as they might apply in Cambridgeshire.

  Mr. Gummer
  Figures illustrating the impact of a system of capital value rates plus local income tax were placed in the Library on 23 June 1988. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has undertaken to illustrate the impact of such a system in any particular case described by an hon. Member.

  London Docklands
  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will give a breakdown of the total value of all future public expenditure currently committed for the London docklands urban development area under the following headings (i) expenditure on improvements to the A13, (ii) expenditure on new roads, including the docklands highways, (iii) expenditure on the dockland light railway including planned extensions, (iv) expenditure on other transport infrastructure and (v) other committed expenditure;

  (2) if he will give a breakdown of the total value of all public expenditure incurred by Government to date in the London docklands urban development area under the following headings (i) total expenditure by the London Docklands Development Corporation, including grant-in-aid, (ii) other expenditure incurred by his Department, including urban development grant, derelict land grant, city grant and Inner Urban Area Act moneys, (iii) total expenditure by the Department of Transport on new roads, road improvements, the docklands light railway, including the Bank extension and any other transport infrastructure, (iv) total Government expenditure incurred by the Isle of Dogs enterprise zone, including rates foregone and capital allowances claimed and (v) all expenditure incurred by any other Government Departments.

  Mr. Trippier
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give details of projected grant-in-aid to the London Dockland development corporation for each year for the next five years.
  564
  Mr. Trippier
  The Government currently plan to make the following grant in aid available to the London Docklands development corporation:

  Financial year

  £ million

  1989–90

  86

  1990–91

  104

  1991–92

  94

  No provision has been made for 1992–93 and beyond at present.

  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make publicly available any research undertaken for or by either the Government or the London Dockland development corporation on changes in land or property values in the London docklands urban development area since 1981.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Department has not commissioned such research. Relevant information is held by the LDDC, but is commercially confidential.

  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what arrangement the London Docklands development corporation has with the London borough of Newham to deal with training; how many people are in docklands-related training in Newham, categorised by age, gender and ethnicity; and what are the targets for future years;

  (2) how many jobs have been created by the London Docklands development corporation in the London borough of Newham; and how many of them went to Newham residents;

  (3) pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Newham, North-East of 14 February, what specific steps the London Docklands development corporation has taken to ensure jobs in docklands go to Newham residents.

  Mr. Trippier
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the job description, powers arid responsibilities of Ms. Dru Vestey of the London Docklands development corporation.

  Mr. Trippier
  Director of the corporation's royal docks area team.

  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what arrangements the London Docklands development corporation has with industrial training boards for training.

  Mr. Trippier
  The LDDC works closely with the relevant industrial training boards, on industrial training initiatives and projects. A particularly close relationship is enjoyed with the construction industry training board, which is a member of the Tower Hamlets training co-ordination group set up jointly by the LDDC and the borough council.

  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what arrangements the London Docklands development corporation has with developers for training.

  Mr. Trippier
  Where appropriate, the LDDC as landowner or local planning authority encourages developers to participate in the improvement of training n docklands, for example by providing direct contributions to or facilities for training initiatives.
  565
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps to make available minutes of member level meetings between the London borough of Newham and the London Docklands development corporation to hon. Members.

  Mr. Trippier
  No. The availability of minutes of meetings is a matter for the two bodies concerned.

  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total amount of land receipts received by the London Docklands development corporation each year since 1981; and to what ends these receipts have been put.

  Mr. Trippier
  The London Docklands development corporation has reported the following receipts from the sale of land:

  Financial year

  £ million

  1982–83

  1

  1983–84

  2

  1984–85

  5

  1985–86

  8

  1986–87

  22

  1987–88

  41

  The receipt for 1982–83 was surrendered to the Exchequer. All subsequent receipts have been deployed by LDDC to regenerate docklands.

  Chlorofluorocarbons
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the sites in England and Wales where chlorofluorocarbon refrigerants can be either safely disposed of or recycled.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Both United Kingdom manufacturers of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) offer a reprocessing service to their customers. ICI has recently announced a major extension to its Europeanwide scheme for recovery and recycling of CFC refrigerants. Once techniques for the safe destruction of CFCs have been identified and approved under the terms of the Montreal protocol, the question of providing disposal facilities can be addressed more fully.

  Estate Action
  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to extend his Department's Estate Action scheme to housing associations and housing societies.

  Mr. Trippier
  No. Funds for the improvement or repair of registered housing association stock are made available by the Housing Corporation within its annual development programme approved by Ministers. For the future, rent deregulation will progressively enable associations to provide for repair work out of their own income and to raise private finance for other projects.

  Football Membership Scheme
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has made a study of the implications for the commercial opportunities associated 566
  with the football membership scheme of a decision by individuals to opt out of having their names and address on various mailing lists, and of the percentage of opt-ins necessary to maintain these opportunities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  No.

  Bats
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what investigations his Department is undertaking into the use of the chemicals lindane and pentachlorophenol for wood preservative treatment and its effects upon bats; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Department of the Environment is one of six responsible for approving all pesticides, including wood preservatives, under the Control of Pesticides Regulations. Following the advice of the Advisory Committee on Pesticides, all timber treatment products containing lindane must be labelled as "DANGEROUS TO BATS". Because of concern about the effects of wood preservatives on bats, Departments have asked the advisory committee to consider the issue further and a sub-group has been set out to advise on appropriate action. Its report is awaited.

  Boundary Changes
  Sir Eldon Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if cost/benefit considerations are or can be taken into account by the local government boundaries commission before it makes recommendations for county boundary changes; and what steps he is taking to analyse the costs of such changes before reaching his own conclusions.

  Mr. Gummer
  Neither the Commission nor my right hon. Friend is specifically required to take account of the cost of proposed boundary changes, or to quantify expected benefits. By the Local Government Act 1972, however, the commission's proposals and, thus, my right hon. Friend's decisions, must be"in the interests of effective and convenient local government".
  This criterion must include a very broad range of social and economic factors, and their effects over the longer term as well as the short term. Assessment may be helped if such factors can be quantified. The commission has therefore initiated research to find out how far such analysis is feasible.

  Hazardous Waste
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the European Economic Community directives on the disposal of hazardous and toxic wastes that have been implemented by the United Kingdom.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The United Kingdom has implemented the following European Economic Community directives on the disposal of hazardous and toxic wastes:

  Directive 75/439/EEC on the disposal of waste oils

  Directive 76/403/EEC on the disposal of PCBs and PCTs

  Directive 78/319/EEC on toxic and dangerous waste

  567
  In addition, directive 84/631/EEC on the supervision and control of transfrontier shipment of hazardous waste has been implemented in respect of Great Britain. It is expected to be implemented in respect of Northern Ireland next month.

  Sanitary Towels (Disposal)
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to fund research into the role that incineration can play in the safe disposal of used disposable nappies and sanitary towels and tampons.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Government already support research into incineration as a safe means of disposal of domestic wastes of which nappies and sanitary products form a very small part.

  Home Insulation
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was(a) the total number of grants paid and (b) the total cost of grants, under the home insulation scheme for each year from the inception of the scheme.

  Mr. Trippier
  Numbers and amounts of grants paid under the homes insulation scheme for 1978 to 1986 appear in table 7.7 of "Housing and Construction Statistics, 1977–1987"; figures for 1987 and the first three quarters of 1988 are published in table 2.21(a) of "Housing and Construction Statistics", part 2, volume 35. Copies are available in the Library.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what papers and what representation his Department will have at the conference on radioactive waste management at the Gloucester hotel, London on 22 and 23 February.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Department will not be represented at this conference.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on progress in the Commission of the European Community's performance assessment of geologic isolation systems project on heat generating high level radioactive waste.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 17 February 1989]: The studies have been completed. Reports are being prepared and will be reviewed at an international symposium in June 1989.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on progress in the Commission of the European Community's performance assessments of confinement of medium active wastes study.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 17 February 1989]: Satisfactory progress is being made and the study will end in June 1989. I understand the Commission of the European Community intends to publish the results of the study as soon as practicable after this date.

  Pollution Control
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many prosecutions have taken place under section 3 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974; and how many have been successful.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  There have been 720 prosecutions between the time section 3 came into effect in 1976 and the end of 1987. A total of 531 have been successful.

  Environmental Protection
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to publish the next annual "Digest of Environmental Protection and Water Statistics"; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ridley
  Publication of the next annual "Digest of Environmental Protection and Water Statistics" is planned for 24 February. An associated departmental information bulletin will be issued as with previous issues and a copy of the digest will be deposited in the House of Commons Library.

  Rose Theatre, Southwark
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from English Heritage concerning the archaeological discovery of the Elizabethan Rose theatre in Southwark; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  None so far. Imry Merchant Properties, which has been granted planning permission by the London borough of Southwark for an office development, has allowed the Museum of London time and provided equipment and funds for archaeological evaluation of the site. It was in the course of this evaluation work that the recent finds were made, which English Heritage officials have confirmed are likely to be those of the Elizabethan Rose theatre. Consultation between English Heritage, the Museum of London, and the developers are continuing with a view to allowing further archaeological evaluations. The extent of the finds may however be limited as much of the site is likely to have been affected by earlier development. This is a good example of voluntary co-operation between developers, archaeologists and English Heritage.

  Bathing Water
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will announce the results of the survey of bathing water quality made in 1988; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  The results of the survey carried out during the 1988 bathing season show that 67 per cent. of our bathing waters in England, Wales and Northern Ireland met the mandatory coliform bacteria standards of the EC bathing water directive. This represents a significant improvement over 1987 when, measured on the same basis, only 55 per cent. of our waters met these standards.

  Since 1987, we have tightened the way in which we monitor and assess compliance with the directive in order

  569
  to put the figures on a consistent basis with those produced by the European Commission for all member states. For this reason, the 1988 results are not directly comparable with those announced last May for 1987, by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan).

  Measured on the new basis, 254 of the 380 bathing waters in England, Northern Ireland and Wales met the directive's mandatory coliform bacteria standards during the 1988 bathing season. This compares with 206 out of 370 waters (55 per cent.) in 1987, and only 184 out of 358 waters (51 per cent.) in 1986, measured on the same basis.

  These figures are encouraging and show that we are continuing to make good progress in cleaning up our bathing waters, mainly as a result of the major programmes of capital expenditure by water authorities in renewing sewers in coastal towns and constructing long sea outfalls. We attach a high priority to bringing all our remaining bathing waters up to EC standards, and are discussing with water authorities how to accelerate these programmes. In 1989–90, water authorities expect to spend about 100 million on schemes to improve bathing waters.

  The 1988 results are set out in the tables in summary form. I shall arrange for a more detailed summary of the results to be placed in the Library.

  Bathing Waters Survey—1988 Results (England, Wales and Northern Ireland) Compliance with Bathing Water Directive (76/160/EEC): Coliform standards

  Pass

  Fail

  Total

  Northumbrian Water Authority

  9

  10

  19

  Yorkshire Water Authority

  21

  I

  22

  Anglian Water Authority

  19

  9

  28

  Thames Water Authority

  0

  2

  2

  Southern Water Authority

  27

  38

  65

  Wessex Water Authority (South Coast)

  26

  1

  27

  South West Water Authority

  92

  17

  109

  Wessex Water Authority (Bristol Channel)

  4

  7

  II

  Welsh Water Authority

  37

  11

  48

  North West Water Authority

  6

  27

  33

  Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland

  14

  2

  16

  Total

  255

  125

  380

  Bathing waters survey—1988 results (England, Wales and Northern Ireland) Compliance with Bathing Water Directive (76/160/EEC): Coliform standards

  1987

  1988

  Published result

  Reworked result (95per cent.rule)

  Result

  Northumbrian Water Authority

  Spittal

  Fail

  Fail

  Fail

  Bamburgh/Seahouses

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Beadnell

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Low Newton

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Alnmouth

  Fail

  Fail

  Pass

  Warkworth

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Druridge Bay

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Newbiggin

  Fail

  Fail

  Fail

  South Beach/Seaton Sluice

  Pass

  Pass

  Fail

  Whitley Bay

  Pass

  Pass

  Fail

  Tynemouth

  Pass

  Fail

  Pass

  South Shields

  Pass

  Fail

  Pass

  Marsden

  Fail

  Fail

  Fail

  Roker/Whitburn

  Fail

  Fail

  Fail

  Seaham

  Fail

  Fail

  Fail

  Crimdon

  Fail

  Fail

  Fail

  570

  1987

  1988

  Published result

  Reworked result (95per cent.rule)

  Result

  Seaton Carew

  Fail

  Fail

  Fail

  Redcar

  Fail

  Fail

  Pass

  Saltburn

  Fail

  Fail

  Fail

  Yorkshire Water Authority

  Staithes

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Runswick Bay

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Sandsend

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Whitby

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Robin Hoods Bay

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Scarborough North Bay

  Pass

  Fail

  Pass

  Scarborough South Bay

  Fail

  Fail

  Pass

  Cayton Bay

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Filey

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Reighton

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Flamborough North Landing

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Flamborough South Landing

  Pass

  Pass

  Fail

  Bridlington North Beach

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Bridlington South Beach

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Wilsthorpe

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Fraisthorpe

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Earls Dyke

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Barmston

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Skipsea

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Homsea

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Tunstall

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Withernsea

  Fail

  Fail

  Pass

  Anglian Water Authority

  Cleethorpes

  Fail

  Fail

  Fail

  Mablethorpe Town

  Fail

  Fail

  Pass

  Sutton-on-sea

  Fail

  Fail

  Fail

  Moggs Eye

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Anderby

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Chapel St. Leonard

  Fail

  Fail

  Pass

  Ingoldmells South

  Fail

  Fail

  Pass

  Skegness

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Heacham

  Pass

  Pass

  Fail

  Hunstanton Beach

  Pass

  Pass

  Fail

  Wells

  Pass

  Fail

  Pass

  Sheringham

  Fail

  Fail

  Fail

  Cromer

  Fail

  Fail

  Fail

  Mundesley

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Great Yarmouth North

  Pass

  Fail

  Pass

  Great Yarmouth Pier

  Pass

  Fail

  Fail

  Great Yarmouth South

  Pass

  Fail

  Fail

  Lowestoft North

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Lowestoft South

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Felixstowe North

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Felixstowe South

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Dovercourt

  Fail

  Fail

  Fail

  Walton

  Fail

  Fail

  Pass

  Frinton

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Holland

  Pass

  Fail

  Pass

  Clacton

  Pass

  Fail

  Pass

  Jaywick

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Brightlingsea

  Fail

  Fail

  Pass

  Thames Water Authority

  Southend Thorpe Bay

  Fail

  Fail

  Fail

  Southend Westcliff Bay

  Fail

  Fail

  Fail

  Southern Water Authority

  Leysdown

  Pass

  Fail

  Pass

  West Beach

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Herne Bay

  Fail

  Fail

  Fail

  Minnis Bay

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  St. Mildred's Bay

  Fail

  Fail

  Pass

  Margate The Bay

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Margate Fulsam Rock

  Pass

  Fail

  Pass

  Joss Bay

  Fail

  Fail

  Fail

  Broadstairs

  Fail

  Fail

  Fail

  Ramsgate

  Fail

  Fail

  Fail

  Sandwich Bay

  Fail

  Fail

  Fail

  571

  1987

  1988

  Published result

  Reworked result (95per cent.rule)

  Result

  Deal Castle

  Fail

  Fail

  Fail

  St. Margaret's Bay

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Folkestone

  Fail

  Fail

  Fail

  Sandgate

  Fail

  Fail

  Fail

  Hythe

  Fail

  Fail

  Fail

  Dymchurch

  Fail

  Fail

  Fail

  St. Mary's Bay

  Fail

  Fail

  Fail

  Littlestone

  Pass

  Fail

  Fail

  Camber

  Fail

  Fail

  Pass

  Winchelsea

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Hastings

  Fail

  Fail

  Fail

  Bexhill

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Norman's Bay

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Pevensey Bay

  Fail

  Fail

  Pass

  Eastbourne

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Seaford

  Fail

  Fail

  Fail

  Newhaven

  Fail

  Fail

  Fail

  Saltdean

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Brighton

  Pass

  Fail

  Fail

  Hove

  Fail

  Fail

  Fail

  Southwick

  Fail

  Fail

  Fail

  South Lancing

  Fail

  Fail

  Fail

  Worthing

  Fail

  Fail

  Fail

  Littlehampton

  Fail

  Fail

  Fail

  Middleton-on-sea

  Pass

  Fail

  Fail

  Bognor Regis

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Pagham

  Pass

  Pass

  Fail

  Selsey

  Fail

  Fail

  Fail

  Bracklesham Bay

  Pass

  Fail

  Pass

  West Wittering

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  West of Eastoke

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  West Hayling

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Eastney

  Pass

  Pass

  Fail

  Southsea

  Pass

  Fail

  Fail

  Stokes Bay

  Pass

  Fail

  Pass

  Lee-on-Solent

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Calshot

  Pass

  Fail

  Fail

  Lepe

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Milford-on-sea

  Fail

  Fail

  Fail

  Christchurch Bay

  Pass

  Pass

  Fail

  Highcliffe

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Compton Bay

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Totland Bay

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Colwell Bay

  Pass

  Pass

  Fail

  Gurnard

  Fail

  Fail

  Fail

  Cowes

  Pass

  Fail

  Fail

  Ryde

  Fail

  Fail

  Fail

  Seagrove

  Pass

  Pass

  Fail

  St. Helens

  Pass

  Fail

  Fail

  Bembridge

  Fail

  Fail

  Fail

  Whitecliff Bay

  Pass

  Pass

  Fail

  Sandown

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Shanklin

  Pass

  Fail

  Pass

  Ventnor

  Pass

  Fail

  Fail

  Wessex Water Authority (South Coast)

  Christchurch, Highcliffe Castle

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Christchurch, Avon Beach

  Fail

  Fail

  Fail

  Christchurch, Mudeford Sandbank

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Bournemouth Hengistbury

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Bournemouth Pier Poole, Shore Road

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Sandbanks Poole Harbour

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Sandbanks

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Poole Harbour Lake

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Poole Harbour, RockleySands

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Shell Bay

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Studland

  Pass

  Fail

  Pass

  572

  1987

  1988

  Published result

  Reworked result (95per cent.rule)

  Result

  Swanage

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Kimmeridge Bay

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Lulworth Cove

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Durdle Door East

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Durdle Door West

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Ringstead

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Bowleaze Cove

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Church Ope Cove

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Weymouth, Lodmoor

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Weymouth, Central

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Portland Harbour, Castle Cove

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Portland Harbour, Sandsfood Castle

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  West Bay (west)

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Eypemouth

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Seatown

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Charmouth West

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  South West Water Authority

  Lyme Regis

  Pass

  Fail

  Fail

  Seaton (Devon)

  Pass

  Fail

  Pass

  Beer

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Sidmouth

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Ladram Bay

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Budleigh Salterton

  Fail

  Fail

  Pass

  Sandy Bay

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Exmouth

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Dawlish Warren

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Dawlish

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Teignmouth

  Fail

  Fail

  Pass

  Shaldon

  Pass

  Fail

  Fail

  Ness Cove

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Maidencombe

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Watcombe

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Oddicombe

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Babbacombe

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Redgate

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Meadfoot

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Beacon Cove

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Torre Abbey

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Hollicombe

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Paignton

  Pass

  Pass

  Fail

  Goodrington

  Fail

  Fail

  Pass

  Broadsands

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Shoalstone

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  St. Mary's Bay

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Dartmouth Castle and Sugary Cove

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Blackpool Sands

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Slapton Sands

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Mill Bay

  Pass

  Fail

  Pass

  Salcombe North Sands

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Salcombe South Sands

  Pass

  Pass

  Fail

  Hope Cove

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Thurlestone

  Fail

  Fail

  Fail

  Bantham

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Bigbury-on-sea

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Challaborough

  Pass

  Fail

  Pass

  Mothecombe

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Wembury

  Pass

  Fail

  Pass

  Bo visand

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Plymouth Hoe

  Pass

  Fail

  Fail

  Portwrinkle

  Fail

  Fail

  Pass

  Downderry

  Pass

  Fail

  Pass

  Seaton (Cornwall)

  Pass

  Fail

  Fail

  Millendreath

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  East Looe

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Readymoney

  Fail

  Fail

  Pass

  Polkerris

  Pass

  Fail

  Pass

  Par

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Crinnis

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Charlestown & Duporth

  Pass

  Fail

  Fail

  Porthpean

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  573

  1987

  1988

  Published result

  Reworked result (95per cent.rule)

  Result

  Pentewan

  Fail

  Fail

  Fail

  Polstreath

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Port Mellon

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Gorran Haven

  Pass

  Fail

  Pass

  Porthluney

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Pendower

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Gyllyngvase

  Pass

  Fail

  Pass

  Swanpool

  Pass

  Fail

  Pass

  Maen Porth

  Pass

  Fail

  Pass

  Porthallow

  Fail

  Fail

  Fail

  Porthoustock

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Coverack

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Kennack Sands

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Pollurian Cove

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Poldhu Cove

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Gunwalloe Cove

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Porthleven

  Pass

  Fail

  Fail

  Praa Sands

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Perran Sands

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Marazion and Mounts Bay

  Fail

  Fail

  Fail

  Porthcurno

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Sennen

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Porthmeor

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Porth Gwidden

  Pass

  Pass

  Fail

  Porthminster

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Carbis Bay

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  The Towans

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Portreath

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Porthtowan

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Trevaunance Cove

  Pass

  Fail

  Pass

  Perranporth

  Pass

  Fail

  Pass

  Holywell Bay

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Crantock

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Fistral

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Towan

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Watergate

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Mawgan Porth

  Pass

  Fail

  Pass

  Treyarnon Bay

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Constantine Bay

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Mother Ivey's Bay

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Harlyn Bay

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Trevone Bay

  Pass

  Fail

  Fail

  Rock

  Pass

  Fail

  Pass

  Daymer Bay

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Polzeath

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Widemouth Sand

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Bude

  Fail

  Fail

  Fail

  Hartland Quay

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Westward Ho!

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Instow

  Fail

  Fail

  Fail

  Saunton Sands

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Croyde Bay

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Woolacombe

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Ilfracombe

  Fail

  Fail

  Pass

  Coombe Martin

  Pass

  Fail

  Fail

  Lynmouth

  Fail

  Fail

  Pass

  Wessex Water Authority (Bristol Channel)

  Porlock Weir

  Pass

  Fail

  Pass

  Minehead Terminus

  Fail

  Fail

  Fail

  Dunster North West

  Fail

  Fail

  Fail

  Blue Anchor West

  Pass

  Fail

  Pass

  Burnham Jetty

  Fail

  Fail

  Fail

  Berrow

  Pass

  Pass

  Fail

  Brean

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Weston-Super-Mare, Uphill Slipway

  Pass

  Pass

  Fail

  Weston-Super-Mare, Grand Pier

  Fail

  Fail

  Fail

  Weston-Super-Mare, Sand Bay

  Pass

  Fail

  Pass

  Clevedon Swimming Pool

  Fail

  Fail

  Fail

  574

  1987

  1988

  Published result

  Reworked result (95per cent.rule)

  Result

  North West Water Authority

  Meols

  Pass

  Fail

  Pass

  Moreton

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  New Brighton

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Formby

  Pass

  Pass

  Fail

  Ainsdale

  Pass

  Fail

  Fail

  Southport

  Fail

  Fail

  Fail

  St. Annes

  Fail

  Fail

  Fail

  St. Annes North

  'Fail

  'Fail

  Fail

  Blackpool South

  Fail

  Fail

  Fail

  Blackpool Central

  Fail

  Fail

  Fail

  Blackpool North

  Fail

  Fail

  Fail

  Bispham

  Fail

  Fail

  Fail

  Cleveleys

  Fail

  Fail

  Fail

  Fleetwood

  Fail

  Fail

  Fail

  Heysham, Half Moon Bay

  Fail

  Fail

  Fail

  Morecambe South

  No survey

  Fail

  Morecambe North

  No survey

  Fail

  Bardsea

  Fail

  Fail

  Fail

  Aldingham

  'Fail

  'Fail

  Fail

  Newbiggin

  'Pass

  'Fail

  Fail

  Walney, Biggar Bank

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Walney, Sandy Gap

  Pass

  Fail

  Pass

  Walney, West Shore

  Pass

  Fail

  Fail

  Roan Head

  Pass

  Fail

  Fail

  Askam-in-Furness

  No survey

  Fail

  Haverigg

  Fail

  Fail

  Fail

  Silecroft

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Seascale

  Fail

  Fail

  Fail

  St. Beessurvey

  No

  Fail

  Allonby South

  'Pass

  'Fail

  Fail

  Allonby

  Pass

  Fail

  Fail

  Silloth

  Pass

  Pass

  Fail

  Skinburness

  'Fail

  'Fail

  Fail

  Welsh Water Authority

  Jacksons Bay Barry

  Fail

  Fail

  Fail

  Whitmore Bay Barry

  Fail

  Fail

  Fail

  Cold Knap Barry

  Fail

  Fail

  Fail

  Southerndown

  Pass

  Pass

  Fail

  Trecco Bay Porthcawl

  Fail

  Fail

  Pass

  Sandy Bay Porthcawl

  Fail

  Fail

  Fail

  Rest Bay Porthcawl

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Aberafan

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Swansea Bay

  Fail

  Fail

  Fail

  Bracelet Bay

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Limeslade Bay

  Fail

  Fail

  Pass

  Langland Bay

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Caswell Bay

  Fail

  Fail

  Pass

  Oxwich Bay

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Port Eynon Bay

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Rhossili

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Pembrey

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Pendine

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Amroth

  Fail

  Fail

  Pass

  Saundersfoot

  Fail

  Fail

  Pass

  Tenby North

  Fail

  Fail

  Fail

  Tenby South

  Pass

  Fail

  Pass

  Broadhaven

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Newgale

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Whitesands

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Newport

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Newquay

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Aberystwyth South

  Fail

  Fail

  Pass

  Aberystwyth North

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Borth

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Tywyn

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Fairbourne

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Barmouth

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Llandanwg

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Harlech

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Morfa Bychan

  Fail

  Fail

  Pass

  Criccieth

  Fail

  Fail

  Pass

  575

  1987

  1988

  Published result

  Reworked result (95 per cent.rule)

  Result

  Pwllheli

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Abersoch

  Pass

  Pass

  Fail

  Morfa Dinlle

  No Survey

  Pass

  Trearddur Bay

  Fail

  Fail

  Pass

  Bent tech

  Fail

  Fail

  Pass

  Llandudno West Shore

  Fail

  Fail

  Fail

  Llandudno North

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Colwyn Bay

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Kinmel Bay

  Fail

  Fail

  Fail

  Rhyl

  Fail

  Fail

  Fail

  Prestatyn

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland

  Magilligan

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Castlerock

  Pass

  Fail

  Pass

  Portstewart

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Portrush (Mill Strand)

  1Pass

  1Pass

  Pass

  Portrush (Curran Strand)

  1Pass

  1Pass

  Pass

  Ballycastle

  Fail

  Fail

  Fail

  Brown's Bay

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Helen's Bay

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Crawfordsburn

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Ballyholme

  Fail

  Fail

  Pass

  Groomsport

  Pass

  Fail

  Pass

  Millisle

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Tyrella

  Pass

  Pass

  Pass

  Newcastle

  Fail

  Fail

  Fail

  Cranfield (Nicholsons Strand)

  1Pass

  1Pass

  Pass

  Cranfield (Cranfield Bay)

  1Pass

  1Pass

  Pass

  1 Although these bathing waters were newly identified in 1988, thesites were sampled in 1987, Portrush (Mill Strand) and Portrush (Curran Strand) as part of Portrush, and Cranfield (NicholsonsStrand) and Cranfield (Cranfield Bay) as part of Cranfield.

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will tabulate in the Official Report the current and proposed levels of value added tax required or suggested by the Council, or the Commission of the European Economic Community, in respect of the supply and disposal of water and services for each connected thereto, together with estimates made by Her Majesty's Government in respect of both net and gross amounts paid, or received, consequential to the imposition of such taxes.

  Mr. Lilley
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Council has neither required nor suggested particular levels of VAT on water and sewerage services. Under the Commission's proposals for approximating rates of VAT in the Community, water would be taxed at a rate of between 4 and 9 per cent. Sewerage services would be taxed at a rate of between 14 and 20 per cent., assuming that they are not regarded as synonymous with "water". The theoretical annual revenue yield from supplies other than to industry would be some £25 million to £75 million in respect of water and some £175 million to £250 million in respect of sewerage services. Changes to EC tax law require unanimity. The Government have, of course, made it clear that they consider tax approximation to be unnecessary for the completion of the single market.

  Alaska Works, Southwark
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will set out the basis on which the grant 576
  to Alaska works in Southwark was made; what special factors made the award a priority; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 20 February 1989]: The Alaska works project has been offered city grant of £4,162,000. It has been appraised by the Department and conforms to the guidelines set out in the city grant guidance notes, copies of which are available in the Library of the House. Detailed information provided in the course of the city grant appraisal is commercially confidential.

  Housing (Leasing Schemes)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many of the lease and leaseback schemes concerning housing development submitted by local authorities following his announcement on 9 March 1988 he(a) has approved, (b) has turned down and (c) is yet to consider.

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 17 February 1989]: My right hon. Friend had by 7 February 1989 received 499 applications for additional capital allocations under the schemes introduced following his announcement on 9 March 1988. A total of 138 have been approved, 78 were premature or have been withdrawn or were unnecessary, and 171 had been refused. Thirty-nine applications were awaiting further information from the applicant local authority and 73 were under consideration in the Department. Fifty one of the successful and 33 of the unsuccessful applications primarily related to housing.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to publish the results of his Department's review of homelessness legislation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 17 February 1989]: I have nothing to add to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant) on 17 January at column 150.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will be issuing a consultation paper as a result of his review into homelessness legislation; and if he will be bringing forward legislation as a result of this review.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 17 February 1989]: The review is not yet complete. When it is, I will decide on consultation.

  Flats
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether payments for leaseback of flats to public sector bodies under section 100 of the Housing Act 1988 will count as prescribed expenditure under the Local Government (Prescribed Expenditure) (Amendment) Regulation 1988 (SI, 1988, No. 434); and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 17 February 1989]: I will write to the hon. Member.

  Officers
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what were the numbers of(a) trading standards officers and (b) environmental health officers employed in 1978 and 1988.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 17 February 1989]: Trading standards officers and environmental health officers are employed by local authorities. The available information is contained in "Trading Standards Statistics" and "Environmental Health Statistics" published by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy.

  London Residuary Body
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what inherited Greater London council services are still the responsibility of the London residuary body; and what is the timetable for disposal.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 17 February 1989]: Hampstead Heath is due to be transferred to the corporation of the City of London on 31 March 1989. The London residuary body expects to complete most of its remaining GLC-related work by 1 April 1990.

  The superannuation fund and staff compensation are still the responsibility of the London residuary body. In addition, the LRB currently retains responsibility for a number of financial rights and liabilities.

  Tower Hamlets (Housing)
  Mr. Shore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what contribution to the housing revenue account the Tower Hamlets council has made from its rate fund in each year since 1979; and what is his estimate of the average subsidy per week that this represents.

  Mr. Ridley
  [holding answer 16 February 1989]: Tower Hamlets informs me that it has made the following rate fund revenue account contributions to its housing revenue account each year since 1979. These contributions are also expressed as average weekly amounts, by dividing them by 52.

  £ million

  Average subsidy perf week £'000

  1979–801

  9·557

  184

  1980–811

  12·377

  238

  1981–822

  10·279

  198

  1982–832

  6·661

  128

  1983–84

  13·887

  267

  1984–85

  15·143

  291

  1985–86

  13·003

  250

  1986–873

  44·489

  856

  1987–88

  43·044

  828

  1988–894

  32·893

  633

  1 including local authority contributions to rent rebates (standard amount), all allowances in excess of the standard amount and the costof administering the rent rebate scheme.

  2 including rent rebates allowances in excess of the standardamount and the cost of administering the rent rebate scheme.

  3 in July 1985 Tower Hamlets took responsibility for approximately 30,000 GLC Council dwellings.

  4 budgeted amount.

  Water Boards
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will state the amount of money he proposes to grant over each of the next two years to the water boards for anti-pollution measures, listing the works scheduled for implementation under this grant aid.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 16 February 1989]: Water authorities are self-financing bodies and are generally required to recover the costs of their services through charges, borrowing and internally generated funds. The Government do not provide grant aid, although grants are available under the Rural Water Supply and Sewerage Acts of 1944 and 1971 and the Industrial Development Act 1982 but only for the first-time provision of sewerage. Some authorities have received grant aid from the European regional development fund for pollution control and other aspects of their operations.

  Legionella
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether, pursuant to his answer of 13 February, the regular bacteriological tests of the air conditioning system and the standby generator serving the underground car park have the potential to identify(a) legionella and (b) similar organisms.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 16 February 1989]: Yes. The regular bacteriological sampling counts all aerobic and anaerobic bacteria present. Tests for specific bacteria such as legionella would be done only if the general bacteriological count gave cause for concern.

  Parish Councils
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what arrangements exist to require the disclosure of financial interests in specific topics by parish councillors.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 16 February 1989]: The provisions of sections 94 to 98 and 105 of the Local Government Act 1972 require members of local authorities, including parish councillors, to declare pecuniary interests in any council business and, unless they receive a dispensation (in the case of parish councils, from the appropriate district council) to abstain from speaking or voting on that matter.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will review the law providing protection for individuals from illegal or improper action by parish councils; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 16 February 1989]: The existing arrangements appear satisfactory. Parish councils, like other local authorities, must act within the law and are subject to the supervision of their auditor and the courts. Any local government elector for the parish may raise matters with which he or she is dissatisfied at the parish meeting.

  Rivers (Derbyshire)
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many kilometres of rivers in Derbyshire are adversely affected by discharges from abandoned mines; and what representations he has received asking him to bring such discharges under the control of a responsible body.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 15 February 1989]: I understand that up to 60 km of rivers in Derbyshire may be adversely affected by discharges from abandoned mines.

  I am aware of the concern which has been expressed about the problems caused by these discharges in some areas. It will be for the National Rivers Authority—as the

  (a) Aggregate Exchequer Grant—cash terms.

  £ million

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  South East

  3,627

  3,789

  3,756

  3,795

  3,784

  3,960

  4,103

  4,242

  Greater London

  1,942

  2,138

  2,059

  2,035

  2,177

  2,315

  2,447

  2,697

  South East excluding Greater London

  1,685

  1,651

  1,697

  1,760

  1,607

  1,645

  1,656

  1,545

  South West

  899

  921

  932

  975

  959

  960

  1,016

  1,085

  East Anglia

  351

  363

  369

  382

  369

  381

  411

  408

  West Midlands

  1,111

  1,155

  1,263

  1,300

  1,281

  1,357

  1,405

  1,409

  East Midlands

  870

  883

  920

  1,039

  953

  924

  998

  1,027

  North West

  1,809

  1,840

  1,916

  1,963

  2,001

  1,999

  2,159

  2,266

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  1,350

  1,395

  1,441

  1,538

  1,469

  1,455

  1,609

  1,674

  Northern Region

  914

  888

  923

  946

  959

  915

  1,032

  1,082

  Total

  10,931

  11,234

  11,520

  11,938

  11,775

  11,951

  12,733

  13,193

  (b) Aggregate Exchequer Grant—1988–89 prices.

  £ million

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  South East

  5,201

  5,071

  4,808

  4,623

  4,374

  4,429

  4,359

  4,242

  Greater London

  2,784

  2,861

  2,636

  2,479

  2,516

  2,589

  2,600

  2,697

  South East excluding Greater London

  2,417

  2,210

  2,172

  2,144

  1,858

  1,840

  1,759

  1,545

  South West

  1,289

  1,232

  1,193

  1,188

  1,109

  1,074

  1,080

  1,08.5

  East Anglia

  503

  486

  472

  466

  426

  426

  437

  408

  West Midlands

  1,593

  1,546

  1,617

  1,584

  1,481

  1,518

  1,493

  1,409

  East Midlands

  1,247

  1,181

  1,178

  1,266

  1,102

  1,034

  1,060

  1,027

  North West

  2,594

  2,462

  2,453

  2,391

  2,313

  2,236

  2,294

  2,266

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  1,936

  1,867

  1,844

  1,874

  1,698

  1,628

  1,710

  1,674

  Northern Region

  1,310

  1,188

  1,182

  1,153

  1,108

  1,023

  1,096

  1,082

  Total

  15,673

  15,033

  14,747

  14,545

  13,611

  13,368

  13,529

  13,193

  Information is not available on a comparable basis for years prior to 1981–82. Cash values have been converted to constant 1988–89 prices using the GDP deflator.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to offer derogations from the European Economic Community regulations on nitrate pollution to private water companies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 16 February 1989]: We have no plans to grant to private water companies derogations from the nitrate standard of the EC drinking water directive.
  580
  responsible body for regulating all discharges to water—to tackle these problems where the discharges are preventing the achievement of river quality objectives.

  Exchequer Grant
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the aggregate Exchequer grant paid to local authorities in England for each financial year since 1978–79. broken down by standard economic region showing Greater London separately from the rest of the south-east(a) in cash terms and, (b) at 1988–89 prices.

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 15 February 1989]: The information available is as follows:

SCOTLAND

  Primary School Teachers
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many teachers there are in primary schools in rural areas in Scotland at the latest date for which figures are available; and how many there were in 1979.

  Mr. Rifkind
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) to the hon. Member in answer to this question on 25 July 1985 at column 697. The most recent information on the number of teachers in primary schools by education authority is contained in SED statistical bulletin No. 1/B1/1988. Copies of this and earlier bulletins on the same subject are available in the Library.

  Primary Schools (Closure)
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many primary schools in rural areas in Scotland have been closed since 1979.

  Mr. Rifkind
  Rural areas are not defined for statistical purposes.

  Forestry
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the proportion of broadleaves of the total planting in Scotland by(a) the Forestry Commission and (b) private sector companies in the year 1987–88.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Broadleaves made up 8·3 per cent. of the Forestry Commission's planting and 6·7 per cent. of grant-aided planting by the private sector during this period. Separate figures for the forestry companies are not available.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the value of the planting grants made to the private forestry sector in Caithness and Sutherland for each year since 1979; and if he will reprice the figures for inflation.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is given in the table:

  Year to 31 March

  Planting grants paid (£ thousands)

  Planting grants paid (£ thousands revalued to 1988 equivalents)

  1980

  14

  24

  1981

  34

  50

  1982

  124

  167

  1983

  137

  173

  1984

  470

  564

  1985

  338

  385

  Year to 31 March

  Conservancy1 (£ thousands)

  Conservancy1 (£ thousands revalued to 1988 equivalents)

  North

  East

  South

  West

  North

  East

  South

  West

  1982

  66

  62

  37

  55

  89

  83

  49

  74

  1983

  49

  64

  34

  58

  62

  81

  43

  73

  1984

  61

  74

  150

  67

  73

  88

  179

  80

  1985

  70

  60

  53

  88

  80

  68

  60

  101

  North

  Mid

  South

  North

  Mid

  South

  1986

  88

  156

  10

  95

  168

  108

  1987

  112

  126

  148

  117

  132

  155

  1988

  192

  258

  295

  192

  258

  295

  1 The former East Scotland Conservancy was assimilated into the North and Mid Scotland Conservancies in 1985.

  The figures cover the full range of visitor facilities. The figures I provided to the hon. Member on 20 November 1987 at column 537–38 covered only those categories of facilities which included forest walks and footpaths.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the amount of forest recreation and amenity subsidy made to the Forestry Commission in Scotland and in England and Wales in each year since 1979; and if he will reprice the figures for inflation.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is set out in the table:582

  Year to 31 March

  Planting grants paid (£ thousands)

  Planting grants paid (£ thousands revalued to 1988 equivalents)

  1986

  691

  746

  1987

  808

  848

  1988

  604

  604

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the value of the planting grants made to the private forestry sector in Scotland for each year since 1979; and if he will reprice the figures for inflation.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is given in the table:

  Year to 31 March

  Planting grants paid (£ thousands)

  Planting grants paid (£ thousands revalued to 1988 equivalents)

  1980

  1,481

  2,562

  1981

  1,393

  2,033

  1982

  2,474

  3,341

  1983

  2,669

  3,363

  1984

  3,607

  4,328

  1985

  3,727

  4,249

  1986

  4,476

  4,834

  1987

  4,592

  4,822

  1988

  5,139

  5,139

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the sums spent on visitor facilities in each of the three conservancies, north Scotland, mid-Scotland and south Scotland in each year since 1979; and if he will reprice the figures for inflation.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information, which is available only from 1981–82 onwards, is set out in the table:

  Year to 31 March

  Scotland

  England and Wales

  Scotland

  England and Wales

  (£ thousands)

  (£ thousands revalued at 1988 equivalents)

  1980

  1,070

  2,463

  1,844

  4,240

  1981

  1,036

  2,349

  1,512

  3,428

  1982

  1,016

  2,476

  1,377

  3,353

  1983

  1,143

  2,649

  1,440

  3,337

  1984

  1,278

  3,058

  1,530

  3,660

  1985

  1,374

  3,212

  1,572

  3,677

  1986

  1,877

  3,936

  2,029

  4,257

  1987

  1,905

  4,731

  2,000

  4,968

  1988

  2,637

  5,826

  2,637

  5,826

  583
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the division among the three conservancies, north Scotland, mid-Scotland and south

  Conservancy (£ thousands)

  Conservancy (£ thousands revalued to 1988 equivalents)

  Year to 31 March

  North

  East1

  South

  West

  North

  East1

  South

  West

  1980

  263

  214

  312

  281

  453

  369

  538

  484

  1981

  305

  259

  275

  197

  445

  378

  401

  288

  1982

  238

  273

  274

  231

  322

  370

  372

  313

  1983

  272

  353

  268

  250

  342

  445

  338

  315

  1984

  318

  337

  344

  279

  381

  403

  412

  334

  1985

  332

  338

  300

  354

  380

  444

  343

  405

  North

  Mid

  South

  North

  Mid

  South

  1986

  542

  784

  551

  586

  848

  595

  1987

  588

  656

  661

  617

  689

  694

  1988

  720

  965

  952

  720

  965

  952

  1 The former East Scotland Conservancy was assimilated into the Mid Scotland and North Scotland Conservancies in 1985.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the items of expenditure covered by the forest recreation and amenity subsidy made to the Forestry Commission in Scotland in the year to 3 March 1988.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The forest recreation and amenity subsidy is spent on a wide variety of items, including visitor centres, picnic areas, car parks, toilet blocks, forest walks, interpretative facilities, wildlife conservation, streamside improvements, archaeological conservation, amenity work, landscape improvement and the provision of facilities for specialised pursuits and events such as horse-riding and orienteering.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many jobs have been lost through afforestation in each year from 1983.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Statistics on comparative job losses and gains as a result of afforestation are not collected.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of Forestry Commission trees in Scotland have been damaged by atmospheric pollution.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) on 5 December 1988 at column 46.

  Farm Woodland Scheme
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many farmers have applied for grants under the farm woodland scheme; what acreage has been planted under the scheme; and what proportion of this acreage has been planted with(a) broadleaves and (b) conifers.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Since the scheme opened at the beginning of October 1988, a total of 130 farmers in Scotland have applied for grants under the farm woodland scheme relating to a total planting area in excess of 1,300 hectares; twenty applications have so far been approved and it is expected that the vast majority of the remaining 110 applications will be dealt with in time for planting to be undertaken in the current planting year. Information on the amount and nature of planting undertaken is not yet available.
  584
  Scotland of the forest recreation and amenity subsidy made to the Forestry Commission in Scotland in each year since 1979; and if he will reprice the figures for inflation.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is set out in the table:

  Football Matches (Arrests)
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was(a) the number of association football matches played at Ibrox Park, Glasgow, during the 1987–88 season, (b) the total attendance during the season, (c) the total arrests in association with these matches, (d) the average attendance per match, (e) the average number of arrests per match and (f) the arrests as a percentage of the attendance.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Glasgow Rangers football club and the chief constable, of the Strathclyde police. have provided the information on which the following table is based:

  Association Football Matches at Ibrox Park, Glasgow during season1987–88

  Number

  a. Matches played.

  43

  b. Total attendance.

  1,072,001

  c. Total associated arrests.

  407

  d. Average attendance per match.

  24,930

  e. Average number of arrests per match.

  9

  f. Arrests as percentage of attendance.

  0·038

  Heritage
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the main conclusions of the policy review of the Royal Commission on the ancient and historical monuments of Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  As part of the Government's programme of periodic reviews of non-departmental public bodies, a policy review has been undertaken of the activities and functions of the Royal Commission on the ancient and historical monuments of Scotland (RCAHMS) and the equivalent bodies for England and Wales. This review is being conducted jointly with my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Wales. We shall be announcing the detailed conclusions of the review in due course.

  There are however certain major issues of principle arising from the review which my right hon. and learned Friend has decided can be settled now, in advance of the

  585
  completion of the review. These are the question of whether the RCAHMS should be retained, the organisational and management arrangements of the royal commission, and the scope for transfer of heritage functions to the royal commission.

  The review has established that the task of creating and maintaining a national heritage archive remains a necessary and important feature of heritage policy. We have concluded that the RCAHMS should remain as a separate body charged with performing this function and designated as the national body for survey and recording of historic building and ancient monuments.

  We have also decided that the royal commission's activities should be more closely aligned with wider considerations of heritage policy. To facilitate this, the historic buildings and monuments directorate of the Scottish Development Department will become sponsoring Department for the RCAHMS. This will be accompanied by changes in the management operations of the commission to bring it into line with current practice. These will include the institution of a corporate planning system, the development of performance measures and indicators, and the provision of a financial memorandum.

  The study by outside consultants which formed the first stage in the policy review suggested that there might be scope for transferring certain heritage functions from the directorate of the RCAHMS. These functions included some features of responsibility for the listing of historic buildings, the scheduling of ancient monuments, and rescue archaeology. My right hon. and learned Friend has, however, concluded that the existing arrangements for the listing of historic buildings and the scheduling of ancient monuments remain appropriate. Listing and scheduling are linked to considerations of conservation rather than of survey and record. As regards funding of rescue archaeology, the arguments of principle for and against a transfer are finely balanced, but we have concluded that transferring this responsibility to the RCAHMS is not practicable at this stage.

  With these issues of principle now resolved, we consider that the review has mapped out a clear role for the royal commission in the future conservation of our heritage and has identified the organisational and management arrangements necessary to assist the commission in discharging this role to the full. I have written to the chairman of the RCAHMS to inform him of our conclusions.

  Nuvan 500 EC
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state the proportions of toxicity data for Nuvan

  Inverclyde Royal hospital Number of deaths, by primary diagnosis1, in years 1984–88

  Diagnosis

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  Not known

  —

  2

  —

  1

  13

  Infections and Parasitic Disease

  4

  1

  2

  5

  4

  Neoplasms

  179

  160

  152

  165

  169

  Endocrine Metabolic Immunity etc.

  6

  5

  4

  2

  6

  Blood: Blood Forming Organ Disease

  1

  3

  2

  2

  3

  Mental Disorders

  —

  1

  —

  2

  —

  Nervous System Sense Organs

  5

  6

  4

  4

  1

  Circulation Systems

  223

  260

  245

  252

  227

  Respiratory System

  74

  51

  67

  46

  59

  Digestive System

  48

  47

  40

  36

  45

  Genito-urinary Systems

  16

  13

  21

  9

  10

  Complications of Pregnancy, Childbirth Puerperium

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  Skin, Subcutaneous Tissue

  2

  2

  2

  2

  3

  586
  500 EC which have been extrapolated from laboratory tests and from field studies, such as bioassays and ecological surveys; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 26 January 1989]: Data has been provided by the manufacturer of Nuvan 500 EC to the veterinary products committee in support of the company's application for the product to be licensed for use as a medicine. Information in support of an application for a medicinal product licence is a matter of commercial confidentiality. The publication of such information and the tests on which it is based would be a matter for the company concerned.

  The Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland has carried out its own investigations into the environmental effect of dichlorvos, the active ingredient of Nuvan and its possible toxicity to a number of marine organisms. All of the toxicity data so far obtained by DAFS scientists in these investigations is derived from laboratory studies.

  As I indicated in my reply of 12 January to the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) at column 726, results of the studies so far of the toxicity of dichlorvos to the larval forms of the lobster (Homarus gammarus) and the herring (Clupea Hargenus) will be published later this year. Other studies (including possible field studies) are planned on the effects on marine life of prolonged or repeated exposure to low levels of dichlorvos.

  Inverclyde Royal Hospital
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each of the past five years the number of deaths which have occurred at the Inverclyde royal hospital; what was the cause in each case; how many of these deaths were the subject of a fatal accident inquiry; what was the result in each case; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 15 February 1989]: The table shows the number of deaths recorded for eah year over the period. Mandatory or discretionary inquiries under the Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths Inquiry (Scotland) Act 1976 are known to have been held in respect of five deaths. Two of these related to accidents which occurred outwith the hospital and did not involve consideration of any treatment received. In each case a determination was issued by the sheriff. These are available on request from the sheriff clerk's office, Greenock.
  587

  Diagnosis

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  Musculoskeletal System Connective Tissue

  5

  1

  2

  3

  —

  Congenital Anomalies

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Conditions Originating in Perinatal Period

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Symptoms, Signs Ill Defined

  24

  35

  26

  31

  18

  Injury Poisoning

  29

  32

  32

  36

  20

  Total

  617

  620

  600

  596

  581

  1 Primary diaanncic is laced rather than certified caner of death althninth in mnct racec thic will he the came

  Shipyards
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much money his office is putting into the St. Helena ferry project for the Overseas Development Administration following the collapse of Hall Russell, Aberdeen; and if he will make a statement on his policy for subsidising Scottish shipyards.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 20 February 1989]: Hall Russell won the order for the St. Helena ship in open competition after full evaluation of the competing bids. When confirming the placing of the contract the Government were aware that Hall Russell could face financial difficulties if additional orders were not secured. In order for the contract to proceed in Aberdeen the Scottish Office agreed to make a contribution to the overseas aid programme in the event of additional costs above an agreed level being incurred. Additional costs will now inevitably arise because of receivership at Hall Russell, but the amount of any Scottish Office contribution has still to be determined.

  Polkemmet Bing
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he is taking through Scottish Department officials to alleviate the position at Polkemmet Bing.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 20 February 1989]: Power of control over emissions of smoke and fumes from colliery spoil banks rests with local authorities under the terms of the Clear Air Act 1956, but my officials have been in contact with West Lothian district council to offer advice and assistance with monitoring of air pollution levels and interpretation of results. They have visited Polkemmet together with officials of the district council and have participated in discussions with British Coal as to how best to tackle the Bing.

  Chapelcross Power Station
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen)Official Report, 26 January, column 716, whether the spent nuclear fuel cooling ponds at Chapelcross are built to the same structural standards as the nuclear power plant; and whether the site licences take into account air crash potential on spent nuclear fuel cooling ponds.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 9 February 1989]: The spent nuclear fuel cooling ponds at Chapelcross are an integral part of the nuclear power station and are built to the same structural standards. The ponds themselves have a robust construction, are partially below ground and therefore have a degree of internal strength.

  The nuclear site licences cover the whole plant including the spent fuel cooling ponds as well as the reactors
  588
  themselves. All aspects of safety including potential air crashes are considered by the nuclear installations inspectorate in the granting of licences to operators of nuclear plant.

  The safety considerations applying to the cooling ponds are therefore the same as those outlined in my reply to the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen).

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Race Relations and Equal Opportunity
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will describe his Department's principal achievements in respect of race relations and equal opportunity since May 1979.

  Mr. Moore
  In the employment field my Department has implemented many of the recommendations of the joint review of policies and procedures on race relations in the Civil Service (1983) and the programme of action for women (1984), through its network of equal opportunities officers established in 1985. The more significant initiatives on race equality which have been carried out include:

  (a) participation in the phased programme of departmental ethnic surveys of staff which was completed last year with the then DHSS response rate averaging 75 per cent.,

  (b) the introduction of ethnic monitoring of recruitment in 1987 when early surveys indicated a shortfall in ethnic minority recruits compared with the ethnic minority working population; positive action in recruitment such as the use of ethnic media to attract ethnic minority recruits,

  (c) participation (as one of four departments) in an OMCS initiative in London and the south-east to provide access training for potential executive officer recruits from ethnic minority groups,

  (d) a study in 1987 of ethnic monitoring of promotion which is being followed up this year with further monitoring of promotion and job allocation, and

  (e) the commitment to sponsor a Windsor fellow in 1990.

  With regard to sex equality, my Department has seen an increasing number of women progressing to middle and senior management grades—about 16 per cent. of SEOs and above are women. Encouragement is also given to part-time working and job sharing with 6 per cent. of staff now working part time—over 5,500 officers. Improved special leave provisions have specifically targeted help for single parents and those caring for elderly or infirm relatives and a keeping in touch scheme was introduced in 1988 which allows preferential reinstatement for people who have to take a break from work for domestic reasons. In the area of child care, care parent and holiday play schemes assist staff working at the Department's Newcastle office and further holiday play schemes are planned for 1989. My Department also runs a successful management development course for women in grades HEO to grade 7.

  As far as benefit policy and service provision and concerned ethnic origin is not relevant to entitlement to

  589
  benefit. There has been a continuing programme to ensure that social security legislation conforms with the requirements of the relevant Community directives on equal treatment for men and women in statutory and occupational schemes. Thus, clause 19 and schedule 3 of the Social Security Bill currently before this House will, if Parliament passes it, implement Council directive 86/378/EEC.

  As far as means-tested benefits are concerned, income support and its predecessor, supplementary benefit, have been available to men and women on exactly the same conditions since November 1983. Prior to this date only the male partner of a couple could claim benefit.

  My Department has recognised the particular problems faced by members of ethnic minorities in claiming benefits and has developed a range of measures to assist them. The more important initiatives include:

  (a) publication in six Asian languages and Turkish, of the leaflet "Which benefit?", which covers the whole range of social security benefits,

  (b) a free telephone advice and information service in Urdu and Punjabi,

  (c) training courses for local office staff which are designed to equip them to serve successfully a multi-racial community,

  (d) an interpreter/liaison service in Bradford, and

  (e) signs and posters to help ethnic minority callers in local offices and public areas.

  Model guidance on equal opportunities implications of policy proposals, recommended by the ministerial group on women's issues, covers race and sex discrimination and has been extended in my Department to include disability issues. This guidance will shortly be circulated to divisional heads and this will direct attention to equal opportunities issues in all areas of the Department's business.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the yield from employers' national insurance contributions in the last year.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information is as follows:

  Estimated yield from employers' national insurance contributions

  £ billion

  1987–88

  14·38

  1988–89

  15·28

  Figures include National Health Service allocation contributions and exclude deductions in respect of statutory sick pay and the statutory maternity pay. Estimates for 1988–89 were published in the Autumn Statement.

  Mrs. Rhoda Thompson
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security why Mrs. Rhoda Thompson of 25 Lerwick crescent, Middlesbrough has still not been sent her transitional payments in respect of November; and why payments are not being sent to the temporary address notified to the transitional payments unit on a number of occasions.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Payments are now being made correctly and I have written to my hon. Friend today.

  Benefits (South Yorkshire)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people are claiming income support in the Doncaster and Mexborough areas of South Yorkshire; what are the corresponding figures for each year since 1979; what was the actual percentage increase or decrease between the figures for 1979 and the latest figures; and what are the comparable national figures.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The table shows the number of people receiving income support and its predecessor, supplementary benefit.

  Figures have been supplied for the Department's local office at Doncaster East, Doncaster West and Wath-on-Dearne which serve the Don Valley constituency, although their boundaries are not conterminous.

  Doncaster East

  Doncaster West

  Wath-on-Dearne

  Supplementary Benefit

  27 November 1979

  5,818

  7,082

  4,170

  2 December 1980

  6,605

  8,371

  4,931

  9 December 1981

  8,284

  10,730

  6,088

  7 December 1982

  9,546

  12,386

  6,638

  6 December 1983

  10,269

  12,633

  7,172

  12 December 1984

  11,081

  14,193

  7,891

  11 December 1985

  11,498

  14,188

  8,073

  10 December 1986

  11,806

  15,131

  8,231

  18 November 1987

  11,712

  14,559

  7,879

  Income Support

  30 November 1988

  10,164

  12,951

  7,118

  Percentage increase between 27 November 1979 and 30 November 1988 (rounded)

  75

  83

  71

  Nationally:

  Numbers

  Supplementary Benefit on 27 November 1979

  2,971,981

  Income Support on 30 November 1988

  4,325,232

  Percentage increase between 27 November 1979 and30 November 1988 (rounded)

  46

  Source: 100 per cent. count of cases in action. The figures given include a small number of cases not actually in receipt of benefit. The data for 1988 are provisional and subject to amendment.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many new claims for income support were made in each month since 11 April 1988 at the Doncaster and Mexborough officers of his Department; and how many claims were determined each month;

  (2) what was the average number of new claims and cases since 11 April 1988 awaiting review at the Doncaster and Mexborough offices of his Department which were recorded as outstanding each month; and how many related to (a) supplementary benefit claims and (b) single payment claims;

  (3) how many unlinked items of correspondence were recorded each month since 11 April 1988 at the Doncaster and Mexborough offices of his Department;

  (4) what load of current cases the Doncaster and Mexborough offices of his Department have carried in the past six months.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information available is set out in the tables.
  591
  The figures on unlinked post are supplied from local office records. The source of the live load count is the 100

  Ending last day of month 1988

  1989

  April

  May

  June

  July

  August

  September

  October

  November

  December

  January

  Doncaster East

  Income support

  Claims

  Intake

  581

  688

  852

  1,111

  830

  985

  906

  873

  646

  860

  Processed

  467

  703

  894

  1,104

  841

  966

  921

  891

  587

  848

  Outstanding

  114

  99

  107

  114

  103

  122

  107

  89

  148

  160

  Assessment review outstanding

  82

  47

  63

  52

  88

  114

  47

  43

  216

  213

  Unlinked post

  52

  25

  5

  0

  17

  73

  14

  11

  2

  19

  Live load

  —

  —

  —

  —

  10,379

  —

  —

  10,164

  —

  —

  Supplementary benefit work outstanding

  Claims

  8

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Single payments

  123

  9

  8

  8

  5

  3

  2

  2

  0

  0

  Additional requirements

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Doncaster West

  Income support

  Claims

  Intake

  794

  911

  994

  1,313

  996

  1,268

  999

  1,039

  758

  1,151

  Processed

  541

  882

  991

  1,330

  1,075

  1,134

  1,146

  1,021

  785

  1,092

  Outstanding

  253

  282

  285

  268

  189

  323

  176

  194

  167

  22.6

  Assessment review outstanding

  159

  63

  153

  164

  99

  115

  107

  70

  137

  174

  Unlinked post

  58

  33

  28

  20

  9

  393

  12

  12

  100

  33

  Live load

  —

  —

  —

  —

  12,950

  —

  —

  12,951

  —

  —

  Supplementary benefit work outstanding

  Claims

  94

  7

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Single payments

  1,692

  842

  117

  39

  7

  4

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Additional requirements

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Wath-on-Dearne

  Income support

  Claims

  Intake

  437

  571

  589

  668

  569

  740

  623

  627

  453

  661

  Processed

  316

  564

  603

  657

  584

  692

  660

  605

  456

  655

  Outstanding

  121

  128

  114

  125

  110

  158

  121

  143

  140

  146

  Assessment review outstanding

  212

  45

  43

  46

  38

  76

  58

  102

  120

  163

  Unlinked post

  31

  39

  32

  6

  22

  38

  10

  16

  26

  36

  Live load

  —

  —

  —

  —

  7,222

  —

  —

  7,118

  —

  —

  Supplementary benefit work outstanding

  Claims

  47

  6

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Single payments

  731

  363

  38

  9

  6

  7

  4

  5

  0

  0

  Additional requirements

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Medical Boards
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what guidance is available to members of medical boards concerning the grounds for review of mobility allowance awards.

  Mr. Scott
  Members of every medical board dealing with an application for a review are supplied with guidance notes. A copy has been placed in the Library.

  Board and Lodging Allowance (Lambeth)
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish a list of the organisations and hostels for which board and lodging allowance is paid in the London borough of Lambeth.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  There are no plans to publish a list of organisations or hostels in Lambeth which accommodate income support recipients.
  592
  per cent. count of cases in action and is available only on a quarterly basis. The figures given include a small number of cases not acually in receipt of benefit.

  Income Support
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what changes are planned for April in the procedures for claiming income support.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No changes are planned for April in the procedures for claiming income support.

  We have been monitoring the operation of the income support claim procedures, and in particular the claim forms, and are satisfied that they are generally working well. Revised claim forms will be introduced in April to reflect the introduction of the community charge in Scotland—there will be separate versions for Scotland and for England and Wales. The revised forms will also incorporate some minor amendments with a view to improving still further our service to the public.

  We shall, of course, continue to monitor the effectiveness of the claim forms and procedures and improve them where necessary.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish in the Official Report (a) the current number of people in private rest homes receiving

  593
  income support, (b) the total cost of income support for people living in private rest homes, (c) the current number of people in private nursing homes receiving income support and (d) the total cost of income support for people living in private rest homes.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I regret that the information is not available in the form requested. However, relevant information in respect of independent—that is private and voluntary—homes was provided in my reply to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) on 21 December 1988 at columns 304–6.

  Attendance Allowance
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish in the Official Report the total number of people currently receiving attendance allowance; if he will give a breakdown of the numbers receiving the higher and lower amounts; what are the total costs involved; and if he will give the total number of those receiving the allowance living in private (a) rest homes, and (b) nursing homes.

  Mr. Scott
  The available information is in the table. Details of the allowances in payment to residents of rest homes and nursing homes are not kept.

  Estimated number of attendance allowance recipients and cost1988–89

  Estimated average number of recipients at any one time Thousands

  Estimated total cost per year1 £l million

  All rates1

  Higher rate

  Lower rate

  760

  310

  450

  1,042

  1Source: Public Expenditure White Paper, January 1989.

  Pensioners
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will consider creating a standing committee of representatives of the pensioners' movement together with the Minister and senior civil servants dealing with the areas mainly affecting the retired in social security matters.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 17 February at column 404.

  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners have received reduced housing benefit; what this figure is as a percentage of all pensioners since April 1988; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I regret that the information is not available.

  Supplementary benefit (income support from April 1988) to people in independent residential care and nursing homes1

  Number of claimants (000's)

  Average payment (£ per weekcurrent prices)

  Average payment (£ per weekconstant prices2)

  Expenditure (£ million current prices)

  Expenditure (£ million constant prices)

  February 1986

  901

  98·11

  107·8

  459

  505

  May 1988

  147

  115·0

  115·0

  878

  878

  1 All figures are estimates.

  2 Adjusted to May 1988 prices on basis of retail prices index.

  594
  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the estimated cost of increasing income support for(a) all pensioners and (b) all beneficiaries by 10 per cent.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The estimated costs for income support—excluding boarders and residential or nursing home residents—are:—

  (a) £550 million

  (b) £1,300 million

  Because of the alignment of income-related benefits, the total costs of such changes would be £850 million and £1,850 million respectively.

  Retirement Age
  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the estimated cost for equalising retirement ages for men and women at the ages of 60, 62, 63 and 65 years assuming that everyone elects to retire at the specified age; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The most recent estimates, which are based on 1985–86 benefit rates, are that the approximate net annual cost to public funds of equalising state pension age at 60 years would be £3,000 million and at 62 years £800 million; equalisation at 65 years would save about £500 million. Estimates are not available for equalisation at 63 years.

  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the cost of abolishing the earnings rule for retired pensioners; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We estimate that abolition of the retirement pension earnings rule in 1990–91 would involve a public expenditure cost of about £250 million.

  Residential Homes for the Elderly
  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the number and average cost of private residential accommodation for the elderly in 1986 and 1988; how this increase compares with the retail price index; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I regret that information is not available in the precise form requested. However relevant information in respect of income support payments to people in independent—that is private and voluntary—homes is provided in the table. Over the corresponding period, the increase in the retail price index was 9·9 per cent.

  Mr. N. Scott
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects to give a substantive reply following his holding answer of 30 January, to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with respect to the case of Mr. N. Scott; and if he will set up an internal inquiry into the reasons for both the delay which was the subject of the original question and the delay in replying substantively to that question.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I replied to the right hon. Member yesterday. We have no plans to hold an internal inquiry into either of the delays to which he refers.

ENERGY

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) when he next plans to meet the chairman and officers of the Association for the Conservation of Energy, in order to discuss the application of British energy efficiency systems and equipment to deal with global warming and the greenhouse effect;

  (2) what information is available to British embassies or trade legations to enable them to deal with inquiries for British energy efficiency systems and equipment designed to combat global warming and the greenhouse effect;

  (3) what steps he proposes to take in order to promote the availability of British energy efficiency systems and equipment as solutions to global warming and the greenhouse effect.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  British embassies and trade missions have available to them the literature and contacts provided by the trade associations of the energy efficiency industry, and the services of the Department of Energy and the Department of Trade and Industry. Ministers and officials of both Departments frequently promote the British energy efficiency industry overseas. The identification and follow-up of export opportunities is one of the objectives of the energy efficiency office.

  My right hon. Friend will be meeting the chairman of the Association for the Conservation of Energy shortly and will be very happy to discuss these matters with him.

HEALTH

  Patient Statistics
  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total number of patients treated by the National Health Service in 1979 and in the latest available year.

  Mr. Mellor
  Between 1979 and 1987–88 more than 1 million more in-patient cases were treated in National Health Service hospitals in England, a rise of 22 per cent. from 5·40 million to 6·62 million cases. In the same period provisional figures suggest that day cases have risen by 71 per cent. from 592,000 to more than 1 million, and new out-patient attendances by 10 per cent.

  Infant Mortality (Listeria)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of perinatal deaths, stillbirths and miscarriages which have occurred over the past year have been examined for the presence of listeria monocytogenes.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Post-mortem examinations for still births or perinatal deaths to establish the presence of listeria monocytogenes would be carried out only at the request of clinical staff or a coroner, and we do not hold information on those requests centrally.

  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many miscarriages and stillbirths have been related to the consumption of soft cheeses in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  [holding answer 16 February 1989]: To date, there have been no confirmed reports to the public health laboratory service of miscarriages and stillbirths associated with the consumption of soft cheese. There were nine reported stillbirths associated with listeriosis in 1988.

  Cottage Hospitals
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether cottage hospitals, either separately or collectively, will be permitted to opt for National Health Servize hospital trust status under his proposals outlined in the recent White Paper, "Working for Patients".

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  It is the Government's intention that any hospital or group of hospitals which meets the criteria set out in the White Paper will be eligible to apply for National Health Service hospital trust status. Each application will, of course, need to be carefully considered on its merits.

  Food Irradiation
  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his policy towards the irradiation of food.

  Mr. Freeman
  As the hon. Member will be aware, the Government announced early last year that they accepted expert advice that, under prescribed conditions, irradiated food is safe and wholesome. However, we also stated that the general prohibition of the process would remain until we had received advice on the scope and format of regulatory controls necessary to ensure good industrial and marketing practices. In that connection, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and I expect a report from officials shortly. I should add that any proposals to amend or adjust the current prohibition will be subject to full public consultation as is required under the Food Acts.

  Health Service Personnel (Training)
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many Health Service personnel are trained by the private sector.

  Mr. Mellor
  Precise figures are unavailable. It is known that while little basic professional training takes place in the private sector, there is a range of in-house
  597
  post-registration training from which the NHS benefits if staff move back into the service. Representatives from the Department and the private sector have recently agreed to a joint working group with the aim of increasing the total stock of skilled staff available to both sectors.

  Nurses (Pay)
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the level of nurses' pay in 1979 and in the latest available year, in real terms.

  Mr. Mellor
  The average pay of all nurses has gone up by 45 per cent. in real terms since 1979 and now stands at its highest ever real terms level. A typical experienced staff nurse on the maximum of the scale now has basic pay of £10,650, compared with £3,813 in 1979—an increase of £3,645 or 52 per cent. in real terms. Nurses will receive a further increase of 6·8 per cent. from 1 April 1989.

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to reduce hospital waiting lists.

  Mr. Mellor
  The reforms in our White Paper "Working for Patients" (Cm. 555) will provide a better service for patients, including shorter waiting times.

  We shall create 100 additional consultant posts over the next three years, above planned expansion levels, targeted at the worst waiting problems. We shall give hospitals, for the first time, a real incentive to treat patients quickly and efficiently by paying them for the work they actually do. There will also be better waiting times information for GPs to enable them to refer patients more easily to where waiting times are shortest. In addition, some GP practices will manage their own budgets, so as to get the best possible deal for their patients.

  We have also made £86 million available from the waiting list fund over three years to tackle the worst waiting problems.

  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps patients will be able to take to reduce waiting times for treatment following implementation of his proposals contained in the White Paper "Working for Patients".

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The White Paper proposes that some family doctors should have the freedom to manage

  Number of notifications of abortions carried out under the Abortion Act 1967 to residents and non-residents of England and Wales by statutory grounds (mentioned) 1981–87. These figures represent the number of times each of the statutory grounds reported (mentioned) rather than the number of operations.

  Statutory grounds1

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  All grounds

  182,090

  180,182

  179,310

  186,618

  187,390

  187,433

  190,692

  1

  790

  674

  549

  596

  534

  488

  480

  2

  158,520

  159,418

  158,389

  165,996

  168,113

  168,732

  170,860

  3

  20,713

  17,796

  18,098

  17,757

  16,687

  16,176

  17,404

  4

  2,053

  2,282

  2,268

  2,252

  2,040

  2,031

  1,941

  5

  5

  7

  3

  9

  5

  2

  3

  6

  9

  5

  3

  8

  11

  4

  4

  1 The statutory grounds under which an abortion may be performed are that:

  1. the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk to the life of the pregnant woman greater than if the pregnancy were terminated.

  2. the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman greater than if the pregnancy were terminated.

  3. the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk or injury to the physical or mental health of any existing child (ren) in the family of the pregnant woman greater than if the pregnancy were terminated.

  598
  their own budgets for hospital services, so as to get the best possible deal for their patients. Better information will be available to all GPs and patients about hospital services, including waiting times. Hospitals will have a real incentive to treat patients quickly and efficiently because they will be paid for the work they do. The White Paper also proposes that it should be easier for patients to change their doctor if they wish to do so.

  As a result, the NHS as a whole will become much more responsive to the individual patient. Patients will be able to discuss real choices with their GPs, and both will be able to act effectively in the best interest of the patient.

  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to cut waiting lists through the more efficient use of cross-boundary flows.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The reforms in our White Paper "Working for Patients" (Cm. 555) will end the present arrangements which provide little incentive for health authorities to treat patients from outside their boundaries. In future, hospitals will be free to offer their services to different health authorities and will receive NHS funds for the patients they treat. For the first time, hospitals will have real incentives to treat patients quickly and efficiently regardless of where they live. and patients will be able to go to hospitals where waiting times are shortest.

  Abortion
  Sir Bernard Braine
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of abortions at 28 weeks were perforated during 1987 because the child was likely to be born handicapped.

  Mr. Freeman
  In 1987 there was only one notification of an abortion which took place with a gestation period at 28 weeks. This was carried out under ground 4 of the 1967 Abortion Act which states"there is a substantial risk that if the child is born it would suffer such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped."

  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many abortions have been carried out during the last 10 years for which figures are available by each of the six statutory grounds.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information is shown in the table. Comparable data is not available for earlier years.
  599
  4. there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped, or in emergency, certified by the operating practitioner as imediately necessary—

  5. to save the life of the pregnant woman, or

  6. to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman.

  Mr. Ken Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many women in England and Wales in 1988 underwent their fourth abortion operation.

  Mr. Freeman
  The number of notifications of women having their fourth abortion (legal terminations or spontaneous miscarriages) in England and Wales for the period January-June 1988 is 906. Of these, 322 notifications were for women who had previously had three legal terminations with no spontaneous miscarriage.

  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many abortions were performed at 18 weeks or more gestation in England and Wales in 1988 to save the life of the mother.

  Mr. Freeman
  There was one notification of abortion in England and Wales in the period January-June 1988 at 18 weeks or more gestation which had been performed under ground 5 of the 1967 Abortion Act which states"to save the life of the pregnant woman".

  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of abortions at 21 weeks, 23 weeks and 24 weeks gestation were performed during 1987 because the child was likely to be born handicapped.

  Abortions 1987—England and Wales

  Weeks

  18

  19

  20

  21

  22

  23

  24

  25

  26

  27

  28

  All grounds

  2,800

  1,725

  1,363

  890

  905

  903

  107

  11

  9

  3

  1

  1 (with other)

  6

  5

  2

  3

  5

  5

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  2 (Alone)

  2,442

  1,503

  1,181

  797

  824

  855

  85

  2

  2

  —

  —

  3 (with or without 2)

  157

  96

  54

  32

  21

  16

  3

  —

  1

  —

  —

  4(Alone)

  176

  108

  117

  49

  50

  20

  19

  8

  6

  2

  1

  4 (with any other except 1)

  19

  13

  9

  9

  5

  7

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  5 or 6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Consultants
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the future position of consultants within the National Health Service.

  Mr. Mellor
  The White Paper "Working for Patients" fully recognises the continuing key role of consultants in the National Health Service and emphasises the need for them to play an increased role in the management of the service. In particular there will be five significant developments. First, the new funding arrangements will steer resources to those consultants best able to provide a good quality service and to treat more patients. Secondly, the Government hope that within the next two years all consultants will be taking part in "medical audit" and thus be taking the lead in improving the quality of service to patients. Thirdly, the rapid expansion planned for the resource management initiative will provide budgetary and information systems to allow consultants to make the best use of the resources available to them. Fourthly, the day-to-day management of consultants' contracts will take place at district (rather than regional) level and the managerial element of consultants' duties will be better
  600
  Mr. Freeman
  The information is shown in the table.

  Notifications of abortions which took place with a gestation period of 21, 23 and 24 weeks, showing the number with a mention of ground 4 of the 1967 Abortion Act, which states
  "there is a substantial risk that if the child was born it would suffer such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped"
  for England and Wales—1987.

  Weeks

  A All groundstotal

  B Ground 4 total

  Per cent.B of A

  21

  890

  58

  6·5

  23

  903

  27

  3·0

  24

  107

  19

  17·8

  Toal

  1,900

  104

  5·5

  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the number of abortions according to the grounds of termination in 1987 for 18 weeks and each week thereafter to 28 weeks.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information is given in the table:

  recognised in the distinction award system. Finally, we intend to introduce a scheme under which 100 extra consultant posts can be created over the next three years.

  Community Care
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he intends to meet the Association of Metropolitan Authorities social services committee to discuss Sir Roy Griffiths' report on community care.

  Mr. Mellor
  We hold regular meetings with the local authority associations, including the Association of Metropolitan Authorities (AMA) to discuss issues of current interest in the social services field. Recent items have included Sir Roy Griffiths' report on community care.

  The then Minister of State for Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton), met the AMA separately last June to hear their views on Sir Roy's report and we shall take account of its representations along with the others that we have received.
  601
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals other than those in the Griffiths report he has considered for the delivery of community care.

  Mr. Freeman
  We are looking closely at all possible models for the delivery of community care, along with the many reactions we have received in response to Sir Roy Griffiths' report, as part of the work we have in hand to frame our own proposals.

  Mr. Waller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent represenations he has had on the recommendations of the Griffiths report on community care.

  Mr. Freeman
  We have received over 250 representations from hon. Members, organisations and members of the public about Sir Roy's recommendations. Recent responses have been received from a number of national groups and local authorities. We are studying all the responses carefully as we frame our own proposals.

  Patient Care
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the number of staff providing direct patient care in the National Health Service in 1979 and in the latest available year.

  Mr. Freeman
  The number of whole-time equivalent staff in post in England, providing direct (patient) care at 30 September 1979 was 457,600 and at 30 September 1987, 526,000.

  The 1979 figure has not been adjusted to take account of the transfer of operating department assistants (ODAs) (some 2,600 at 31 March 1984) from ancillary to professional and technical staff group on 1 April 1984 and reduction in nurse working hours (from 40 to 37+ per week) during 1980–81.

  Day Cases (Treatment)
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the number of day cases treated by the National Health Service in 1979 and in the latest available year.

  Mr. Freeman
  During 1979, 592,000 day cases were treated in NHS hospitals in England whilst in 1987–88 the number had risen to 1,016,000 (provisional), an increase of 72 per cent.

  In-Patients
  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the number of in-patients treated by the National Health Service in 1979 and in the latest available year.

  Mr. Freeman
  There were 6·62 million in-patient cases treated in National Health Service hospitals in England during the 1987–88 financial year. Earlier figures were for calendar years and in 1979 5·4 million in-patient cases were treated. The figures for 1987–88 represents a rise of over 1 million, or more than 22 per cent. compared with 1979.

  Hospices
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many terminally ill patients are now being cared for in hospices in England and Wales; and how many there were five years ago.
  602
  Mr. Freeman
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Cot Deaths
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will hold an investigation into cot deaths; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Social Services Select Committee in its recent report recommended further research into the causes of infant death, particularly those attributed to sudden infant death syndrome. The Government will be responding shortly.

  Mental Illness Hospitals
  Sir Geoffrey Pattie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will undertake an urgent review of the current and planned pace of rundown of mental illness hospitals.

  Mr. Freeman
  It is for health authorities to determine the pace of rundown of the old, large and often remote mental illness hospitals, which should be matched by the development of comprehensive locally-based psychiatric services.

  As indicated by my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health in his reply to my hon. Friend on 16 December 1988 at column 766, the annual review process provides Ministers with the opportunity to assess the performance of each regional health authority in matching the development of locally-based services against the rundown of older hospitals. In addition, I shall be meeting some of the individual regional and district health authorities most affected during the course of the year to review specific aspects of this transfer to locally-based care.

  Breast Cancer Screening
  Mr. Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made on achieving the implementation of the recommendations of the Forrest report on breast cancer screening.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) on 24 January at columns 533–37.

  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance he gives to health authorities on the provision of breast cancer screening services; in what circumstances authorities may charge users for such services; in what circumstances authorities may refuse to screen those attending such clinics with a referral letter from a general practitioner; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  Department of Health guidance to health authorities on the provision of breast cancer screening is contained in two letters, copies of which are in the Library: DA(87)14 of 31 March 1987 with which a draft health circular and the report "Breast Cancer Screening" by the Forrest working group were enclosed; and EL(88)P/48 of 15 April 1988. These require health authorities to provide three-yearly screening under the National Health Service on a routine basis for women aged 50 to 64 and on request for older women.
  603
  A woman with symptoms should be referred by her general practitioner to a clinician specialising in breast disease. In the case of a woman outside the eligible age group who does not have symptoms but who is considered to be at high risk, for example because either her mother or her sister has a history of breast cancer, her general practitioner can consult the screening service. It is for the service in consultation with clinicians specialising in breast disease and the local general practitioners to decide how such cases should be handled.

  Health authorities can charge users for services which they are not required to provide under the National Health Service.

  Self-governing Hospitals
  Mr. Andrew MacKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the reactions from the public to his proposed plans for self-governing hospitals.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Reaction is still at a very general level, but is encouragingly positive. Some of the early respondents had been unnecessarily alarmed by the Labour party's insinuations that self-governing hospitals would be in the private sector, but I believe that the message is now successfully getting through that they will remain fully part of the National Health Service.

  Mr. Madel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the steps he envisages will have to be taken before a National Health Service hospital can apply to become self-governing; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I would refer my hon. Friend to section 5 of the NHS review working paper (1): "Self-Governing Hospitals", which was published yesterday. That briefly outlines the process for achieving self-governing status.

  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many inquiries he has received so far about his plans for self-governing hospitals, contained within the White Paper.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  It is too early to expect firm proposals from hospitals seeking self-governing status. But we have received a number of inquiries for further information.

  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he intends to propose any minimum size for a hospital wishing to leave the control of the district health authority.

  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has any plans to permit hospitals other than major acute hospitals to become self-governing.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Any hospital which meets the criteria in chapter 3 of the White Paper "Working for Patients" would be eligible for self-governing status, regardless of size or specialism.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the suitability of hospitals in Liverpool for conversion to trust status.

  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospitals on Merseyside will be eligible for self-management under the Government's new National Health Service proposals.
  604
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  It is too early to make such assessments. Over time, I expect that as many hospitals as are willing and able to do so will become self-governing.

  NHS (Reform)
  Mr. Ron Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has received recent representations from the British Medical Association about reform of the National Health Service; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) today.

  Cervical Smear Tests
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will review the advice issued by his Department on the regularity of cervical smear tests.

  Mr. Freeman
  We have recommended to health authorities a maximum interval of five years between tests, which we know can reduce deaths among women screened by a substantial proportion. However, we also know that the majority of women who die from cervical cancer have never had a smear test. We therefore believe that it is more important to achieve as a first priority a high response rate from all women in the eligible age group rather than aim to reduce the interval between screening. If a health authority decides it can offer more frequent screening—and we know that some have adopted a three-yearly programme—we would expect it also to be achieving a high response rate and to be able to cope with the much higher number of tests three-yearly screening creates. Of course, if any woman patient presents with gynaecological symptoms or has any reason to believe something is wrong, she can be referred for further investigation outside the screening programme. The recommended recall interval is kept under review.

  Nurses
  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals he has to extend the role of nurses in hospitals.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  We have given advice on delegation to a nurse of tasks not included in basic training in HC(77)22: "The Extending Role of the Clinical Nurse—Legal Implications and Training Requirements". A copy is in the Library.

  With the increasing complexity of treatment and the growth of the specialist expertise of the nurse, various initiatives have been taken to extend the role of nurses in hospitals. In the White Paper "Working for Patients" the Government state that local managers, in consultation with their professional colleagues, will be expected to re-examine all areas of work to identify the most cost-effective use of professional skills.

  Patients (Treatment)
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures his Department intends to take to ensure that patients receive the most suitable treatment and medication for their conditions.

  Mr. Freeman
  The diagnosis and treatment of patients is and will continue to be a matter for the professional judgment of doctors.

  "Working for Patients"
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received following the publication of the White Paper "Working for Patients", and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received about the Government's White Paper on the future of the National Health Service.

  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received on the recent White Paper, "Working for Patients."

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received regarding the White Paper "Working for Patients."

  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received on his White Paper, "Working for Patients"; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many representations he has so far received on the National Health Service White Paper "Working for Patients."

  Mr. Summerson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what reactions he has had to the White Paper "Working for Patients" from the medical profession and the public in general.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I refer my hon. Friends and hon. Members to my reply to my hon. Friends the Members for Dorset, South (Mr. Bruce), for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) and for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) earlier today.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give further details of the relationship between the new chief executive officer and the regions and districts as set out in the White Paper.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I have already indicated my intention to delegate to the chief executive the central management of the NHS. He will act within a framework of resources and policies set by Ministers, and will in turn be responsible for applying similar frameworks to regional health authorities and, through them, to districts.

  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has received any representations from Norwich district health authority following the publication of the White Paper, "Working for Patients."

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  No.

  Salford Health Authority
  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he next intends to meet the chairman of Salford health authority; and what matters will be discussed.

  Mr. Freeman
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no current plans to meet the chairman of Salford health authority.

  Private Medical Insurance
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what figures he has available for the number of people over the age of 60 years who currently hold private medical insurance.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The general household survey 1986 (latest available data) suggests that among the population of Great Britain aged 65 and over 4 per cent. were covered by private medical insurance.

  NHS (Review)
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the cost to date of preparing, publishing and presenting the Health Service review.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Regarding the cost of preparation of the NHS review, I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) on 7 February at column 642.

  The costs of publication of the White Paper "Working for Patients" and its attendant working papers will be borne by HMSO. However, copies of the White Paper and working papers have been purchased for distribution by my Department at a cost of £35,675 and an estimated £65,000 respectively.

  Regarding the cost of presenting the White Paper, I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) on 9 February at columns 75–76.

  GPs (Practice Budgets)
  Mr. Franks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on general practitioners' reaction to the proposed plans for general practitioner practice budgets.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I have been encouraged by the positive response of many general medical practitioners to these proposals. We expect that general medical practitioners will increasingly see the scheme as an opportunity to improve the range and quality of service they can offer to their patients and to increase their own job satisfaction.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the number of general practitioner practices he expects to apply, and to be ready, to manage their budgets in April 1991.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  My aim initially is to encourage a substantial number of the larger general medical practitioner practices to apply to manage their own budgets with effect from April 1991. It is too early to estimate what the level of take-up of the scheme will be.

  Hospitals (Trust Status)
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals he has for consultation with local communities which are served by National Health Service hospitals which decide to establish trusts under his recent proposals.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  It will be for regional health authorities to publicise locally all proposals for hospitals to become National Health Service hospital trusts. They
  607
  will consider the views of everyone who expresses an interest, including the health authorities concerned, staff at the hospital, general practitioners and community health councils. Regional health authorities will be asked to submit responses from the public, together with any comments they may have on them, to me so that I can take them into account in considering applications.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many National Health Service hospital trusts he expects to be established in April 1991.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  It is too early to estimate numbers.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will disclose the names of hospitals in London about which his Department has been in discussion with regard to the formation of National Health Service hospital trusts, as envisaged in his White Paper.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  My Department has discussed the proposals only in general terms. It is too early to discuss which hospitals might become National Health Service trusts until all interested parties have had the opportunity to consider the working paper on self-governing hospitals, published yesterday.

  GPs (Drug Budgets)
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the White Paper proposals for general practitioner drug budgets.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I will be publishing shortly a working paper which discusses arrangements for the introduction of indicative drug budgets.

  Drugs and Medicines (Warnings)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what initiatives he plans to improve the legibility of danger warnings on drugs and medicines.

  Mr. Freeman
  All medicines must be treated with respect. The Medicines (Labelling) Regulations already require clarity, legibility, and ready discernibility to purchaser or user. We are now considering comments on proposals we made last year to promote safer use of medicines by, amongst other things, label warnings which would be better understood by the public.

  Drugs (Expenditure)
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the total amount spent on drugs in the National Health Service for each year for the last 10 years.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested is set out in the table for England, itemised between the cost of drugs in hospitals and in the family practitioner service.

  Hospitals £ Million

  FPS £ Million

  Total £ Million

  1978–79

  128·063

  554·048

  682·111

  1979–80

  155·719

  632·880

  788·599

  1980–81

  185·280

  766·382

  951·662

  1981–82

  213·923

  876·490

  1,090.413

  1982–83

  244·765

  1,008·891

  1,253·656

  1983–84

  266·552

  1,130·119

  1,396·671

  608

  Hospitals £ Million

  FPS £ Million

  Total £ Million

  1984–85

  278·778

  1,191·598

  1,470·376

  1985–86

  296·613

  1,274·620

  1,571·233

  1986–87

  318·246

  1,377·784

  1,696·030

  1987–88

  351·839

  1,539·010

  1,890·849

  AIDS
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much his Department is spending on AIDS education advertising.

  Mr. Mellor
  Our budget for the current year is £10 million; £8·7 million of this funds the work of the health education;authority, and £1·3 million has been allocated to the national AIDS helpline, which provides a free, confidential telephone advice service. We are also spending £2 million on a nationwide campaign warning of the dangers of injecting drug misuse.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to give statutory force to the British Medical Association's recently issued guidelines to doctors on the disclosure of information to insurance companies about people who have undergone an HIV test.

  Mr. Freeman
  I have no such plans. The Access to Medical Reports Act 1988 already contains safeguards about the disclosure of information by doctors to insurance companies.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to expand community-based AIDS education programmes.

  Mr. Freeman
  Health authorities were asked in the planning guidelines circular (HC(88)43) issued last July, to develop community based prevention initiatives aimed at helping people in selected target groups to change behaviour which puts them at risk of HIV infection. We expect a total of £14 million to he spent on this work by health authorities in 1989–90. In addition, the Health Education Authority's AIDS programme includes work to reach particular target groups and to support local programmes, and a number of voluntary organisations which we support have AIDS education programmes aimed at specific sections of the population.

  Nurses (Regrading)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the present position regarding nurses' regrading.

  Mr. Freeman
  All nurses and midwives have been told their new grades and have received their backpay from 1 April 1988. This has resulted in an average pay increase for 1988 of 17·9 per cent. and provides a greatly improved career structure.

  Rural Health Services
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has for safeguarding rural health services.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The plans outlined in "Working for Patients" will not only safeguard, but improve. services in all parts of the country, including rural areas.

  Hospital Building
  Mr. Wood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the amount spent on hospital building for the National Health Service in 1979 and at the latest available year in real terms.

  1978–79 £000(cash)

  1978–79 £000(at 1987–88 prices)

  1987–881£000 (cash)

  Real-terms increase per cent.

  Hospital services

  289,140

  593,304

  749,635

  26·3

  Hospital and community health services (HCHS)

  367,352

  753,792

  1,001,444

  32·9

  1 Provisional figures (as yet subject to audit).

  Notes:

  1. Capital expenditure includes the acquisition of land and buildings, the cost of new building construction and major adaptations to existing buildings together with associated professional fees, equipment and engineering work costs. It also includes general expenditure on the purchase of all vehicles and other major items of equipment.

  2. HCHS includes hospital, community health, ambulance, blood transfusion and other services.

  3. The 1978–79 figures have been expressed at 1987–88 prices by the use of the gross domestic product deflator.

  By-pass Operations
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many coronary by-pass operations were carried out in the four Thames health regions in the last year for which figures are available; and what was the corresponding figure for 1978.

  Mr. Freeman
  The figures for the latest available year are in the table. Thames region residents treated by the London postgraduate special health authorities are not included. Figures for 1978 are not available by region.

  Regions

  1987–88

  North West Thames

  516

  North East Thames

  999

  South East Thames

  1,363

  South West Thames

  480

  Chronically Sick and Disabled People
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will take steps to ensure that chronically sick or disabled people in the community who have high health care costs continue to receive the health care they require after the proposed changes to the National Health Service take effect in 1991.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  No chronically sick or disabled person will be disadvantaged by the White Paper proposals. Each district health authority will be responsible for ensuring the health care needs to everyone living within its boundaries are properly provided for, and will be funded accordingly.

  NHS (Plans)
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about his future plans for the National Health Service.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I refer the hon. Member to my statement to the House on 31 January 1989 at columns 165–70.
  610
  Mr. Freeman
  The annual accounts of health authorities do not specifically identify expenditure on hospital building as such. Following are figures of total capital expenditure derived from the annual summarised accounts of health authorities in England:

  Hip Replacements
  Mr. David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the number of hip replacement operations carried out in 1979 and in the latest available year.

  Mr. Freeman
  The number of total hip replacements and other arthroplasty of hip performed in NHS non-psychiatric hospitals in England in 1979 and 1986 (the latest year for which information is available centrally) are 29,520 and 40,900 respectively.

  Non-emergency Treatment
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consideration has been given and what evidence was received by his Department, concerning the preference of patients in deciding between speed and location of non-emergency treatments at hospitals consequent on the adoption of his recent proposals.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The Government's policy is to provide for a more effective choice for individual patients and their GPs when they decide where non-emergency treatment should be sought. The proposals in the White Paper "Working for Patients" will allow NHS funds to follow patients across administrative boundaries where GPs and their patients choose treatment elsewhere because, for example, a shorter waiting time is on offer.

  Paediatric Consultants (South Tees)
  Mr. Holt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many paediatric consultants are presently employed by the South Tees health authority.

  Mr. Freeman
  Contracts of employment for consultant medical and dental staff, except in the case of teaching health authorities, are held by regional health authorities. We do not have details centrally of the place of employment of consultants whose contracts are held by regions. My hon. Friend may wish to seek the information locally, directly from the health authorities concerned.

  Scientists (Grading)
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he proposes to examine the present
  611
  grading structure for physicists, biochemists, clinical psycholgists and other scientists; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The management side of the scientific and professional staffs council has set up a working party to investigate the scale of reported problems of recruitment and retention of physicists, biochemists, clinical psychologists and other scientists. I understand that the management side has said that if these investigations reveal a problem for NHS management it would wish to consider if an appropriate way of solving it would he by examination of the present grading structure.

  Stillborn Children
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he has any proposals to change the regulations for registration of the deaths of stillborn children.

  Mr. Freeman
  My right hon. and learned Friend has made proposals to change the statutory provisions for the registration of stillbirths in ways which would align them more closely with death registration procedures, and these are contained in the Green Paper entitled "Registration: a modern service" Cm. 531 which was published on 1 December 1988. Comments on those proposals, and on others affecting the registration service more widely, have been invited by 31 March.

  Food
  Mr. Ashton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those individuals and bodies he has met in the last fortnight to discuss health and safety of food issues.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  In the last two weeks I have discussed food safety issues with a number of ministerial colleagues, Members of Parliament and other individuals.

  Food Poisoning
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many cases of listeria poisoning have been notified in Derbyshire within the last 12 months;

  (2) how many cases of salmonella poisoning have been notified in Derbyshire in 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987 and at the nearest available date in 1988.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The exact information requested is not available from the notifications of infectious diseases requirements under the Public Health Acts.

  Legionnaire's Disease
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, if he will give details of all epidemiological research undertaken by the public health laboratory service in respect of legionnaire's disease.

  Mr. Freeman
  Public health laboratory service epidemiological research on legionnaire's disease began in 1977, the year the legionnella pneumophila was first described in the USA. Early work by the PHLS included the development of an active national surveillance system, methods of diagnosis and the detection of legionellae in environmental samples. Much of the epidemiological research has been directed at studying sources of infection 612
  and routes of transmission during the investigation of outbreaks of legionnaire's disease detected by the surveillance system. This work has been accompanied by the development and evaluation of control methods.

  I am placing in the Library two lists which give detailed references to published research on this subject carried out by the PHLS.

  List 1 covers papers describing work mainly of an epidemiological nature. List 2 deals with closely related and overlapping work on serological method, typing of the organism for epidemiological purposes, experimental studies of transmission and studies of the ecology and control of legionellae in water systems.

  NHS Operations
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many different types of operation are currently performed and on how many people, under the National Health Service; what were the comparable figures 10, 15 and 30 years ago; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  Information on the number of different types of operation performed is not readily available and could be produced only at disproportionate cost.

  The figures available centrally show an increase in the number of in-patient cases operated on from 1·33 million in 1961 to 2·39 million in 1986. In addition, 0·8 million day cases were operated on in 1986. Corresponding figures for 1987–88 are not available, but the number of in-patient cases treated in the surgical specialties increased from 2·43 million in 1986 to 2·52 million in 1987–88.

  Consumer Research
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the results of the research on consumers' experience of and attitudes to the National Health Service undertaken for his Department by Research Services of Great Britain Ltd.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I have no knowledge of such research.

  Meningitis
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list by area health authority in both the Trent regional health authority and the Yorkshire regional health authority, the number of cases of meningitis for 1988 and to date; and what are the national averages for the same periods.

  Mr. Freeman
  Cases of infectious diseases are notified by the doctor in attendance to the proper officer for each local authority area. Notifications of meningitis are therefore not generally available at the district health authority level. However, the table shows the number of notifications of meningitis for the counties most closely approximating to the Yorkshire and Trent regional health authorities.

  Notifications of meningitis by county 19881 19891 2

  1988

  1989

  England and Wales

  3,001

  302

  YorkshireWest Yorkshire

  171

  10

  613

  Humberside

  78

  5

  North Yorkshire

  41

  5

  Trent

  South Yorkshire

  124

  3

  Derbyshire

  36

  5

  Leicestershire

  58

  4

  Lincolnshire

  26

  3

  Nottinghamshire

  67

  8

  1 Provisional

  2 For the period 31 December 1988 to 20 January 1989.

  "Social Trends"
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals he has to include in future editions of Social Trends detailed analysis of regional, economic and occupational variations in respect of life expectancy, infant mortality rates and overall mortality rates.

  Mr. Freeman
  Responsibility for the contents of Social Trends lies with the Central Statistical Office. The contents of next year's edition of Social Trends has not yet been decided.

  Tampons
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the most recent figures for cases of toxic shock syndrome in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Freeman
  Toxic shock syndrome is not separately identified in the statisical returns made by health authorities to the Department. However, 41 confirmed and probable cases of toxic shock syndrome were reported to the central public health laboratory in the two years 1985 and 1986 taken together. These figures do not include Northern Ireland.

  Hip Replacements
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hip replacement operations were carried out in the four Thames health regions in the last year for which figures are available; and what was the corresponding figure in 1980.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Estimated number of hip replacement operations and otheranthroplasty of hip (810–811)1 performed on in-patients in NHSnon-psychiatric hospitals

  1986

  1980

  North West Thames

  2,400

  1,770

  North East Thames

  3,300

  2,690

  South East Thames

  3,600

  3,100

  South West Thames

  3,300

  2,370

  1 Classification of surgical operations (CSO)-3rd revision. Because of NHS restructuring in 1982, the regional figures are not strictly comparable.

  Salmonella
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his reply of 16 February to the hon. Member for Southend, East, when his Department first became aware of the health hazards related to the new strain of salmonella; and what steps were taken to advise the general public and categories at particular risk.
  614
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  First indications of a problem with salmonella enteritidis PT4 and eggs emerged towards the end of 1987, but sufficient epidemiological evidence to justify public health action did not become available until the summer of 1988. At that time evidence suggested that the problem arose from the consumption of raw eggs or from uncooked dishes containing raw eggs—such as mayonnaise. On 29 July 1988 my Department issued a letter to National Health Service caterers on raw eggs. On 26 August 1988 my Department issued a public press notice advising consumers to avoid raw eggs or home-made dishes containing uncooked eggs. This advice was circulated to chief environmental health officers of local authorities on 2 September 1988 and to catering and hotel organisations on 5 September 1988. Chief environmental health officers of the local authorities were asked to give publicity to this advice.

  Subsequently it became apparent from further epidemiological evidence that there was also risk of infection from the consumption of lightly cooked eggs. On 21 November 1988 we issued further public advice. A press release by my Department gave some reassurance that, in the context of the consumption of some 30 million eggs a day in the United Kingdom, the risk to any individual was very small, but that a small number of outbreaks had been associated with the consumption of lightly cooked eggs.

  The Chief Medical Officer published further advice on 5 December 1988. He repeated his earlier advice not to eat raw eggs. As far as lightly cooked eggs were concerned, he said the risk of harm to a healthy individual was small but it was advisable for vulnerable groups such as the elderly, the sick, babies and pregnant women to eat only eggs which had been cooked until the white and the yolk were solid. I answered a private notice question in the House on 5 December at columns 19–24 which also set out that advice to the public.

  The Government also took steps through a series of newspaper advertisements from 16 to 18 December 1988 to reiterate the advice of the Chief Medical Officer and to ensure that the facts on eggs were known to everyone.

  Emergency Services
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the performance of hospital accident and emergency services at recent rail and air disasters.

  Mr. Freeman
  I am delighted to have this opportunity to put on record my appreciation of all that was done by both the hospital accident and emergency services and the ambulance services during the recent rail and air disasters. They coped magnificently and performed to the highest standard. Many more lives might have been lost were it not for the way in which they responded to those emergencies.

  Hospitals (Capital Assets)
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the value of the capital assets of each of the major acute hospitals with more than 250 beds.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  [holding answer 9 February 1989]: This information is not at present available. Establishing the current value of NHS assets will be one of the first steps in introducing the capital charging arrangements outlined in the White Paper "Working for Patients".

  Breast Milk
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has knowledge of any research or evidence on passage of listeria from the bloodstream into breast milk.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  [holding answer 20 February 1989]: As with many other organisms or substances carried in the bloodstream, listeria has been shown to pass from the bloodstream into breast milk. My Department is not aware of any current research.

  Cook-Chill Food
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals are being considered by the Leeds western health authority to introduce cook-chill catering into hospitals in that area; and what consultations have taken place concerning this proposal.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  At its meeting on 24 March 1988 the Yorkshire regional health authority resolved to adopt in principle the findings of the report received from its regional catering strategy steering group "Regional Catering Strategy for the 1990s". Paragraph 31(a) of that report recommended a regional catering strategy for catering based on the use of cook-chill technology.

  Percentage of population who smoke cig-arettes (16+ years)

  Cigarettes smoked per day (16+ years)

  Tobacco expenditureas a percentage of household expenditure

  Males

  Females

  Males

  Females

  1972

  52

  41

  17·1

  12·4

  4·5

  1974

  51

  41

  17·9

  13·4

  4·3

  1976

  46

  38

  18·4

  14·4

  4·2

  1978

  45

  37

  18·1

  14·4

  3·9

  1980

  42

  37

  17·7

  14·6

  3·5

  1982

  38

  33

  17·3

  14·0

  3·6

  1984

  36

  32

  16·4

  13·7

  3·4

  1986

  35

  31

  16·4

  13·9

  3·2

  Note:

  The figures on smoking exclude cigar and pipe smoking. In 1986 9 per cent. of men smoked a pipe or cigars.

  Source: General Household Survey.

  Farmed Food
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will reply to the questions asked by the hon. Member for Caerphilly on 18 January concerning the possible contamination of farmed food.
  616
  Leeds western health authority, along with other district health authorities in the region, will be considering the implications of this policy at local level. The hon. Member may therefore wish to contact the chairman of Leeds western health authority to establish what proposals, if any, he has under consideration.

  Hospital Waiting Lists (Gloucester)
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the current waiting list for operations in the Gloucester health authority area.

  Mr. Mellor
  At 31 March 1988 there were 4,005 patients on the in-patient waiting list for surgical specialities in Gloucester district health authority.

  Smokers
  Mr. Jessel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will provide figures to show changes in the proportion of smokers and non-smokers and the average daily number of cigarette expenditure per person and per household as a proportion of income in the last 30 years.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 20 February 1989]: The information available centrally is given in the table.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I replied to the hon. Member yesterday.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Carlisle.

Schools: LEA Reorganisation Plans
Baroness David Baroness David asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many plans for the reorganisation of schools by local education authorities are awaiting decision at the Department of Education and Science.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science is currently considering 160 proposals made by local education authorities under Sections 12 and 13 of the 1980 Education Act. Of these, 36 are still within the two-month period allowed for the submission of statutory objections.
Baroness David: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Can he tell us when decisions will be made on those plans that have been outstanding for a considerable time? Is it still the Government's intention to encourage local authorities to get rid of 130,000 surplus places in secondary schools? How does the noble Viscount reconcile that intention with postponing decisions of reorganisation and the legislation on opting out?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, all proposals involving schools that are eligible for grant-maintained status were formally suspended for four months last autumn to allow time for the schools to decide whether to apply for such status. Many of those proposals have since been decided. Some cannot yet be decided because they involve schools which have either recently applied for grant-maintained status or are conducting parental ballots on this question. The remainder will be decided as soon as possible.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: My Lords, can the Minister tell me how many of the schools that have applied for grant-maintained status are threatened by closure by local authorities?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I cannot give the noble Lord that figure. However, where the two proposals for closure by local authorities and for grant-maintained status have been made simultaneously, my right honourable friend will consider both proposals simultaneously on their merits.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, will the Minister tell us what criteria the Secretary of State applies when determining his views on reorganisation? Secondly, will he inform us whether the Secretary of State hears in mind the effect on reorganisation when
502
a school opts out, in particular with reference to small sixth forms and sixth-form colleges which have falling rolls?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I cannot go very far on that question. My right honourable friend has a quasi-judicial role to perform. It would therefore be inappropriate for me to comment on the steps that he takes in making his decisions.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, how much money are the Government spending on encouraging schools to opt out? Is it not an improper use of public money? The decision is primarily and—if I understand the Act correctly--entirely a matter for the governing bodies.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I read in the paper this morning that certain Labour councils are providing ratepayers' money to try to persuade schools not to opt out.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, will the Minister reply to the second part of my question? It was this. Does the Secretary of State take into account the effect of opting out on both sixth forms and sixth-form colleges where there are falling rolls?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, yes. My right honourable friend has repeatedly made clear that grant-maintained status will not be made a refuge for failing schools. It will not be made a refuge for schools without a viable future.
Baroness David: My Lords, of the 37 schools that have completed the process of balloting, are over three-quarters the subject of reorganisation plans? Is it not reorganisation that has stimulated schools to opt out of local authorities?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, my right honourable friend is taking all these matters into account when making his decision.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, can the Minister tell us how many of these schools are maintained schools and how many are aided schools?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I cannot do so without notice.

Coal Liquefaction
2.40 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking to develop coal liquefaction.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, the Department of Energy maintains a close watch on developments in this technology in the international field. In national terms we have a stake in British Coal's coal liquefaction pilot plant project at the

503
Point of Ayr colliery in North Wales. We also support British Coal's participation with Germany and Sweden in the International Energy Agency programme on pyrolysis of coal.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, why are the Government dragging their feet on this matter? When one considers that our own oil supply has a very limited life and accepting that we have reserves of coal which will last for 300 years at the present rate of extraction, is there not a strong case for public investment in this area? The company to which the noble Baroness referred has been involved for several years, and progress is negligible.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I cannot accept that the Government are dragging their feet. I understand that the construction phase of the project at the Point of Ayr is largely complete and that the Department of Energy has extended its financial support to the commissioning phase. The plant is expected to be commissioned by the end of this year with the experimental programme lasting a further three to four years. It is providing a leading technology.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, can the noble Baroness state whether or not the Government have had discussions with the colliery managers' association, the National Union of Mineworkers and the engineers in the mining industry? This is an extremely important question that we have to try to understand. We are probably talking about the future energy of our nation. If these bodies have not been consulted, will the noble Baroness propose to her right honourable friend that they ought to be?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, this is a British Coal project. As I understand it, discussions have taken place widely. As the noble Lords are aware not only are the Government supporting the programme, but the European Community is providing a substantial amount of the funds and a German company is taking the opportunity, having closed its own programme using this technology, to continue its interest.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, does the noble Baroness consider that the scale of the Point of Ayr plant is sufficient to enable adequate experience to be gained? In the days when I was involved at the coal board it was conceived on a somewhat larger scale than that on which it is now, I understand, proceeding.
Baroness Hooper: Yes, my Lords. I believe that the original project was for a 25 tonnes a day experiment. It has been scaled down to a more flexible 2-5 tonnes a day in order to solve process problems—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Baroness Hooper:—that were identified in the late 1970s. The insistence on scaling-down has been justified. The process route now employed at the Point of Ayr plant has important differences—a higher conversion efficiency and an improved yield—compared with the earlier, larger scheme.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, will the noble Baroness confirm that the SASOL process which has been working in South Africa for donkeys' years is not economic and has to be heavily subsidised? People have been trying to liquefy coal for a long time.
Baroness Hooper: Yes, my Lords, as I understand it, the SASOL arrangements are aimed at indirect liquefaction. Our project at Point of Ayr is aimed at direct liquefaction and, as I said, we are also involved in a third type of technology; pyrolysis.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, will the noble Baroness give the House an assurance that if British Coal is privatised, the Government will take over responsibility for the programme and make sure that it continues satisfactorily?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, as this programme is well under way I believe that there is absolutely no need for that assurance.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, arising from what my noble friend has said, is the noble Baroness aware that before the war and before nationalisation of the coal industry, no work was done in this direction by the colliery companies although work had already been started on a programme in Germany? Will she also give an assurance that this work will continue should the Government decide to privatise?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, there are a number of areas in which research and development have taken place much more recently than before the last war as a result of improved technology. This is clearly one of them.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm my recollection that this matter has engaged and eluded the ingenuity of our scientists at least since the Royal Commission of 1926 when I first became acquainted with it?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I must acknowledge my noble and learned friend's superior historical knowledge of the matter. I accept his suggestion to the House.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, in her Answer to me, the Minister said that the Government watch international co-operation in this matter. If that is so why does she not say that in Germany, as has been mentioned, in South Africa, and particularly in the United States, advanced work is being done from which the Government could benefit? Has she not let the cat out of the bag by saying that it is a 2.5 tonnes per day job which is absolutely miniscule?
Baroness Hooper: We are talking about a pilot project, my Lords.

Palace of Westminster: Energy Efficiency
2.46 p.m.
Baroness Young Baroness Young asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress has been made in improving energy efficiency in the Palace of Westminster.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Hesketh): My Lords, the Government are fully committed to undertaking energy conservation measures when fulfilling their responsibilities for works, services and maintenance at the Palace of Westminster. Much work has already been done.
In addition, consultants were appointed last year by the Parliamentary Works Office to undertake an energy audit of the Palace. Their final report, which will show that there is scope to make further savings, is due this month.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer, bearing in mind that the Department of Energy is quite rightly conducting a considerable advertising campaign on energy saving. Can he tell us what the expected cash savings will be in the Palace of Westminster as a result of this work? What does he expect this year and what does he expect when the report and the final arrangements are complete?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, when the survey is complete we believe that the report will indicate that there will be savings of some £200,000 per annum initially and, subject to various capital investments, a potential saving of some £500,000, but that very much depends on various other changes that will have to be made which may or may not be acceptable. Until we have the final report that expectation is slightly speculative.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the fitting of compact fluorescent lamps in the Palace of Westminster would reduce the energy consumption of lighting to one tenth of its present level? Does he realise that such a course would not only save energy but, because those lamps last five times as long as normal bulbs, the saving in maintenance would be very great also? It does not need a consultancy firm to tell the noble Lord that.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the survey will be very widespread. I shall certainly convey the noble Baroness's information concerning the type of bulb to the relevant authorities.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, is there any hope that the survey will lead to the Chamber being less abominably stuffy late at night?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, one of the difficulties about the Palace of Westminster is its unique shape and design. There are problems in that unlike an ordinary building the engineers have to warm it up in anticipation and vice versa to cool it down in anticipation. Sometimes if there is more hot air generated—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Hesketh:—for example, at the State Opening of Parliament, by having a substantial number of people in the building and it is a particularly cold day when the engineers have anticipated slightly warmer weather, the result would be a complaint either about over-heating or about being too cool.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, if the Government are supportive of energy efficiency, why have they reduced the funding of the Energy Efficiency Unit from £24 million in 1987 to £15 million in 1988?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I believe that the money has been redirected.
Lord Craigton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware—and I expect that he is if he entertains guests
in this House—that under the two windows in the Peers' guest room there is a tremendous draught? It is wholly unacceptable and has been complained of for a long time. It is a bad example of energy saving.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am unaware of the draught but I shall endeavour to investigate it.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell the House the direction in which the money has gone? I know that noble Lords throughout the House are most interested.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the original campaign was most successful and the money has been redirected to the regions.

Seal Deaths in the North Sea
2.51 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the cause of damage to the immune system of seals, leading to many dying in the North Sea during 1988, has yet been determined.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, we understand that scientists are now confident that the primary cause of the recent epidemic of seal deaths in the North Sea is a previously undocumented virus of the morbilli family, producing symptoms similar to canine distemper. The cause of death Is a viral infection and the extent to which any suppression of the immune system may have increased their vulnerability is so far entirely speculative.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that Answer. It follows his reply to my original Question tabled last October. My noble friend then indicated that research was beginning, but will it continue into discovering from where the cause of the loss of immunity came? For example, did it come from a ship or a river?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I confirm that we have commissioned research totalling £55,000 in this financial year in order to show up any possible link between disease and contaminants. That will continue next year.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, in October, 1988, regulations were brought forward to extend the closed season on seals for two years but they did nothing about special licences issued for shooting purposes. Have any such licences been issued since October, 1988, and, if so, how many?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the last occasion on which I came to the Dispatch Box to answer a Question on this matter the noble Baroness asked particularly about Section 3. She will be pleased to hear that the measure was implemented soon after I answered the Question. I am afraid that I do not have an answer to the question she has now asked but I shall investigate the matter and write to the noble Baroness.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, are the scientists who advise the Government worried that there may be a further wave of the epidemic during the coming summer?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, there has been speculation that there could be a further outbreak during the summer. However, I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to an article published in the New Scientist on 18th February. It makes very interesting reading.

Business
2.54 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord Trefgarne will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on relations with Iran.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Committee stage of the Companies Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7.30 p.m. for approximately one hour and that during this adjournment the Nature Conservation and Amenity Lands (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1988 and the Laganside Development (Northern Ireland) Order 1988 will be taken.

Greater Manchester (Light Rapid Transit System) Bill [H.L.]
2.55 p.m.
Read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.

Companies Bill [H.L.]
2.56 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 227Z(80A):
Before Clause 91, insert the following new clause:
("A company's objects and the power of the directors to bind it.
.—(1) In Chapter III of Part I of the Companies Act 1985 (a company's capacity; formalities of carrying on business), for section 35 substitute
"A company's capacity not limited by its objects.
35.—(1) The validity of an act done by a company shall not be called into question on the ground of lack of capacity by reason of the fact that it is beyond the objects of the company stated in the memorandum of association.
(2)This does not affect any right of a member of the company to bring proceedings on that ground to restrain the doing of such an act; but no such proceedings shall lie in respect of any act to be done in fulfilment of a legal obligation arising from a previous act of the company.
(3)Nor does this affect any liability incurred by the directors, or any of them, by reason of such an act having been done.
Power of directors to hind the company.
35A.—(1)In favour of a person dealing with a company in good faith, the power of the board of directors to bind the company, or authorise others to do so, shall be deemed to be free of any limitation under the company's constitution
(2)For this purpose

(a)a person "deals with" a company if he is a party to any transaction or other act to which the company is a party;

(b)a person shall not be regarded as acting in bad faith by reason only of his knowing that an act is beyond the powers of the directors; and

(c)the limitations under a company's constitution include limitations deriving from a resolution of the company in general meeting or a unanimous resolution of the members otherwise than in general meeting.

(3)Subsection (I) does not affect any right of a member of the company to bring proceedings to restrain the doing of an act which is beyond the powers of the directors; nor does it affect any liability incurred by the directors, or any of them, by reason of anything done.
(4)Where in relation to an act of the company the board of directors exceed any limitation on their powers which flows from the objects of the company stated in the memorandum of association—

(a)the act may be ratified by the company by special resolution, and

(b)in the absence of such ratification, the above provisions of this section apply as in relation to any other limitation on the powers of the directors.

No duty to enquire as to capacity of company or authority ofdirectors.
35B. A party to a transaction with a company is not bound to enquire as to whether it is within the objects of the company to enter into it or as to any limitation on the powers of the board of directors to bind the company or authorise others to do so.".
(2)In Schedule 22 of the Companies Act 1985 (provisions applying to unregistered companies), in the entries relating to Part I, in the first column for "section 35" substitute "sections 35 to 35B".").
The noble Lord said: As on the previous day of the Committee stage, I shall refer to the amendments by the numbers and letters in brackets rather than to the full number and letter title.
This clause is the first of a series of new clauses and amendments put forward by the Government which deal with the capacity of a company, and the related issues of the authority of the board of directors and the rights of shareholders. These issues go to the heart of the operation of the limited liability company. They concern the scope of what a company may lawfully do, the protection of third parties dealing with a company, the duties of directors to their shareholders, and the rights of shareholders in relation to those who exercise power on their behalf.
The clauses are therefore of no little importance to commercial life in this country. They also happen to be difficult, technical clauses. Accordingly they need to be looked at carefully and thoughtfully, and I know that Members of the Committee will seek to do that. I should like to offer some general remarks which Members may wish to bear in mind in considering the clauses.
First, each provision forms part of an overall package. We have sought to give a very substantial degree of protection to third parties dealing with a company, and by giving greater legal certainty to the validity of a company's acts we aim to assist those involved in the process of wealth creation. But we also wish to guard against the risk of these protections being used as an instrument of fraud; we wish to maintain the accountability of the directors of the company to their shareholders; and we wish to ensure that these shareholders are able properly to protect their interests. Further, we have thought it necessary, because of the public interest in charities, to propose a modified regime relating to the capacity of charitable companies and the authority of their directors, and to require such companies to disclose their status so as to prevent that modified regime undermining our proposals for companies in general. Members of the Committee will appreciate that a careful balance has needed to be struck to reconcile these different ambitions, and that the provisions have to be looked at as a whole in order to appreciate that balance.
My second general remark is that this is not of course the first occasion that Parliament has legislated for these matters. There are several provisions of the Companies Act which deal with restrictions on directors from taking financial advantage of their position, and with the remedies available to shareholders to prevent their property being disposed of. These provisions will of course remain and need to be considered in the overall balance. Further, Parliament has already legislated in the area of a company's capacity and the authority of its directors by what is now Section 35 of the Companies Act. As I shall explain, that section has, however, been found to have a number of defects and not to work in practice as intended. In many ways, the major effect of the present proposals is simply to correct those defects.
My third general remark is that this is an area in which the European Community has legislated. The
510
first company law directive contains provisions on a company's capacity and the authority of directors, and our domestic law needs to reflect those provisions. The Government's present proposals comply fully with this directive. That could not be said of the existing Section 35 because of one of the defects which I have mentioned.
Finally, I should say that the present proposals are the result of a process of consultation with interested parties. In 1985 the department commissioned Dr. Prentice of Oxford University to advise on the implications of abolishing the ultra vires rule; that is the rule by which a company's capacity is limited in the way which I shall explain in a moment. Dr. Prentice's report effectively recommended abolition of the rule and made some related proposals. The department received a number of comments on the report, and as a result of those and of developments subsequent to the report the department put forward proposals which it was hoped would achieve substantially the same beneficial effects as Dr. Prentice's proposals but would avoid some of the pitfalls that had been identified with them. The present clauses were drafted in the light of comments on those revised proposals.
In part because of the delays inherent in that process of consultation, it was not possible for the present clauses to be ready at an earlier stage, and I am sorry that Members of the Committee have not therefore had a great deal of time to assimilate them. But consultation with interested parties in this area is obviously important and I can assure the Committee that the main thrust of the department's proposals was widely welcomed. Nevertheless, this is a technical and difficult area and we would be happy to consider at Report any improvements which Members of the Committee may care to suggest.
I hope the Committee will forgive that extended preamble. Perhaps I may now turn to the problems which this new clause addresses. Members of the Committee will realise that the clause deals with both the capacity of a company and the authority of the directors to bind it. The capacity of a company has been limited by the courts through what is commonly called the ultra vires rule. Under that rule, a company may only carry out acts which are expressly or by necessary implication sanctioned by the objects clause of its memorandum of association. Any other acts are void and money or any other property transferred may be recoverable. The basis of the courts' ruling was a finding of implicit legislative intent. Under earlier enactments, a company could not alter its objects clause, and it may only do so now under the Companies Act in certain circumstances. If companies could pursue activities outside their objects, they would in effect be altering their memorandum of association. The courts therefore concluded a company's capacity must by implication be limited to its objects.
It has been widely recognised that the effects of this rule were unfortunate. It conferred little or no protection on anyone, not least because companies could get round it by drafting their objects clause so widely that they could effectively do anything; hence, the very lengthy objects clauses of many companies.

511
But where their powers are not sufficient, companies were put to the trouble and inconvenience of changing their objects by special resolution before they could legitimately pursue new business opportunities. At the same time, third parties dealing with a company could not be certain that a company would be able to enter into a transaction with them, unless, that is, they were prepared to scrutinise a company's objects clause to see if a particular activity was permitted. That was a rather wasteful activity.
All in all the rule had little utility, but it served as a trap for the unwary or for the negligent draftsman of a company's objects clause. The chief losers from its capricious effects were innocent third parties engaged in commercial dealings with a company.
The unfortunate effects of the ultra vires rule have been ameliorated by what is now Section 35 of the Companies Act. That section purported to implement provisions of the first EC company law directive, but it did not do so fully and it has not completely overcome the problems associated with the ultra vires rule.
Section 35 states that in favour of a person dealing with a company in good faith, any transaction decided on by the directors is to be deemed to be within the company's capacity, and the power of the directors to bind the company is deemed to be free of any limitation on their authority contained in the memorandum or articles of the company. Members of the Committee will see that the section deals with both capacity and authority; that is, the power of the directors to bind the company. The Government's new clause also covers both these questions, in recognition of the fact that in the last resort it does not matter to a third party whether he cannot enforce his contract on the ground of lack of capacity or the ground of lack of authority, although it is at present open to the shareholders of a company to ratify an act which was beyond the directors' authority, but not an ultra vires act.
As I have suggested, there are a number of difficulties with the operation of this section. First, it only protects third parties. It gives no protection to the company itself should a third party wish to resile from an ultra vires act. Secondly, there have been difficulties over determining whether the provisions cover gratuitous acts and what is meant by a transaction decided on by the directors. What is clear is that it does not assist a person dealing with agents of the company who are not directors in respect of transactions which do not have board approval. Finally, the good faith test in the section has been interpreted by the courts as meaning that merely if a person knows of any limitation on the authority of the board of directors to bind the company deriving from the company's constitution, he will not be protected. As a result, the section does not fully implement Article 9 of the first directive.
The new clause is designed to remedy the defects in Section 35. It provides, first, that the validity of an act done by a company is not to be called into question on the grounds that it is beyond the company's capacity. Thus a transaction will be valid even if a third party has acted in bad faith. Further, the company itself will be protected. Complete
512
protection of a completed transaction against the ultra vires rule will therefore be given. So far as concerns authority, the clause provides that in favour of a person dealing with a company in good faith the power of the board of directors to bind the company, or authorise others to do so, is to be deemed to be free of any limitation under the company's constitution.
A person is not to be taken as acting in bad faith merely because he knows that an act is beyond the powers of the directors, so third parties are to have substantial protection against any lack of authority. However, they are not to be protected if they are acting dishonestly. We do not think that the first directive obliges us to confer protection on a person who has been a party to fraud or assists directors if abusing their powers.
I would also note that in the case of a lack of authority under the constitution, a person will be protected not just if he is dealing with the board of directors but also if he is dealing with any single director, employee or other agent who has actual or ostensible authority deriving from the board to carry out the act. We believe that the application of the doctrine of ostensible authority sufficiently accords with commercial practice, without going further and conferring authority on individual directors.
It will be seen that the clause will in practice abolish the effect of the ultra vires rule on relations between a company and other parties and confer absolute protection on such parties, unless they have acted in bad faith, over acts beyond the authority of the board. The ultra vires rule will still operate internally; that is, for the purpose of defining the directors' duties to their shareholders. The clause specifically allows shareholders to go to court to restrain an ultra vires act, unless the act is in fulfilment of a legal obligation arising from a previous act; and directors will be fully responsible for any breach of their obligations. The clause allows the shareholders to ratify an ultra vires act if they wish, but this and any other questions relating to the directors' duties will remain a matter for the directors and the shareholders. It will not affect an honest third party. We believe that these provisions strike the right balance between the interests and responsibilities of the directors, the shareholders and third parties. I beg to move.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 227Z(80A), Amendment No. 227Z(80B):
In section 35, leave out subsections (2) and (3).
The noble Lord said: Perhaps I may say at once that I found the preamble by the Minister very helpful, particularly his reference to the fact that the Government are to some extent harmonising the law on this matter with the European Community.
The two amendments that I move in this new Section 35 may be considered to be matters of semantics, but in the introduction we had by the Minister I did not find any reference to the relevance of the matters contained in my amendments. My amendments are to shorten the new section. As the noble Lord said, there have been considerable difficulties with the 1985 Act in this field. New Section

513
35(1) would appear to be adequate to cover most of the matters adumbrated by the Minister.
Going into some detail, new Section 35(2) states:
"This does not affect any right of a member of the company to bring proceedings on that ground to restrain the doing of such an act".
I should have thought it quite unnecessary to introduce that. The subsection continues:
"but no such proceedings shall lie in respect of an act to be done in fulfilment of a legal obligation arising from a previous act of the company".
I should have thought that also was self-evident. There is a further clarification—it is intended to be a
clarification—in subsection (3), which I suggest should be deleted, which reads:
"Nor does this affect any liability incurred by the directors, or any of them, by reason of such an act having been done."
One has to go hack to the early part of the new section to understand what act is referred to.
I do not want to take up the time of the Committee any further except to say that so far I have heard no justification from the Minister for the inclusion of subsections (2) and (3) of new Section 35. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: As the noble Lord explained, his amendment would delete two subsections from new Section 35 which deal with separate issues. I take them in turn.
Subsection (2) concerns the right to restrain proposed ultra vires acts. The earlier new subsection (1) establishes that once an act has been done—for example, a transaction has been entered into—that act or transaction cannot be called into question on the grounds of a lack of capacity.
New subsection (2), however, preserves the present right of a shareholder to go to court to seek an injunction to restrain a proposed ultra vires act. Two considerations in particular have led us to allow the ultra vires rule to continue to operate in these circumstances. First, our aim is to give security to commercial transactions, and this can be achieved by ensuring that an act cannot be called into question once entered into. It is not necessary to deal also with proposed acts in order to achieve our aim.
Secondly, there are circumstances where it may be important to an individual shareholder to restrain a threatened ultra vires act of a company. We think that it might tip the balance that I mentioned earlier too far away from the rights of shareholders if this existing right—which was recognised as long ago as 1860—were removed.
I now turn to the second subsection with which the noble Lord is concerned; namely, subsection (3). The intended effect of the removal of this seems to be to remove any liability which the directors may incur by reason of an ultra vires act being done. The limitations imposed on directors by the statement of objects in a company's memorandum serve the purpose, in addition to limiting a company's capacity, of defining the duties and authority of the directors vis-à-vis their shareholders. It will be apparent from what I said on the Government's clause that we do not wish to disturb these limitations on the directors if the shareholders wish to have
514
Vol. 504them. We believe that the "internal" operation of the ultra vires rule is an important safeguard which shareholders ought to be able to keep in place if they so choose. Here again the noble Lord's amendment would tip the balance away from shareholders, in this case more steeply.
In introducing the new clause I suggested that the ultra vires reforms had to be seen as a careful balancing of several conflicting interests. I hope that rather than pressing this amendment, the noble Lord will consider it sensible for him now to reflect upon the rather lengthy remarks I made and to consider coming back at Report stage if he then believes that the Government have not got this delicate balancing act right.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Brightman: I ask the Committee not to accept the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran. As I understand the amendments, the effect would be that directors will be at liberty deliberately to act in excess of the powers contained in the memorandum of association. The effect of that will be that a company might just as well tear up the objects clause contained in the memorandum because the limitation set out in the objects clause will neither bind a member of the public acting innocently nor a director who is acting deliberately in contravention of the constitution of the company. I ask the Committee not to accept these amendments.
Lord Morris: This amendment begs the question raised by the noble and learned Lord on the Cross Benches of what is the point of maintaining the objects clause in a memorandum of association. I suggest that much of the confusion has been caused by misunderstanding the roles of the memorandum of association and the articles of association within a company.
If the capacity of the directors is to act bearing in mind the interests of the shareholders and the company generally, controlled by the articles of association rather than the memorandum of association, the objects of the company should be placed therein rather than the other way round.
Whether Her Majesty's Government or the department have considered this matter in changing the form within the Companies Act for what are generally called the statutory books, I do not know, but I sincerely hope that the Government will look at this matter because it might answer many of the questions and clear up some of the confusion.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I am much obliged to the Minister for having explained more fully in a learned speech the reasons why he wishes me to reflect further on this matter.
I have not had much time for reflection. The Committee will forgive me for saying so, but last Thursday nine-and-a-half pages of government amendments descended upon me and I tabled these amendments immediately. To my surprise the Government put down another three-and-a-half pages of amendments on Friday, saying that they

515
were to substitute the amendments originally tabled and to which I had directed my amendments. I did not receive those until yesterday and I crave the indulgence of the Committee in not having had adequate time to deal with these important matters.
The Government have set down their amendments rather late in spite of the fact that, as the Minister said, there have been close consultations for years on this matter. Nevertheless, it was necessary for the Minister to work his colleagues behind the scenes rather hard and they must have done a great deal of work in order to produce the amendments.
In the face of the positive intervention of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, I shall not waste the time of the Committee any longer. I will consider whether this matter should be raised on Report and in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 227Z(80B) to the amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 227Z(80C) not moved.]
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 227Z(80A), Amendment No. 227Z(80D):
In subsection (4) of section 35(A), line 6, leave out from ("resolution") to end of line 10.
The noble Lord said: This is an amendment to the new Section 35A which is directed to the power of directors to bind the company. Subsection (4) is a long subsection, but I agree that paragraph (a) is satisfactory. However, I believe that the next paragraph is unnecessary. My amendment is therefore directed to the deletion of subsection (4)(b) which states:
"in the absence of such ratification, the above provisions of this section apply as in relation to any other limitation on the powers of the directors".
In the absence of the ratification by the board of directors I should have thought that it was perfectly open for anybody to deal with the matter and therefore the words,
"the above provisions of this section apply as in relation to any other limitation on the powers of the directors".
are totally unnecessary. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: I shall respond first to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran. We are very sorry that these amendments were put down late. I expressed regret in my earlier remarks that the Committee had not had time to consider them before today's discussion. They were tabled last Wednesday; so I suppose that we have had more time to discuss them than we have had for one or two other amendments.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: They were tabled on Thursday. On Friday further amendments were tabled in substitution for the earlier amendments.
Lord Strathclyde: I do not want to make an issue of this. We are sorry that the amendments were late. I understand that those tabled on Friday were simply a re-ordering of the amendments. They were not different amendments. I hope that the noble Lord will accept that.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I am very grateful to the noble Lord for explaining now that there was a reordering of the amendments. I did not realise that when I received them on Monday. Mr. Keith in the Public Bill Office has been very helpful. He told me today that it was merely a re-ordering of the amendments. It would have been helpful if I had been told that simple fact.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I accept culpability for the re-ordering. In the light of the amendments that the Government tabled earlier, I asked them to break up the clauses so that we could have debates of a separate nature rather than having to deal with a whole raft of clauses in the same debate. It is my fault that the Government accepted my suggestion and re-tabled the amendments in the form in which they now appear.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I intervene once again to deplore the fact that there has not been closer cooperation between my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel and myself on this matter.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Perhaps we should meet in Wales.
Lord Strathclyde: That is an entirely different question with which I am not proposing to deal at the moment. I turn to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran.
Subsection (4) of new Section 35A allows a company by special resolution to ratify an act of the company in which the board of directors have exceeded any limitation on their powers which flows from the objects of the company. Such ratification is at present impossible. A company has always been able to ratify acts which breach other limitations on the directors' authority, but because objects clauses go to capacity, and acts in breach of them are ultra vires, it has not been within the powers of the company to ratify such acts. This change will not of course affect honest third parties who are dealing with the company. They will be protected whether the act has been ratified or not. But it would, among other things, enable the company itself to enforce the contract if that is what the shareholders believe to be in the interests of the company.
The part of the subsection which the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, would have deleted provides that in the absence of such ratification, the provisions of new Section 35A are to apply as they do in relation to other limitations on the powers of the directors. Perhaps the most important of the provisions in this case are the right of members to restrain a proposed act which is in excess of directors' authority, and the liability of the directors in respect of any such act which has been carried out. We have already spoken about these two points, and I have tried to explain the thinking behind them. I therefore ask the noble Lord once more if he will consider reflecting further in the light of what I have said.
Lord Brightman: I take exactly the same view as the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran. On a brief reading it seems that the amendment is right.

517
Subsection (4)(b) is totally unnecessary. In the absence of the ratification set out in paragraph (a) I ask myself what else could happen except that,
"the above provisions of this section apply as in relation to any other limitation on the powers".
I believe that the amendment is correct and that paragraph (b) plays no useful part whatever.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, for that very positive support. He reflects entirely the views that I have. I wonder whether the noble Lord the Minister wishes to make any reply. In the face of such a positive statement from the noble and learned Lord surely the Government have either to accept my amendment or agree to take it back and to reflect on what has been said in Committee. The noble Lord has had some help; and I believe that he has had enough time to read the papers before him. I ask him to reconsider the position that he has taken in the face of the very postive statement of the noble and learned Lord on the Cross Benches.
Lord Strathclyde: The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, asks why paragraph (b) is needed. It is accepted that new Section 35A(4)(b) might be strictly unnecessary. However, in our view it provides a useful pointer to the operation of the section. When first replying to the noble Lord, I asked him to consider reflecting further on the matter. In the light of what has been said in Committee the Government should reflect and come back again at the Report stage.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: With that assurance of reflection by the Government I hope that the result will be a very positive one. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 227Z(80D) to the amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Williams of Elvel: In speaking to the main government amendment I think it appropriate to echo the words of the Minister. We too believe that the present arrangements for ultra vires have largely come to a fullstop. We accept the conclusions of the Prentice Report. I differ somewhat from the Minister in that once you give away the ultra vires doctrine and try to substitute something else you create for yourself an enormous number of problems of a rather different order that I shall come to in a moment.
I echo also the words of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran. We have had very little time to study these amendments. I apologise to the noble Lord for not warning him that I was trying to break down the debate rather than having to take five new clauses in one debate. There has not been time for us to put down amendments as is normal in dealing with matters in Committee. We are therefore reduced to a series of what I call clause stand part debates to make our comments. The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, has initiated what I regard as almost a clause stand part debate by saying "Leave out subsection this and subsection that" without being entirely precise. He has every reason to do so.
518
I shall go through the amendments that the noble Lord has proposed, making points which relate more to clause stand part debates than I would have wished. Under the procedures of the Committee we are unable to recommit these clauses. Once they have been approved they cannot be recommitted. If the Government had moved the clauses on Report we could have moved for recommitment and then had a discussion on proposed amendments. The clauses having been tabled at the time they were, we have either to throw them out altogether or accept them as part of the Bill emerging from Committee. We are unable to recommit them. So we have to adopt Report stage procedures and that affects the debate.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord. In order to help in this very technical matter, can he tell me which clauses he is going to attack on a stand part basis? I can then strengthen my argument, contemplating what he is going to do.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I intend to attack the proposal to insert new Sections 35, 35A and 35B. As the Committee will later discover, I shall also attack new Section 322A. I am going to attack "Insert the following new clause", and so on. All are new clauses which I shall attack upon a general basis. I would have preferred to have been able to move amendments to them.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I am obliged to the noble Lord. I think I shall leave him alone in his attacks as at present advised.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the noble Lord.
We accept that the Government are right to try to produce something in place of the present ultra vires arrangements which have now become not quite a dead letter but so easily avoidable that they are no longer effective. Perhaps I may examine some of the drafting of the Government's proposed new clauses to Chapter III of the Companies Act. They contain a series of difficulties which I should like to explore with the Committee. New Section 35(1) is the main substantive subsection abolishing the ultra vires provision. I wonder whether after the expression "lack of capacity by reason" we should not have the words "only of the fact". The noble Lord explained that it is possible for a special resolution of a company's members to authorise an act which may be beyond the objects of association. The vires is provided by a special resolution, not by the objects. Therefore we should have in that subsection a limitation that does not exclude—and this is something that is inserted by later amendments—the vires provided by a special resolution.
Secondly, there are the words:
"it is beyond the objects of the company".
I wonder whether that should not read, "it was not authorised by the company's objectives". Once an act has taken place, it has taken place in the past. The validity of that act which has taken place in the past would seem to be what we are talking about. We are not talking about an act that is at the moment being

519
done. I should prefer to have the past tense rather than the present tense.
In new Section 35(2) we find the words:
"right of a member of the company to bring proceedings".
Is that an unqualified right? The well known case of Foot v. Harbottle appears to qualify the right of members to bring proceedings against companies. Is that being ignored? Does this new statute override those provisions? What will happen if the act in question is itself sanctioned by special resolution? Will that be intra vires and therefore not within the scope of new Section 35(2)?
In new Section 35(3), what is the meaning of the word "this"? I accept that in some cases the parliamentary draftsman is becoming rather colloquial in his language but normally, syntactically, the word "this" would refer to what has happened in the previous paragraph. It would not refer to what has happened in the paragraph before the previous paragraph. We argue that the word "this" in new Section 35(2) does not affect any liability. That seems to be an odd construct and I think that the draftsman might well feel it necessary to look again at that point.
Before I finish with new Section 35, perhaps I may say that subsections (2) and (3) confer new rights on shareholders over acts which are at present intra vires. I should be grateful if the noble Lord would comment on that point.
I do not wish to detain the Committee longer than I have to, but we must go through these points. Does the authorisation mentioned in new Section 35A(1), include, as 1 think I heard the noble Lord say, ostensible authorisation, or is it strictly authorisation determined by some procedures about which we have to learn? If it is ostensible authorisation that should be set out in the statute. On the next line we have the expression "under the company's constitution". I have never met this expression before in company law. I know about memoranda and articles of association but I have never heard of "the company's constitution", though I quite understand why the Government have suddenly adopted this expression instead of the normal expressions to which we are used. Furthermore, what is in new Section 35A(1) is inconsistent with what is in new Section 35A(2). I should like the Government to look at that again.
New Section 35A(2)(c) refers to the limitations under a company's constitution, whatever that may mean. They include,
"limitations deriving from a resolution of the company in general meeting or a unanimous resolution of the members otherwise than in general meeting".
What about those members of a company who are not ordinary shareholders? They may be preference shareholders, but such shareholders are members of the company. Should it not read "members or classes of members"? In subsection (3), is the right presented to us an unqualified right or is it a qualified right?
What will happen under subsection (4)(a) if the act is ratified in advance by special resolution? There is no provision and so we do not know. We are left at the moment in the air. If that act is ratified in advance it cuts straight across the provisions on new Section
520
35. Without changing the objects of a company, shareholders can ratify in advance by special resolution and thus create the vires under which the company operates. It has nothing to do with the objects or with what the Government are pleased to call the company's constitution.
The Committee will be anxious to move on to the Statement. I do not wish to detain proceedings for long but in this initial amendment there are some serious problems. In fact some people describe it as something of a mess. No doubt the noble Lord will be able to respond to what I have said. If he cannot respond perhaps he will be able to look at it again and respond when we come to Report stage.
Lord Strathclyde: In the space of a few minutes the noble Lord, Lord Williams, asked a number of detailed questions. These new sections have been carefully drafted and have benefited from advice from all kinds of interested parties. We believe that the new sections work but the area is difficult and technical. As the noble Lord has suggested improvements, we shall be glad to consider them.
Perhaps I may remind the noble Lord that the thrust of the amendments has been strongly supported by third parties, and that we announced at Second Reading that we would be dealing with this question. I sincerely hope therefore that the Committee will be able to accept the new sections and consider detailed drafting at a later stage.
The noble Lord asked about the tense in new Section 35(1). We are happy to look at this point. He also asked about the right in subsection (2). The right is unqualified by various legal cases but statute does not override this. There is an existing law for this. We are preserving the existing right; we are not creating a new one. The noble Lord asked about the word "this" in subsection (3). "This" refers to new Section 35(1). The word "this" is controlled by the "Nor" two words previously. That therefore means that the reference must be to new Section 35(1) and not to the preceding paragraph.
The noble Lord asked about new rights. The key words in subsections (2) and (3) are the words "any". We are preserving these rights. The noble Lord also asked about ostensible authority. There is no need to refer explicitly to ostensible authority. The courts have developed a doctrine on that aspect and therefore there is no need to go any further.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord for a moment. Does that mean that in the new clause which he is suggesting the word "authorise" includes ostensible authorisation?
Lord Strathclyde: Yes, that is precisely what it means. However, perhaps I may continue. The company's constitution as set out in Section 35A(2) is an omnibus word conveying all constitutional limitations. As I said, it is well understood by the courts and practitioners. I think that I have covered most of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Williams. However, if he feels that there are any outstanding matters, I am sure that he will be happy to discuss them again at a later stage.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: Perhaps I may intervene just to say this. If I understood him correctly, when he was dealing with Section 35A(2) the noble Lord, Lord Williams, indicated that that was one of the provisions which was giving new rights. However, the Minister has not dealt with that aspect. I fully appreciate that this has arisen at short notice and that he has not had warning about these points. Nevertheless, perhaps he will be good enough to consider whether subsection (2) gives new rights.
The Minister will remember that I did not move Amendment No. 227Z(80C), which proposed to leave out subsection (2). It was not moved because I thought that it was inappropriate. However, I hope that he will be able to look at the matter and, in the gracious words which he uses on these occasions, perhaps reflect upon it and write to me further.
Lord Strathclyde: I was well aware of the reasons behind the decision of the noble Lord not to move the amendment tabled in his name which dealt with subsection (2). As I said earlier, we are keen to reflect on all suggestions made by noble Lords. Indeed, on some suggestions no doubt we shall come back at a later stage. As regards this particular subsection, it explains the use of terms in subsection (1) and does not create new rights.
On Question, Amendment No. 227Z(80A), agreed to.
The Earl of Arran: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Iran: Withdrawal of UK Mission
3.42 p.m.
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, with the permission of the House I should like to repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable and learned friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary about Britain's relations with Iran. The Statement is as follows:
"As the House knows, it has been our purpose to try to restore a normal relationship with the Government of Iran. I have no doubt that that was right. Iran is an important country in the region. Britain has significant interests there. And Britain is a permanent member of the Security Council, which has responsibility for international peace and security.
"Even so, the decision to re-open our embassy in Tehran last December was taken in full knowledge of the difficulties involved, the continued imprisonment of British citizens, Nicholas Nicola and Roger Cooper, and the detention of British hostages in the Lebanon. On our side, we conducted matters prudently and carefully, There were signs, not least in the two meetings I have had with the Iranian Foreign Minister, that the Iranian Government also wished to re-establish a stable relationship. On 26th December the British subject
522
detained in Iran, Nicholas Nicola, was set free. More recently, however, matters have taken a serious turn for the worse.
"On 14th February, Ayatollah Khomeini made a statement inciting Moslems to violence against Mr. Rushdie and the publishers of The Satanic Verses. That was totally incompatible with Iran's obligations under the UN Charter, and with respect for our sovereignty and the rule of law. We protested in the strongest terms and put an immediate freeze on the intended grad ual build-up of our staff in Tehran.
"Following Ayatollah Khomeini's original statement, there were clear signs that some in the Iranian Government wished to distance themselves from the threat of violence. On Friday 17th February President Khamenei said that if Mr. Rushdie apologised, the threat to his life might be withdrawn. As the House knows, Mr. Rushdie issued a statement at the weekend apologising for any distress caused to Moslems by his book.
"However, on Sunday last, Ayatollah Khomeini made a further statement, renewing most explicitly the threat to Mr. Rushdie's life. The whole House will realise that that statement put paid to our chances of maintaining normal dealings with Iran. It was an attack, not only on the author and publishers of the book, but on the fundamental freedoms for which our society stands: the freedom of expression, religious tolerance and the rule of law.
"In Brussels yesterday, I discussed these death threats with Foreign Ministers of the European Community. All the governments of the Twelve fully shared our sense of outrage at the incitement to murder. The twelve Foreign Ministers issued a statement, whose text has been placed in the Library of the House, in which they rejected Khomeini's treats as an affront to international standards of behaviour which could not be tolerated. We all reaffirmed our commitment to ensuring the protection of the life and property of our citizens. We agreed and announced two immediate steps: suspension of any exchanges of high level officials visits between Iran and our countries and the recall of Heads of Mission from Tehran. At the same time, the Interior Ministers of the Twelve have been asked to consider urgently the practical steps necessary to restrict the freedom of movement of Iranian diplomats in Community countries.
"In those circumstances the Government have concluded that in our own particular case, it is neither possible nor sensible to conduct a normal relationship with Iran. We have, therefore, decided to withdraw all the UK-based staff from our embassy in Tehran. The Iranian Government have been asked to withdraw their charge d'affaires and the one other Iranian-based member of his staff from London in order to create a situation of reciprocity. We were conscious of the further limitation this decision would place on our ability to intervene on behalf of Roger Cooper and the hostages in Lebanon. And we understand the additional distress caused to their families. We have asked the Swedish Government once again to

523
undertake the protection of British interests and are grateful for their prompt agreement to do so.
"Britain is able to do business with many countries who do not share our ideals or democratic way of life. We were ready to do business with Iran. But we can only do so if Iran respects accepted standards of international behaviour; in particular, respect for the sovereignty and law of other states as laid down in the Charter of the United Nations. Iran has disregarded those standards in the most flagrant and menacing way. The response of the Government and of the other member countries of the European Community is firm and clear. Before normal relations can be restored, Iran must meet her international obligations, in particular by renouncing the use or threat of violence against citizens of other countries."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.48 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord for repeating the Statement. We deeply regret the recent action taken by the Iranian Government, especially as it appeared, as the Statement says, that we were moving towards improved relations with Iran and when there are clear advantages for both countries in the resumption of normal diplomatic relations. We are profoundly concerned about the hostages still held in Lebanon. Nevertheless, the decision taken by Her Majesty's Government to withdraw their top diplomats from Tehran was a necessary and an appropriate response to the Ayatollah's indefensible reiteration of the death threat against Mr. Salman Rushdie. We fully support the Government in that action.
We realise that Iranians in Moslem communities throughout the world feel very deeply about parts of Mr. Salman Rushdie's controversial book. We appreciate that there are differences of creed, culture and tradition between Iran and the Western democracies. In this country we have striven for centuries to establish and preserve the rights of free speech and expression.
Moslems in this country have a democratic right to express their views on the book. It need not be said that differences in beliefs will always be treated with respect. But the Ayatollah and his colleagues, whose religion we respect, must understand that we too have a right to our own customs, our own laws and our own freedoms. We too resent and deplore interference in our own affairs. It must be appreciated by the Iranian Government that in making that threat against a British citizen, they are interfering directly with those laws and freedoms. It is intolerable that any leader of a foreign state should attempt to interfere with our laws in that way. Furthermore, that action is in total contravention of the universal declaration of human rights and the United Nations Charter.
We welcome the diplomatic support of our 11 Community partners. As said in their joint statement yesterday, incitement to murder is an unacceptable violation of the most elementary principles and
524
obligations that govern relations among sovereign states. It is also deeply offensive to the British people.
We note that the Swedish Government will protect our interests in Iran now that our diplomats are to be withdrawn. We are sure that they, with other nations, will do what they can to protect the interests of the hostages and to obtain their release.
Will the Minister say whether it is government policy to seek to maintain some contact with the moderate elements in Iran in the hope that civilised conduct will in due course return to that country? Futhermore, I assume that Her Majesty's Government will keep in close touch with our Community partners over the next few days so that together we can work towards a solution of this most difficult and complex problem. Perhaps I may say in conclusion that anyone who visits this country or lives here is entitled to the full protection of our laws—
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos:—regardless of creed or nationality, but in return is under an obligation to observe and uphold those laws.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made by his right honourable and learned friend in another place. I should like to associate myself with everything which has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn. In addition, I should like to associate myself and my colleagues on these Benches with the response that the Government have made to the absolutely unacceptable threat to the life of a British citizen which has come from the Ayatollah and Iran. I regard the Government as having been wholly right in not being precipitate in their response, as was urged upon them in some quarters. They were right to proceed with what is called all deliberate speed but no more.
The Government were right to co-ordinate their response and to secure the agreement of our partners in the European Community. If any further measures are envisaged, it is essential that they too should be co-ordinated with our partners in the European Community. The measures which have been taken seem to me to be an appropriate response to the unacceptable threats that have been made. They should, and seem to me to have been designed to, register our profound disapproval of threats to murder, to assist those moderate elements within Iran who are clearly engaged in a bitter struggle for power and to bear in mind the fate of the prisoners and hostages in Iran and Lebanon. In all these respects we should like to support the Government.
It is impossible to consider this unfortunate state of affairs without also bearing in mind its effect upon community relations within this country, which can only be serious and lead to difficulties. I urge the so-called leaders of the Moslem community in this country to restrain their comments on what has happened and certainly not to associate themselves with the threats that have been made.
One further possibility has occurred to us on these Benches as to the steps which might be taken: it is that we should bring the matter before the Security

525
Council under Article 39 as a threat to peace. I say that because I believe that co-ordinated international action is the most likely way to bring effective pressure to bear on Iran and to support those within Iran who disapprove of the policies at present being pursued.
Article 19 requires a majority of nine, including the five members of the Security Council, to pass a condemnatory resolution. If the Minister brought that matter to the attention of his right honourable colleagues he would find it likely that at least five, and probably more, of the 10 non-permanent members of the Security Council would vote in favour of such a resolution. I should like once more to reiterate our support for the position which the Government have taken.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their response to the Statement that I have repeated. In answer to the few points that were raised in general acceptance of what I had to say in repeating the Statement, perhaps I may first say that our task in so far as the implications for Mr. Cooper and the hostages in Lebanon are concerned will not be made easier; but we shall keep pressing for their release by every appropriate means. We have no doubt that our Swedish friends who will now look after our interests in Tehran will do likewise on our behalf. There is no case for delaying or linking the freedom of the hostages and Mr. Cooper to United Kingdom-Iranian relations, but I should be deceiving your Lordships if I did not agree, as I said earlier, that our task will be no easier. We want to retain relations with Iran in the best way that we can, but we had no alternative but to withdraw our Mission, as I have described. We have not formally terminated diplomatic relations with that country.
As for the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, we were much heartened by the support of our European colleagues in this matter and by the unanimous agreement to proceed in the way that was announced and to which I have referred. As for further measures, we shall need to keep the situation under the most careful review, but we hope that the more moderate views in Tehran will prevail, that further measures will not be necessary and that there may be some return to a more normal relationship. I cannot pretend that I see that as an early or likely possibility. It is however devoutly to be desired.
As for the steps proposed by the noble Lord in connection with the Security Council, that is a matter upon which I should like to reflect and take further advice. If there is any prospect of that perhaps I may write to him.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, I support everything the Minister has said and the action of Her Majesty's Government but perhaps I may ask why we have withdrawn, I believe rightly, all our staff in Tehran and yet our EC partners have withdrawn only the Heads of Mission? Surely it would have been right for them to have withdrawn all their staff at the same time.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, our position was a special one because the threat was directed at a British citizen on British soil. Furthermore, without a charge d'affaires the comparatively small size of our Mission in Tehran considerably reduced its usefulness. Once we had decided to withdraw our charge d'affaires, it was not possible to continue an effective Mission in Tehran. That is why we decided that all British diplomats should be withdrawn. The same considerations did not necessarily apply to our European colleagues.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, is there not another dimension to this as well? Is it not contrary to divine law and, for that matter, Islamic law to condemn a man unheard without even the pretence of a trial? Is it not clear that the pretended Fatwa of the so-called Ayatollah is in flagrant violation of the most sacred beliefs of all the peoples whom Moslems call the Children of the Book, Ahl El Kitab?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, it is certainly in violation of the beliefs which I hold dear. I am afraid that I am not an expert in Moslem beliefs but I should be very surprised if the same were not true there.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, while supporting the comments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, I must ask the Minister whether he does not agree that the European Community is widely admired in the Moslem field, not least by a number of Moslem governments? They bitterly resent the pretensions of the Ayatollah Khomeini. Has the Community any plans to discuss with such governments what might be the best way forward, perhaps towards the kind of action suggested by my noble friend?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, for the moment the issue is very much one generated by the threat to a British person in the United Kingdom. For that reason, clearly the people most directly involved are ourselves. But we shall certainly want to exchange views with states, particularly those directly affected in the region of the Middle East. We might take the matter forward in the way which the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, suggested.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, the noble Lord referred in the Statement to meetings or consultations between ministers of the interior of the governments. But the Statement suggested that these were restricted to looking at the movements of Iranian diplomats. Since it is more than likely that any projected assassins would not be members of the Iranian diplomatic corps, can we be assured that the interior ministers will look at international cooperation in pursuit of any possible murder squads who may be trying to enter this country?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, yes, my noble friend is quite right that the concern of the interior ministers which has been referred to relates to the movement of diplomats. Since we now propose that the two remaining Iranian diplomats in this country should leave, clearly that consideration does not apply so far

527
as we are concerned. However, it will most certainly apply in other countries of the European Community which have much larger Iranian missions in their capitals than we have.
The other point raised by my noble friend about the movement of terrorists is of equal importance to interior ministers. My noble friend may be assured that we shall be taking all the steps open to us to control and contain the situation.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, in view of the very real dangers in which the members of our mission and their families in Tehran find themselves, can the Minister give an assurance that every kind of protection will be given to them in their safe journey home?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, yes indeed, I can assure the noble Baroness that our remaining five diplomats, plus one dependant in Tehran, will be leaving in the next few days. We shall provide every necessary facility for that purpose.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, I wish to express my agreement with the noble Lord on the decision not to bring the Security Council into this. If one did one would merely be signalling—as one always does on these occasions when dealing with a lawless society—an indication to them that there is no punch coming. The United Nations has not got a punch and we should simply indicate by taking the matter to the Security Council that we did not have one either. I am very glad that that is left out.
However, what worries me a little is the absence of any indication of what we can or will do if the Ayatollah goes on to the next step. It is not merely Mr. Rushdie who is under threat; there are a number of threats coming out. The Ayatollah is the head of a large assassin organisation. If his assassins get to work and kill some of our citizens, what shall we do about it? We have withdrawn communications. Does that worry him? The Ayatollah has got on without them for a long time and he can go on doing without them. It will inconvenience some people in Persia but not the Ayatollah.
It seems to me that this is an occasion upon which firm and fierce vengeance should be threatened. I believe that when the ex-president of America took that line it was highly effective and obtained very much better conduct in that quarter and the other end of the Mediterranean than for quite a long time. Is there nothing we can do? After all, we are a nuclear power. We have had ayatollahs trotting round saying, "Who's afraid of the big bad bomb?" Maybe it is time they found out.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, we look to see and secure an improvement in our relations with Iran, not a descent into the jungle which the noble Lord appears to fear. But the way forward lies in Iranian hands, not in ours. What we want is to see the Iranians meeting their international obligations, in particular, as 1 said in the Statement, by renouncing the use of or threat of violence against citizens of other countries. If they do that, our relations can begin to return to a more normal course.

Transport (Scotland) Bill
4.6 p.m.
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Companies Bill [H.L.]
House again in Committee.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 227Z (80E):
Before Clause 91, insert the following new clause
(".Invalidity of certain transactions involving directors.
—(I)In Part X of the Companies Act 1985 (enforcement of fair dealing by directors), after section 322 insert—
"Invalidity of certain transactions involving directors, etc.
322A.—(1) Where in relation to a transaction entered into by the company the board of directors exceed their authority to bind the company, or to authorise others to do so, and the parties to the transaction include—

(a)a director of the company or of its holding company, or

(b)a person connected with such a director or a company with whom such a director is associated,

the transaction is void as between the company and any such party, unless ratified by the company.
(2)This does not affect the operation of section 35A in relation to any other party to the transaction who deals with the company in good faith within the meaning of that section.
(3)Where a transaction is void by virtue of subsection (1) as against one person and valid by virtue of section 35A in favour of another, the court may, on the application of the latter or of the company, give such directions as to the severance of the transaction or its setting aside, on such terms, as appear to the court to be just.
(4)In this section "transaction" includes any act.
(5)Nothing in this section shall be construed as excluding the operation of any other enactment or rule of law by virtue of which any such transaction as is mentioned in subsection (I) may be called in question.".
(2)In Schedule 22 of the Companies Act 1985 (Provisions applying to unregistered companies) in the entries relating to Part X, insert—

"section 322A

Invalidity of certain transactions involving directors, etc.

Subject to section 718(3).".").

The noble Lord said: This amendment deals with a new clause which provides an exception in a specified case to the provisions in the earlier clause which relate to the validity of transactions which exceed the authority of the directors. If a transaction involving as a party a director of the company or its holding company or a person connected or associated with such a director exceeds the board's power to bind the company, it is to be void as between the company and any such party unless it is ratified by the company. The clause makes provision for the interests of other parties to the transaction to be safeguarded.
The reason for this new clause is to discourage new Section 35A being used as a vehicle for fraud. It would otherwise be quite easy for a dishonest director to misuse his power to bind the company without limitation. The new clause will assist a company to recover any property or other moneys which have been transferred fraudulently. I beg to move.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran had given notice of his intention to move, as an amendment to Amendment No. 227Z(80E), Amendment No. 227Z(80F):
In section 322A, leave out subsections (2) and (3).
The noble Lord said: I was going formally to move this amendment but in the interval in the Committee stage of this Bill I have had the opportunity of discussing it with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman. In view of the suggestions which he has made and the advice he has given, I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 227Z(80F) not moved.]
Lord Williams of Elvel: To adopt the language used by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, Amendment No. 227Z(80E) deals with the invalidity of certain transactions involving directors. Once again, I am in a position of not being able to move specific amendments and instead I am commenting on government amendments. I hope very much that the Government will pay attention to those comments. No doubt they will also receive comments on the proposed new clause from other parties.
New Section 322A specifies at the end of subsection (1) that,
"transaction is void as between the company and any such party, unless ratified by the company".
I am concerned that the other party should not be involved in the process of voiding the transaction. It is the company which has the right to void rather than there being a joint agreement of some kind between the two parties.
Subsection (2) starts with the word "This". It is not clear what the word "This" refers to. The noble Lord says "again", but there are certain syntactical rules in the English language which govern what the word "This" means when used at the beginning of a sentence: it refers to the last point in the previous paragraph. If the parliamentary draftsman insists on using the word "This", we must interpret it as referring to what happened in the previous paragraph unless there is indication to the contrary. In traditional drafting we should have had the words "subject to subsection" this, that or the other. In this case, subsection (1) represents this, that and the other. "This" is an expression which is vague in its application.
Subsection (3) states: "Where a transaction is void". Either a transaction under subsection (1) is voided by the procedures mentioned in subsection (1) or it is not voided by those procedures. I believe that the word in subsection (3) should be "voidable", because subsection (1) provides an option which allows the transaction either to be voided or not to be voided. I think that the draftsman may well have used the wrong expression.
Subsection (4) states that the word "transaction" includes any act. It is my understanding that an act, in the legal definition of that word, is wider than a transaction. A transaction is a specific deal involving two parties. In order to have a transaction one has to have two parties. An act can be a unilateral act. Therefore to say that a transaction includes any act is to say that an event which takes place between two contracting parties includes something which may be
530
done by one party without the intervention of a second party. It would probably be better if the subsection were to read "'ace includes any transaction". I leave that point for the consideration of the noble Lord when he comes to reply.
I wonder why the draftsman has used the word "transaction" in this new clause rather than using it throughout. We are dealing mostly with arrangements between two parties, and, if we are talking about "acts", those include acts which are not transactions. I am sorry to niggle about the wording, but I believe that the language must be right. I hope that the noble Lord will consider what I have said.
Lord Strathclyde: Again, the noble Lord, Lord Williams, has made numerous points in connection with the new clause. Perhaps I may repeat what I said in reply to an earlier point. I am very happy to listen to his words and to look further at areas which he has suggested need to be changed.
The noble Lord referred to the words in Section 322A(1):
"unless ratified by the company".
The third party has no role in ratifying transactions. It is the company which is limited by its capacity and not the outside party. Therefore the question does not arise.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord. What happens if the other party decides that the transaction is void?
4.15 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: Perhaps I may come to the question of what is void or voidable in a moment. Turning briefly to the question of ratification, if the company ratifies a transaction the third party cannot back out. That is that.
The noble Lord made a strong point about the syntactical use of the word "This". He also raised the point earlier in connection with the previous amendment. In this context the word "This" clearly refers to new subsection (1) as a whole. The noble Lord said that in the past there was a traditional way of drafting this kind of clause. Even parliamentary counsel have to keep up with modern values, and this is the modern style of drafting. Again, therefore, the noble Lord's question does not arise.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am most grateful to the noble Lord. I accept that parliamentary counsel have to keep up with colloquialisms. That does not mean that they have to use slang.
Lord Strathclyde: We do not regard this as slang. However, it is an issue that we are quite happy to look at. This is the modern style of drafting and for the time being we shall continue to use it.
The noble Lord also spoke at some length as to why a transaction is void rather than voidable. I say "at length" because he spent some time in his speech, which was not long—he is speaking very quickly today—on the matter. Why is a transaction void rather than voidable? It is because the onus should be on the directors to justify a transaction to their

531
shareholders. If the transaction were merely voidable dishonest directors could not exercise their right to void it. Therefore the shareholders might not learn of the transaction. The very word "transaction" provides a special definition which helps the section. The draftsman has used the word "transaction" because it is difficult to speak of parties to an act. Therefore the word "transaction" is more suitable. I hope that that reply has answered all the noble Lord's questions.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I am sure that he will look very carefully at what I have said, and I shall look very carefully at what he has said. I am sure that he will receive certain representations on these matters between now and Report stage. However, I do not wish to hold up the Committee's business.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 227Z(80G):
Before Clause 91, insert the following new clause:
("Statement of company's objects.
—In Chapter I of Part I of the Companies Act 1985 (company formation), for section 4 (resolution to alter objects) substitute—
"Statement of company s objects.
4.—(I) The objects of a company may be stated in any manner.
(2) A statement that the object of the company is to carry on business as a general commercial company means that the object of the company is to carry on any trade or business whatsoever, and in such a case the company has power to do all such things as are incidental or conducive to the carrying on of any trade or business by it.
(3) A company may by special resolution alter its memorandum with respect to the statement of the company's objects.
(4) If an application is made under the following section, an alteration does not have effect except in so far as it is confirmed by the court.".)
The noble Lord said: The main changes introduced by this new clause allow the objects of a company to be freely amended by special resolution. It provides that if the object of a company is stated to be to carry on business as a general commercial company, that is to mean that the object of the company is to carry on any trade or business whatsoever, and the company is to have powers to do all such things as are incidental or conducive to that end. The adoption of objects as a general commercial company will mean that the company will effectively have opted out of the ultra vires rule for internal purposes. That will be a matter for the shareholders, as it properly should be. I beg to move.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran had given notice of his intention to move, as an amendment to Amendment No. 227Z(80G), Amendment No. 227Z(80H):
In section 4, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lord said: As the noble Lord, Lord Williams, will no doubt want to clamber through this clause, giving us a careful analysis of what parts of it mean, I do not think it is appropriate for me to move my amendment at this stage, particularly as I understood the noble Lord to say that a number of
532
representations will be made to the Government in this area.
[Amendment No. 227Z(80H) not moved.]
Lord Williams of Elvel: The Committee will be most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, for explaining at length why he is not moving his amendment. Perhaps I may turn to the substantive government amendment. This is more important than the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, in his slightly brief introduction implied. If the objects of a company may be stated in any manner, this allows me or any other noble Lord, or any two noble Lords, to found a company with limited liability, which as we have previously agreed is a privilege, and to state the objects of the company in any manner.
This would allow this new company that perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and I are about to form to express its objects as follows: "The objects of this company are to exist", or alternatively to say: "The objects of this company are to do anything, whether trading or not". I understand the first directive requires an objects clause but, as the noble Lord, Lord Morris, pointed out during our previous discussions, it is rather odd that we are having in legislation the ability to produce a company with objects which mean absolutely nothing at all.
There is a point of substance here, because traditionally, as I say, limited liability being a privilege, shareholders investing in a company are entitled to know what the company is meant to be doing, and if the company is meant to be doing anything and if it can just be there to exist, this is a very odd expression of a company.
We may have in subsection (3) a special resolution—incidentally, I believe that subsection (2) is otiose because once you accept subsection (1) it means that subsection (2) is included almost de facto—which says:
"A company may by special resolution alter its memorandum with respect to the statement of the company's objects".
Suppose the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and I have formed a company whose object is to exist: we then sell our shares to the public on that basis and they invest on that basis but we together hold 75 per cent. of the company. We may then change the objects of that company by the provision of new Section 4(3) to whatever we want. We may change it in any direction and the minority shareholders may be wholly unable, and indeed are wholly unable, subject to the court, to impede us in what we want to do.
This is a point of substance. It is not simply a point of drafting. Either we have companies that have certain objects which may be changed by resolutions of shareholders or we have companies whose objects are to do anything—in which case you might as well do away with the objects clause—and shareholders do not know what they are dealing with. It is important for shareholders, for creditors and for consumers to know what the objects of a company are. It is also important for the general public to know what the objects of a company are. Just to have something which says:
"The objects of a company may be stated in any manner",
in order that the first directive may be complied with

533
so that we have objects, seems to me to be rather extraordinary. So I ask the noble Lord whether he would be kind enough to explain exactly how the Government respond to my points and what he believes a company of the future should consist of. Should it be a company which sets out to say, "We shall do this, that and thus and not a lot of other things"? Should it perhaps be a company which says, "We are here to exist and that is the end of it"?
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I recognise that one has to he somewhat brazen to interfere in the dialogue, not all of it very thrilling, which is proceeding not all that fast between my noble friend on the Front Bench and the noble Lord, Lord Williams. My noble friend told us at an earlier stage that the Government had benefited from the advice of many interested parties.I wonder whether my noble friend would be good enough to explain to me—because I fail absolutely to understand it—what has happened which has made this new clause necessary since the Bill was originally printed. It does not seem to me to contain any really original ideas and I can only imagine that he must have had some very powerful representations, pointing out why this on the face of it not very exciting clause is so urgently necessary.
Lord Strathclyde: Perhaps I could reply to the various comments made on this clause. First, subsection (1) states:
"The objects of a company may be stated in any manner".
It is concerned, in other words, with form and not with substance. That particular subsection is also subject to Section 3 of the 1985 Act. It does not permit no objects to be stated, which I think is very relevant to what the noble Lord, Lord Williams, was saying.
To have the object of pursuing any activity which the company may think is profitable is of course entirely legitimate. Therefore when the noble Lord raised the example of a company whose object was simply to exist, as I said, it is entirely legitimate to carry out that activity which the company thinks is profitable. That would be fair enough.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, said that shareholders would be prejudiced if there was no objects clause, but of course it will be up to the shareholders to decide what they should be doing. Therefore, I think that point is covered. The effective abolition of the Ultra vires rule will mean anyway that third parties will be unaffected. Objects therefore matter only in internal terms.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, gave the example of a company of which he and I owned 75 per cent. after selling our shares to members of the unknowing, trusting public which would be in trouble if we changed the memorandum. However, permitting any change of objects is not detrimental to minority shareholders. They have a right to apply to the courts under Section 459 on grounds of minority prejudice and, therefore, their rights are reserved.
My noble friend Lord Peyton asked about this section as a whole, which is part of an overall package of ultra vires introduced today. There has been, as I
534
am sure the noble Lord is aware, substantial negotiation with interested parties which will continue over the next few months as this Bill continues its passage through this House and another place. I hope that the noble Lord will not look too unfavourably on it at this very early 51 age.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am sure that we are grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation of the Government's present position. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, does not find this discussion thrilling; it is unfortunately part of the working of the House that we have to go through amendments that the Government have tabled. There is no answer to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, other than to say that consultations are still taking place and no doubt further amendments will be brought forward. That comes back to what I said during Second Reading; that the Government will write the Bill as it goes along but this is something that we have come to accept and will no doubt continue to accept.
On Question, Amendment No. 227Z(80G) agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 227Z(80J):
Before Clause 91, insert the following new clause:
("Charitable companies.
(1) In the Charities Act 1960, for section 30 (charitable companies) substitute—
"Charitable companies: winding up
30. Where a charity may be wound up by the High Court under the Insolvency Act 1986, a petition for it to be wound up under that Act by any court in England or Wales having jurisdiction may be presented by the Attorney General, as well as by any person authorised by that Act.
Charitable companies: alteration of objects clause
30A.—(1) Where a charity is a company or other body corporate having power to alter the instruments establishing or regulating it as a body corporate, no exercise of that power which has the effect of the body ceasing to be a charity shall be valid so as to affect the application of—

(a) any property acquired under any disposition or agreement previously made otherwise than for full consideration in money or money's worth, or any property representing property so acquired,

(b) any property representing income which has accrued before the alteration is made, or

(c) the income from any such property as aforesaid.

(2) Where a charity is a company, any alteration by it of the objects clause in its memorandum of association is ineffective without the prior written consent of the Commissioners; and it shall deliver a copy of that consent to the registrar of companies under section 6(1)(a) or (b) of the Companies Act 1985 along with the printed copy of the memorandum as altered.
(3) Section 6(3) of that Act (offences) applies in relation to a default in complying with subsection (2) as regards the delivery of a copy of the Commissioners' consent.
Charitable companies: invalidity of certain transactions
30B.—(1) Where a company is a charity, section 35 of the Companies Act 1985 (capacity of company not limited by its objects), and section 35A(1) to (3) of that Act (power of directors to bind company) so far as relating to an act of the company which goes beyond its objects, do not apply except in favour of a person who—

(a) gives full consideration in money or money's worth in relation to the act in question, and

(b) does not know at the time the act is done that it is beyond the objects of the company.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply where the person does not know at the time the act is done that the company is a charity.
(3) In any proceedings arising out of subsection (1) or (2) the burden of proving

(a) that a person did know that an act was beyond the objects of a company, or

(b) that a person did know that a company was a charity, lies on the person making that allegation.

(4) Where a company is a charity, the ratification of an act under section 35A(4)(a) of the Companies Act 1985, or the ratification of an act which would otherwise be void by virtue of section 322A(I) of that Act, is ineffective without the prior written consent of the commissioners.
Charitable companies: status to appear on correspondence, etc.
30C.—(1) Where a company is a charity and its name does not include the word "charity" or the word "charitable", the fact that the company is a charity shall be stated in English in legible characters—

(a) in all business letters of the company,

(b) in all its notices and other official publications,

(c) in all bills of exchange, promissory notes, endorsements, cheques and orders for money or goods purporting to be signed by or on behalf of the company, and

(d) in all its bills of parcels, invoices, receipts and letters of credit.

(2) Section 349(2) to (4) of the Companies Act 1985 (offences in connection with failure to include required particulars in business letters, &c.) apply in relation to a contravention of subsection (I) above.".
(2) In section 46 of the Charities Act 1960 (definitions), at the appropriate place insert—
"company' means a company formed and registered under the Companies Act 1985, or to which the provisions of that Act apply as they apply to such a company,".").
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 227Z(80K). These clauses qualify in the case of charitable companies the provisions in the earlier clauses on capacity and the power of directors to bind their companies. They also make related and incidental provision. The main effect is that the relevant provisions in the earlier clauses are in the case of a charitable company only to apply in favour of a person who gives full consideration in relation to the act in question and who does not know at the time the act is done that it is beyond the objects of the company. As will be apparent, there will be no protection in the case of gratuitous acts.
The purpose of these provisions is to protect honest third parties who deal with charitable companies for value, while at the same time both maintaining the system of supervision and control of charitable companies by the courts and facilitating the recovery of properties and moneys misapplied by the directors of charitable companies. They have been drafted in close consultation with the Charities Commission.
Ultra vires is of particular importance to charitable companies, for the control of them by the Charities Commission and the Attorney-General through the courts is based on the limitations on their capacity and powers set out in their object clauses. We wish to disturb this system as little as possible, but at the same time we want to continue to protect honest third parties who provide valuable consideration, as indeed they are already protected under the existing Section 35.
We have therefore constructed a special regime for charitable companies. An honest third party who has given full consideration and does not know that an act is beyond the objects of the company will be protected. However, the Attorney-General will still be able to go to the courts to overturn an ultra vires act and recover property where the third party has not given full consideration or knows that the act is beyond the company's objects. Noble Lords will appreciate that people who donate money to a charity expect it to be used for the charity's expressed purposes and not misapplied or put to some other purpose, whether charitable or not. These provisions will help protect their wishes and thereby help to preserve the public interest in charitable giving.
In order to prevent this special regime undermining the main regime affecting companies in general, the provisions of the main regime will apply where a third party does not know that a company is a charity, and a person is to be presumed not to know this unless the contrary is proved. However, there are provisions in the clause which require a charitable company to make clear that it is charitable, and this should assist the operation of the charitable regime and both prevent it threatening the benefits of the main regime and make it easier to recover misapplied property. I beg to move.
Lord Peston: I should like to ask two questions about this new clause. Like other noble Lords, I have great difficulty in following any of it. I am asking for enlightenment. Could the noble Lord explain more clearly than he has what it is about charities that requires their aims or objects to be set out in this very definite and clear way that does not apply to other companies? I was totally lost at that point in the noble Lord's contribution as to what was special about charities, he having said earlier that all other companies were not required to say anything other than, "We are in business as companies".
My second question is, do we have evidence that this clause is needed? Does the department have many examples of problems that have arisen from charitable companies which would have been solved if these clauses were already enacted in statute? In particular I am most intrigued by Section 30C(1), which concerns the situation when the word "charity" does not appear in the name. It states that:
"The fact that the company is a charity shall be stated in English in legible characters".
I assume that "legible characters" is a concept known to the law. Then there are set out all these different paragraphs. Do we have evidence that up to now, because such companies have not explained that they were charities or explained it in illegible characters, various difficulties have arisen? Does this clause have any purchase on a real problem or is it included for some theoretical reason?
Lord Strathclyde: The noble Lord, Lord Peston, made some interesting comments. I am sorry that he did not understand what I was trying to explain in my initial speech as to why we were treating charities differently. Perhaps I could repeat a little of what I said without wishing to bore the rest of the Committee. It is important. Ultra vires is of particular importance to charitable companies in their control

537
by the Charities Commission and the Attorney-General through the courts, based on limitations on their capacity and powers set out in their object clauses. This system has worked extremely well in the past and we do not wish to disturb it any more than we have to. However, we must protect honest third parties who provide valuable consideration, as indeed they are already protected under the existing Section 35.
Lord Peston: I am most indebted to the noble Lord. I follow that part of the argument. I entirely accept the fact that for all sorts of control purposes one wants to know why a charitable company is in existence. However, earlier the noble Lord said that we did not need to know why other companies were in existence. I cannot see the consistency of that position. I should have thought that for all sorts of reasons it would be worth while to know precisely what business a company was in. If I were a potential creditor of any company I would not find it satisfactory to be told that this is a general commercial company that can do anything it likes.
If I may say so, I find the argument on charities entirely cogent. However, I do not see how it fits in with the earlier clause where we were being persuaded that we could get rid of ultra vires. I am merely probing for some consistent position.
Lord Strathclyde: I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, if I have misunderstood what he was trying to say. We feel that charities in this context should be treated differently from all other sorts of companies. The noble Lord said that we are being inconsistent in this approach. We are not being inconsistent; we are being very consistent in treating charities in very much the same way as they have been treated in the past, but simply allowing non-charitable companies to be able to change their rules for the reasons that I have already outlined.
The noble Lord asked why we had listed various requirements under Section 30C. The Government will be bringing forward legislation on charities at some stage because there is a certain amount of evidence of misappropriation of funds. There are some problems.
Without the requirement that we have proposed here, having two sets of provisions—one conferring a great deal of protection on third parties in relation to companies other than charities, the other conferring a lesser degree of protection on third parties dealing with charitable companies—is likely to undermine the utility of the former. In order to know what protection they have, third parties will have to investigate whether the company with which they are dealing is charitable or not.
There is a danger that third parties will be obliged to base themselves on the lowest common denominator and some of the advantages of our main reforms would be lost. We therefore propose a requirement which will make it easy to tell whether a company is charitable or not.
Lord Peston: Perhaps I may briefly pursue the point. I understand that argument. However, my question went further. I was asking for evidence. I
538
can accept theoretically that some difficulty may arise. In rather a throw-away remark the noble Lord referred to "misappropriation of funds". That is a new idea which has emerged here. I understood him to be saying that it will be dealt with in other legislation. My question was this: are we discussing a logical possibility in order to clean things up but one which has no connection with what goes on in the real world, or has the department some evidence of problems that emerge in the real world that this provision would have solved if they had been in existence? So far as I can gather from the noble Lord, either he does not have any evidence or is not ready to give us the evidence. I have heard nothing of an evidential as opposed to an analytical nature in answer to my question.
Lord Coleraine: Like my noble friend Lord Peyton, I am reluctant brazenly to interrupt or intervene in this long-standing conversation between the noble Lord, Lord Peston and my noble friend. However, surely the question that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, asked, whether there is evidence that these provisions are needed, is not apt. This clause is surely needed because the previous clause abolished the ultra vires rule. It is a question of whether certain elements of the ultra vires rule should be preserved for charities. It is not a question of where evidence arises. It is an entirely new situation.
Lord Williams of Elvel: There is a question as to whether it should be an amendment of the Charities Act or an amendment of the Companies Act.
Lord Strathclyde: Perhaps I may briefly answer that point. We are dealing with company law where we are changing the rule of ultra vires. Therefore it is perfectly apt to deal with the aspects of charities that we are not changing under this Bill under the clauses that we have introduced here.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, asked about abuses and what evidence we had. Perhaps I may refer him to the Woodfield Report. The Government will be bringing forward a White Paper on the control of charities very shortly.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Will the noble Lord answer my question? Why is it an amendment of the Companies Act and not the Charities Act? It could perfectly easily be done in the Charities Act.
Lord Strathclyde: I think that the noble Lord is confusing himself with the Bill with which we are dealing at the moment and the Charities Act. We are bringing forward these amendments to the Companies Bill because we have already changed the ultra vires provisions in the clauses with which we have been dealing. The Charities Act is probably the most appropriate place for these rules but Sections 30 and 30A(1) are redrafts of provisions already in that Act.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful that the noble Lord has the right answer in the end. There has been a lot of discussion on whether this should be an amendment to the Companies Act or to the Charities Act. I ask this simple question. Why have the

539
Government come down on one side rather than the other?
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 227Z(80K):
Before Clause 91, insert the following new clause:
("Charitable companies (Scotland).
—(1) In the following provisions (which extend to Scotland only)—

(a) "company" means a company formed and registered under the Companies Act 1985, or to which the provisions of that Act apply as they apply to such a company; and

(b) "charity" means a body established for charitable purposes only (that expression having the same meaning as in the Income Tax Acts).

(2) Where a charity is a company or other body corporate having power to alter the instruments establishing or regulating it as a body corporate, no exercise of that power which has the effect of the body ceasing to be a charity shall be valid so as to affect the application of—

(a) any property acquired by virtue of any transfer, contract or obligation previously effected otherwise than for full consideration in money or money's worth, or any property representing property so acquired,

(b)any property representing income which has accrued before the alteration is made, or

(c)the income from any such property as aforesaid.

(3) Where a company is a charity, section 35 of the Companies Act 1985 (capacity of company not limited by its objects), and section 35A(1) to (3) of that Act (power of directors to bind company) so far as relating to an act of the company which goes beyond its objects, do not apply except in favour of a person who—

(a) gives full consideration in money or money's worth in relation to the act in question, and

(b) does not know at the time the act is done that it is beyond the objects of the company.

(4) Subsection (3) does not apply where the person does not know at the time the act is done that the company is a charity.
(5) In any proceedings arising out of subsection (3) or (4) the burden of proving—

(a) that a person did know that an act was beyond the objects of a company, or

(b) that a person did know that a company was a charity, lies on the person making that allegation.

(6) Where a company is a charity and its name does not include the word "charity" or the word "charitable", the fact that the company is a charity shall be stated in English in legible characters—

(a) in all business letters of the company,

(b) in all its notices and other official publications,

(c) in all bills of exchange, promissory notes, endorsements, cheques and orders for money or goods purporting to be signed by or on behalf of the company, and

(d) in all its bills of parcels, invoices, receipts and letters of credit.

(7) Section 349(2) to (4) of the Companies Act 1985 (offences in connection with failure to include required particulars in business letters, &c.) apply in relation to a contravention of subsection (6) above.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra moved Amendment No. 227Z(81):
Before Clause 91, insert the following new clause:
("Dividend deemed not to be paid.
. The following is added at the end of paragraph 3 of Part IV of Schedule 1 to the Trustee Investments 1961—
"For the purposes of sub-paragraph (b) of this paragraph a company shall not be deemed not have paid a dividend on all its issued shares merely because in respect of some or all of them it pays a stock dividend which is treated as income pursuant to section 249 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act I988."").
The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend I should like to put this amendment forward. It is of a purely technical nature. Its objective is to make it clear that,
"a company shall not be deemed not to have paid a dividend on all its issued shares merely because in respect of some or all of them it pays a stock dividend which is treated as income pursuant to section 249 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988".
We believe that this would be a helpful amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: Initially I was rather surprised and little puzzled to see this amendment down on the Marshalled List. As I understand it, it is seeking to change the Trustee Investments Act to allow trustees who are covered by the Act to invest in a slightly wider range of companies—those which have paid dividends to some shareholders in shares rather than cash at some time in the past five years. Setting aside for a moment the complex rights and wrongs of this issue—on which I shall touch in a moment—I do not regard this as an appropriate subject necessarily to be dealt with in the context of this Bill.
Members of the Committee are aware of the many important subjects covered by the Bill and the limited time available for debate. This amendment can be regarded only as tangential to the substance of this Bill. There is further reason why it would not be right to take a decision on the amendment here. The Trustee Investments Act has provided valuable guidelines for prudent investment by trustees for nearly 30 years. Inevitably, as financial markets have developed, there are parts of the Act which have not fully kept pace and we believe that it will be necessary to subject the Act to a thorough review in due course in the context of a wider review of trustee investment powers in general. Accordingly we are reluctant to consider piecemeal amendments to the Act before such a review takes place.
These arguments might not be decisive if this part of the Trustee Investments Act was causing serious and unnecessary inconvenience or harm to trustees, to beneficiaries of trusts, to companies or to their shareholders. I have no evidence that it does so. It is normal practice for trustees to be given a wider investment power than those prescribed in the Act. Therefore most trustees would not be affected by this amendment. Many companies offer shareholders the option of a stock dividend instead of cash and are not constrained by this paragraph of the Trustee Investments Act in doing so.
Accordingly, for all these reasons I ask the noble Lord to withdraw this amendment.
Lord Ezra: From what the noble Lord has said, I take it that he feels this would not be a relevant amendment to consider in the present circumstances but that it could arise on a later occasion in other circumstances. On that basis I withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 227A:
Before Clause 91, insert the following new clause:
("Financial assistance to employees to acquire shares
. Part V, Chapter VI of the Companies Act 1985 is amended as follows—
In section 152(a)(iv) at end insert
"except for assistance given for the purposes of an employees' share scheme designed to enable employees to acquire fully-paid shares in a company or its holding company.".").
The noble Lord said: In my Second Reading speech I mentioned that one of the major gaps in the Bill was a provision to encourage employee ownership of shares in companies. There are many ways of doing so. I wish to distinguish between the amendment that I am moving and Amendment No. 228 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran and Lord Lucas of Chilworth. That amendment is on the narrow point, if I may put it that way without disrespect, of employee share ownership programmes, otherwise known in the jargon as ESOPs.
The principle of employee share ownership is one that we are seeking to establish in the Bill and also that that principle should be supported by the use of company funds to encourage share ownership. Experience in the United States has shown that by that method, if employees own a substantial part of a company by which they are employed, morale and productivity go up. Together, if they decide to combine, they could exercise influence over the general shareholding and, indeed, the management of the company that in our view could have a substantial impact on the ability of employees to respond when their company is the subject of an offer in a takeover bid.
Employee share ownership has a chequered history. In 1978 we saw the introduction of profit-sharing schemes in the Finance Act 1978, which introduced the idea that shares could be distributed out of a certain proportion of the distributable UK profits to employees. The next major step was in the Finance Act 1982, which made stock options much more tax efficient for senior executives because it was geared essentially to top management and senior executives. In some privatisation issues we have had a proportion of the issue reserved to employees on favourable terms. Nevertheless in our view there has not been any sustained programme to enable employees to acquire shares in the company which employs them.
At this stage I do not wish to go into the type of scheme that we on these Benches might favour, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, will be moving his amendment which favours a particular type of scheme. My objective is to ensure that we implant the principle in the Bill that companies' funds may be used to enable employees to acquire fully paid shares in a company or its holding company. The argument has been adduced against my amendment that it would constitute a reduction in net assets and the use of undistributable profits. I reject those arguments because they fail to distinguish between liability on the capital side and on the asset side of the balance sheet. If a company
542
uses its cash to fund employees' acquisition of fully paid shares, it substitutes as an asset its cash for a loan to its employees. The security it has for that loan would be the shares that the employees have bought with the use of those funds. In my view that is consistent with Sections 151 to 158 of the Companies Act 1985 which make provision for the use of company funds in certain circumstances.
I do not believe that the use of company funds, for whatever scheme there might be—whether for an ESOP or for any other scheme that may be devisedis an improper matter. Indeed I believe that we should encourage it. The shares end up in the hands of employees. The assets will be the loans, or whatever is made, to individual employees, to trusts or to any other scheme that may in the future be invented. I am seeking to achieve, however we may amend or modify this amendment, the establishment in the Bill of the basic principle that company funds may be used to enable employees to acquire fully paid shares in the company that employs them. That is why my amendment is much wider in scope than that of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd. I believe it is essential to have in the Bill support for what we on these Benches believe will be the main movement in the 1990s, as I said in my Second Reading speech, to involve employees as shareholders in the companies which employ them. I beg to move.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. This is a very important area from an industrial relations point of view. As the noble Lord, Lord Williams, said, my amendment is narrower in scope than his. He confessed that he was seeking a wide amendment and by moving it he was seeking to insert the principle of ESOPs into the Bill. However, I feel that I should present a case to the effect that the noble Lord's amendment can be criticised on the ground that it does not properly provide safeguards for shareholders or creditors of public companies. In effect it would create a worrying carte blanche for quoted companies to do as they wished.
The noble Lord touched on the difficulties that he realised his amendment would raise. I feel that I should analyse the difficulties for him to answer so that I can make up my mind whether we shall support it or not. As the Committee may know, Section 151 of the Companies Act prohibits the giving of financial assistance for the acquisition of its own shares by a company or any of its subsidiaries. Section 152 defines the term "financial assistance". Section 153 describes certain situations, including financial assistance for employees' share schemes, to which the Section 151 prohibition does not apply. However Section 153 remains subject to special safeguards in the case of public companies and these are contained in the following section, Section 154. In my submission the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, appears to transgress the field of Section 154, because that section prevents a public company from using capital or non-distributable profits to finance the purchase of its own shares. In other words the same basic restrictions apply to the giving of lawful financial assistance as apply to the payment of dividends.

543
The problem therefore with the amendment is that it would amend the definition of "financial assistance" and that it would not apply to assistance given to employees' share schemes. I am always reluctant to try to analyse at any length a clause in any Bill, but this is such an important matter. I may be wrong in what I am submitting, but I should like to have the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, or his comments on the rather full explanation I have given about the amendment.
Lord Strathclyde: I fully appreciate the noble Lord's desire to find means of encouraging the wider spread of employee share ownership schemes. That is an objective which is shared by the Government and much has already been achieved in that direction through various aspects of government policy. I believe that there are presently very few significant obstacles to the introduction of effective and worthwhile schemes. I understand the points which the noble Lord has made about the limitation which the specific reference to "money" in Section 153(4)(b) can be said to produce. However, I believe that the amendment would go much too far in opening the matter up.
A general exclusion of all forms of financial assistance to employee share schemes from the general prohibition on financial assistance by companies for acquisition of their own shares would increase the risk of manipulation of such provisions. For example, during a takeover the company might lend money to an employee share scheme to enable it to buy the company's shares at an artificially high price and help to fight off a takeover bid. I would remind the Committee that an employee share scheme might cover only selected employees. We think that it would be rather unwise to open up such possible areas for abuse. We believe that it would be much better to attempt to tackle this question—if it needs to be tackled at all—through a direct amendment to Section 153(4)(b).
Members of the Committee will be well aware that Amendment No. 228, which we shall be discussing shortly, contains proposals to amend that section. Although I do not wish to anticipate the debate on that amendment, I feel that the intention behind the noble Lords' suggested change would be better considered in that context. I shall have something a little more encouraging to say in connection with Amendment No. 228, if it is moved, and I hope in these circumstances that the noble Lord will withdraw Amendment No. 227A.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Lloyd and Lord Strathclyde. Is the Minister saying that he is prepared to accept Amendment No. 228?
Lord Strathclyde: I do not wish to pre-empt any discussions which the Committee may have on Amendment No. 228. The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, has yet to move it, and it would be wrong for me to go into detail. However, I expect to be able to offer to discuss the matter further with the advocates of the
544
changes with a view to identifying a solution which would avoid the pitfalls I have mentioned. The noble Lord will be aware that Amendment No. 227A is technically deficient as it stands in that it does not apply to the types of financial assistance mentioned in paragraphs (ii) and (iii) of Section 152(1)(a).
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the Minister. If he can assure me that he is prepared to adopt what I regard to be the lesser position—which is to take away Amendment No. 228, assuming that the noble Lord moves it—it will affect my decision on Amendment No. 227A.
Lord Strathclyde: I do not wish to pre-empt any discussion on Amendment No. 228. There are aspects of it which we find interesting and to which we would seek to find a solution. However, the Government will not accept Amendment No. 228 in exactly its present form.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: Perhaps I may help the noble Lord, Lord Williams, and Members of the Committee and so shorten the proceedings. I am grateful for the applause accorded that statement. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, moved his amendment in order to put on record the fact that he, his party and the public are in favour of wider share ownership. In replying to the noble Lord, the Minister has been good enough to say that he is more sympathetic to my amendment than to the noble Lord's amendment. There are some difficulties with his amendment. I shall be obliged if the Minister will say that he is sympathetic, and that in moving my amendment I need not speak at length beyond a few preliminary remarks.
Lord Strathclyde: I reiterate that we agree with Amendment No. 228 in principle. However, we must reserve our position and take account of any pitfalls which may emerge on further consideration.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I thank the Minister for that reply. I hope that it will satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Williams, and that we need not divide on this amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Lloyd and Lord Strathclyde. Indeed, the Minister's reply does satisfy me. I was determined to put the provision into the statute but I recognise that I was arguing a point of principle. The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, has tabled amendments in detail. Although they may be somewhat defective, they are aimed at the same cause.
If the Government accept our joint position I am happy to withdraw my amendment. I understand the Minister to have said to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, that the Government will take away his amendment, look at it and on Report bring forward a provision containing the same principle which is technically right. In the light of that undertaking, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5 p.m.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran moved Amendment No. 228:
Before Clause 91, insert the following new clause:
("Financial assistance hr company for acquisition of its shares.
. Part V, Chapter VI, of the Companies Act 1985 (financial assistance by a company for acquisition of its own shares) is amended as follows—
In section I53(4)(b)—
(i) delete the words "in accordance with" and insert the words "for the purposes of"; and
(ii) delete the words "money for" and insert the words "financial assistance in connection with- ").
The noble Lord said: I can be brief in moving the amendment. Employees' shares ownership plans (ESOPs) have become increasingly popular in recent years. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has publicly expressed his sympathy with such plans. Amendment No. 228 modifies Section 153(4)(b) in a technical way and overcomes many difficulties. In drafting the amendment I am grateful to the firm of Clifford Chance. I am instructed by ESOPs that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver, who is unable to be present, has expressed support for it.
The amendment is of a probing nature. I understand that the Minister will be sympathetic and reflect upon the text that I have produced, although there may be technical difficulties. Perhaps the Government will bring forward their own amendment in this connection. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: We are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, for bringing forward the amendment. When the Government take it away for consideration and bring forward a proposal on Report, I ask that in their drafting they consult both the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, and myself so that we can reach all-party agreement on this important matter.
Lord Strathclyde: As I indicated in my response to Amendment No. 227A, the Government firmly believe in the wider spread of employee share ownership. They are not unsympathetic to the objective of the amendment. Nevertheless, the subject needs to be handled with considerable care in order not to provide the opportunity for abuse which the basic provisions of this part of the Bill are intended to avoid.
In the light of the arguments advanced today we are prepared to consider the removal of the limitation in respect of money. However, we first need to be convinced that the legislative changes necessary to enable the schemes to operate are practical and would be effective without increasing the risk of abuse; for example, manipulation during takeovers.
With that in mind we are prepared to discuss the matter further with the advocates of the changes, including the noble Lords, Lord Lloyd and Lord Williams. However, given the potential complications involved, I cannot give any assurance that the work will be completed by Report stage. Obviously, we shall do our best. I assure both noble Lords that we shall deal with the matter sympathetically and as expeditiously as practical. In
546
those circumstances, 1 hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Before the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, decides what action to take, I should like to say that 1 am grateful to the Minister for going that far. However, we on these Benches believe that we have a firm assurance from the Government that a provision will be forthcoming either on Report or, if it is delayed, at Third Reading and that it will pick up exactly the principles of the noble Lord's amendment. We also have the assurance that the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, and myself will be consulted on the drafting, and if there is a problem with the timing we can perhaps consult our diaries and fix a date. We wish to proceed quickly with this matter.
Lord Strathclyde: I assure the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that there is no lack of enthusiasm for finding a satisfactory way forward on this concept. It is far more a matter of the complexity of the issue and limited resources. We have already had an example of that complexity in that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, brought forward an amendment which had substantial technical defects. We do not wish to do that.
As Members of the Committee will readily appreciate, this is a substantial Bill and there are many other issues on which the department's officials are working as a result of the deliberations in Committee. There seems to be no real need to give this item any greater priority than the other matters. The important point that I am trying to convey to the noble Lord is that in dealing with this very important issue we have to find the right solution rather than a quick one.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: Perhaps I may intervene since I have my name down to Amendment No. 228. I have listened very carefully and I was rather heartened by the response of the Minister to the earlier amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. One was much encouraged by what he said then. However, in nearly everything else that he has said, he has drawn further backwards. That is the impression I received. If one is to look at matters sympathetically, one does not say that there is a resource implication. We must try to find a solution to something which arouses fairly strong feelings.
I am the only one who has spoken on this side of the Committee on Amendment No. 228, but I put my name to it, which reflects concern right across the Committee. I believe that the Minister has rather encouraged us to do our own thing and to come back ourselves to see what the House feels about this matter as distinct from the Committee.
It is not for me to suggest to my noble friend what he should or should not do. To avoid the possibility that the noble Lords, Lord Williams of Elvel and Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran and myself may take our own action in a fortnight or three weeks, I should like my noble friend to withdraw some of the reservations that he subsequently made to his earlier remarks.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Perhaps I may reinforce what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said. On this side

547
of the Committee and I know that I also speak for the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, although we have not discussed it—we do not regard this as a matter of similar priority to other matters in the Bill. I mentioned on Second Reading that we regard this as a fundamental issue and a fundamental lacuna in this Bill. I should like an assurance from the Minister that this will be treated as a top priority by his department rather than merely being allocated priority No. 25 on the general list.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Morris: I did not receive that impression from my noble friend Lord Strathclyde. I thought he was trying to convey that it is infinitely more important to have it right than to have expedition. It is worth remembering that this Bill started in this Chamber and there is a lot of time for the Government to bring forward an amendment to give effect to the principle of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran. It is absolutely essential that this area of the law should be right rather than that it should be dealt with quickly. This is a very difficult drafting point and many fine minds will be working on it for a long time. I suggest that that is what my noble friend said.
Lord Strathclyde: I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Morris for his remarks. I am glad that he felt encouraged by what I said. My noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth talked about resource limitations. He knows perfectly well that time is generally short, that there are priorities and that time will be taken up in discussing this matter. That is because it is complicated and not because we do not have enough officials to look at the matter or that there are not enough parliamentary counsel to deal with it. It is just that it is complicated and needs to be given a great deal of thought.
Before the noble Lord stands up, I believe that when he reads what I said in Hansard tomorrow he will see exactly what I meant. What I have said reflects the Government's position. Nothing that I say now can, as if by magic, remove any difficulties which may emerge. I do not say that we shall be looking for difficulties, but there are detailed difficulties in dealing with this important issue. As I said, we shall talk to both noble Lords to see how this matter can be dealt with most efficiently.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the noble Lord. What worried me and I believe provoked the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, was his mention of the question of priorities. I should like an assurance from the noble Lord that this matter will be given the highest priority.
Lord Strathclyde: I believe that we have talked sufficiently on this subject, and it will be given the highest priority. I must add that that is no guarantee that we shall come back with something on Report.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: As far as I understand the Minister, in the jargon which lawyers use, he has undertaken to use his best endeavours to produce an amendment in the shortest possible time. We realise
548
that he is heavily pressed, but he now says that he has given this matter the highest priority. I understand that a meeting is being arranged with the Minister in about 10 days' time.
I also hope that the Minister will be able to bring back something, if not on Report then certainly at Third Reading and at any rate before the Bill leaves this Chamber. In the circumstances, unless the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, wishes to add anything further, I believe that it is almost my duty to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran moved Amendment No. 229
Before Clause 91, insert the following new clause:
("Transferred registration.
. In Part V of the Companies Act 1985 (miscellaneous provisions about shares and debentures), after section 183(1) (which deals with transferred registration) insert
"(IA) Where the instrument of transfer relates to shares greater than 0.05 per cent. of the total equity of the company or is not a transfer on behalf of a number of small investors having less than 0-05 per cent. of the total equity of the company, the company may refuse to register the transfer unless the name and address of the beneficial owner of the shares is disclosed." ").
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 231. The object of these amendments is to deal with the practical difficulty experienced by many advisers to companies, whether the secretary or administrator of the company, to ascertain who is the beneficial owner of the shares at some stage. It has always been rather difficult to discover in certain transactions who is the beneficial owner of the shares. Inquiries may have to be pursued in the form of letters from one company to another before that is discovered. The object of these amendments— -and they are in effect probing amendments—is to attempt to bring finality to the discovery procedure to find out who is the beneficial owner of the shares.
My amendment states:
"Where the instrument of transfer relates to shares greater than 0.05 per cent. of the total equity of the company".
If the shares exceed that figure and it is difficult to find out who is the beneficial owner, then the company may refuse to register the transfer unless the name and address of the beneficial owner of the shares is discovered.
I have been encouraged to put forward this amendment by what I read in the Economist of 21st January, which states:
"Investors and raiders have so many tricks up their sleeves that there is no easy way to ensure transparency and fairness. Still, the companies bill now before Parliament could he amended to make it harder for investors to hide a 'concert party'. When it registers shares, a company should he allowed to insist that the beneficial owner be revealed".
Later the article suggests that to minimise the problems relating to small shareholders the extent of the proposed transfer should be greater than 0.05 per cent. of the total equity.
I have had some interesting correspondence in regard to my amendments. One organisation has written to me to say that the amendments are totally unnecessary because these conditions, or conditions

549
like them, will be incorporated or are being incorporated in a code of practice. I am not sure that that is adequate in relation to the trouble experienced by many people in ascertaining who are the beneficial owners of shares when a transfer is to be effected. I beg to move.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I support this amendment. I believe that as matters stand at the moment the balance of advantage overwhelmingly lies with the bidder for a company's shares. The time has come when that balance should be redressed. I see no reason why, as the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, said, a bidder should have the advantage of secrecy to the extent that he presently does. Even if the amendments are not entirely satisfactory from the Government's point of view, I hope that my noble friend the Minister will at least concede the principle and agree to bring forward an amendment covering the point on Report.
I have also received the same letter from the Association of British Insurers. I take it that was the correspondence referred to by the noble Lord. I understand why the association prefers a code of practice but I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, in the opposite view.
I should also like to add that for many years I have been a part-time director of an insurance company—one which subscribes to the Association of British Insurers. There are times when I have felt that the association and its predecessors have not always faithfully represented the views of all those who subscribe to it.
Lord Strathclyde: This amendment could not, I believe, actually be made to operate in practice. Nor do I believe, even if it were practicable, that it would help significantly the identification of those with interests in shares.
The main reason the amendment would not work is that it is often impossible to identify a beneficial owner of shares. Very often different people will hold varying interests in the same shares. In some cases it might not be possible to say with certainty which of them is the beneficial owner. An investment manager might have the discretion to exercise the voting and transfer rights of shares in respect of which his client is entitled to receive the dividend; or, by virtue of Section 203 of the 1985 Act, members of the same family, or parts of the same group of companies, may be said to hold the same interest in shares by attribution. The potentially wide-ranging number of interests in the same shares is the reason Part VI of the 1985 Act is drafted to apply to any interest whatsoever. The term "beneficial owner", while familiar in everyday use, will often simply be meaningless in relation to the provisions of Part VI.
A further difficulty is that of verification. What is a company to do when it receives the purported name and address of a beneficial owner? The only means of verifying the information would be to send that person a notice under Section 212 of the 1985 Act. This would get companies no further than they are under the present law.
550
Even if the provision included in the amendment could be made to operate, it would not give companies a continuing picture of those with interests in their shares. A company might learn of the identity of the person who was the beneficial owner at the time of the transfer of the shares. But interests in shares can and do change hands frequently without there being any formal transfer. The picture disclosed by the provision would be frozen in time. Those who wished to evade it would only have to avoid a formal transfer and the company would be none the wiser.
I should add that a system similar to that put forward by this amendment was discussed in the DTI's consultative document of August 1988. It attracted very little support even from those companies who responded to the document. In addition to the practical difficulties that I have outlined, there was considerable concern about the burden that the proposal might place not only upon shareholders but also upon companies who would receive a large number of notifications giving information much of which they would regard as of little use.
I believe that the steps the Government are taking to lower the notifiable percentage and to reduce the period of disclosures are the right way to proceed on this matter. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: In my brief remarks I entered a plea to my noble friend not to do what he has just done. The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, can speak for himself, but he is asking for the veil to be taken away from the whole business of nominees' names.
It may be that the precise proposal put forward is unworkable for the reasons given by my noble friend, but I hope he will accept that some of us are concerned about this point. The Government have a far greater machinery at their disposal than we have to consider these matters. Therefore, I hope that my noble friend will not be content to turn down this amendment but will agree to look again to see whether this question of nominees can be dealt with in some other way. If not, I should be very much disposed to support the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, on the basis that it is better to have something bad in the Bill than the vacuum that presently exists.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I add a few words from these Benches in support of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, and the noble Lord, Lord Peyton. It is a matter that the Government should take seriously. We like to think that we reflect the opinion in all parts of the Committee that it is a major problem. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, will reconsider.
Lord Strathclyde: There is no question of throwing out the general principle behind what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, and my noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil. The Government's position is that there are alternative ways to create the transparency or lift the veil, as my noble friend Lord Peyton put it, to see who are the owners behind shares.

551
My noble friend suggested that with the Government's massive resources we should be able to come up with a workable amendment. We have given this matter a great deal of thought. We genuinely believe that the principles underlying this amendment, though produced for all the right reasons, would not help companies one single bit. As I said in my initial reply to the noble Lord, companies could easily evade it by working out various schemes. It would create a bureaucracy which was completely unnecessary. A question concerning the abolition of nominees was raised in the consultation exercise that I mentioned. It was not generally supported.
What we are seeking is to strike a balance. We feel that the balance proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, is tipped in the wrong direction.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Rippon of Hexham: I do not feel that the Minister has met the serious point of principle that has been raised. I have no doubt that there are practical difficulties: there always are. There are practical difficulties in the Football Spectators Bill. Sometimes the Government wish to remove or ignore practical difficulties; at other times they wish to rely on them. Here, I believe that the Government are seeking to rely on them. As I understand it my noble friend the Minister indicated that he was not averse to the principle. If he agrees with the principle then he should find some way of putting it into practice.
Lord Ezra: I find the Minister's answer rather puzzling. When we consider Clause 91(2) the question will arise of shareholders declaring an interest when their holding reaches 3 per cent., I do not see the inconsistency of such proposals coming forward at any other stage. Alternatively, if there are ways to evade what is now proposed, then presumably there will be ways to evade what is later proposed. There seems a contradiction in the thinking here.
Lord Strathclyde: I hope the Committee does not feel that there is any contradiction of principle in anything I have said. My noble friend Lord Rippon of Hexham spoke about the principle. My noble friend said that he did not understand why I was arguing in this direction. The principle I am dealing with is that of transparency of the owners of shares. We feel that this amendment does not go any further than the suggestions we have already put forward. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, has mentioned the 3 per cent. benchmark. The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, is no better than that.
As regards practical difficulties, the practicalities are the substance of these measures. The principle of transparency is totally accepted; it is just the measure of how we do it.
Lord Peston: To follow the logic of the noble Lord, is he agreeing with Members of the Committee that we all favour transparency but telling us that we cannot do it? Is the Minister simply making the bald statement that it is impossible to draft a clause that will achieve the end that we want; namely, that the
552
facts in this case should be known and seen to be known?
Lord Strathclyde: We are seeking transparency. It is perhaps more the degree of it that we disagree upon and also the practicalities of the amendment.
Lord Morris: I am sure that my noble friend draws great comfort in recalling that some weeks ago, in answer to a question concerning the Barlow-Clowes affair and the subject of registration, his noble friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry clearly stated that Her Majesty's Government were very close to agreement with countries in the Community as regard obtaining some kind of order in this matter. I believe that reiterates the point he has just made; namely that Her Majesty's Government are wedded to the principle of acquiring as much transparency—I
do not like that word—as possible.
Lord Jay: Can the Minister answer more clearly the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra? Why do these difficulties apply at 0.05 per cent. but not at 3 per cent.?
Lord Strathclyde: Perhaps I may remind the Committee that in my initial answer I said that we had had a major consultation in August 1988. Considerable difficulties were pointed out by a variety of people. The proposals that now come forward in the shape of this Bill were generally accepted. That is one of the reasons why we have been unable so far to accept the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran.
The noble Lord, Lord Jay, has reiterated the question that the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, asked concerning the 3 per cent. threshold. That is an entirely different question, but perhaps I can answer it at some length. The Government believe that a reduction of the threshold for disclosure from 5 per cent. to 3 per cent. is the most appropriate step to improve transparency in share dealings. At 3 per cent. the United Kingdom would have the lowest threshold imposed by any major financial centre. The requirements of other nations, where they exist at all, range from 5 per cent. in the United States and France to 20 per cent. in the Netherlands, and 25 per cent. in West Germany. An EC directive adopted in December last year has a 10 per cent. threshold which must be implemented by member states by January 1991.
The arguments against opting for a threshold lower than 3 per cent. are powerful, as I have already pointed out. Above all, it is necessary to strike the correct balance between the desire for transparency in share dealing and the need to avoid imposing unacceptable burdens upon shareholders and the financial services industry. It must be stressed that the objective of the Government in requiring disclosure is to make information about significant interests in a company available to the market as a whole. This allows other investors to assess the information and make their investment decisions accordingly. It is no part of government policy to require disclosure solely for the purpose of allowing company management to entrench its position.

553
The Government believe that a requirement for disclosure of interests smaller than 3 per cent. could not be seen as serving a pressing need of the market for information. It would be extremely rarely that any potential shareholder would adjust his decision about acquiring shares in the light of information about a particular holding below 3 per cent. On the other hand, the burden for those having to disclose would be considerable. Large shareholders such as institutional investors and investment managers would probably have to disclose all their holdings. For a diversified group, where separate interests may be held in different parts of the group, identifying whether or not a disclosable interest is held is already a substantial task. A further reduction of the threshold would create an impossible one.
The Committee is well aware that there is concern that the financial services sector is already under a significant burden of regulation. To require the disclosure of what by its standards are small investments would only add to that burden. The Government believe therefore that a reduction in the disclosure threshold to 3 per cent. is as far as it is wise or necessary to go at present in the search for greater transparency.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I am grateful to the Minister for his lengthy explanation of the matter. On the basis of his reply, is his main objection to my amendment that the threshold of 0.05 per cent. is too low? In his sympathy for transparency and for unveiling the position of the shareholding, is the low threshold in the amendment the main difficulty?
Lord Strathclyde: That is partly what I said, but the noble Lord will remember the other aspect about which I was worried. I refer to beneficial ownership. On the low threshold, there was the thought that it was an impracticable mechanism that would not work.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I do not understand what is meant by a practical mechanism that will not work. Most practical mechanisms will work. I agree that in my amendment the term "total equity" is not fully defined. That is a technical matter that can soon be resolved. There is also the objection that when the company has the information it has no means of knowing that the name and address disclosed is correct. That is an objection but surely it is a surmountable one.
I am glad that the Minister has not said that these provisions should be put in the Yellow Book or in some code of practice. The amendment has received support from both sides of the Committee. I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Rippon, Lord Peyton, Lord Jay, Lord Williams of Elvel and Lord Peston, as well as to my noble friend Lord Ezra for their support. I cannot remember whether the noble Lord, Lord Morris, supported my amendment. In its basic theme I think he did.
Nevertheless, is this not an occasion on which the Minister, without difficulty and without confusing those colleagues of his who worked so hard to bring these matters to the Committee, could give an
554
assurance that he will see whether the Government can produce an amendment to increase transparency and to raise the veil, or perhaps that he will look again at the amendment so that I can bring it back at Report stage if necessary?
Lord Strathclyde: Perhaps I may quickly ask the noble Lord a question. Is he saying that our proposal to increase transparency by lowering the threshold to 3 per cent. is unacceptable? Is that too high? The noble Lord is shaking his head.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I am prepared to accept whatever threshold seems to be practical. I agree that 0.05 per cent. seems rather low because it is likely to cause a disproportionate volume of work for shareholders who for administrative convenience choose to register holdings in nominee names. That may be a difficulty. I should be prepared to accept the 3 per cent. limit. If the noble Lord is saying that 3 per cent. would be a sensible limit for the threshold, I would gladly withdraw my amendment. I am a little reluctant to divide the Committee at this late hour though I have the support of a number of noble Lords. If the Minister could help me a little further 1 should be most grateful.
The Earl of Harrowby: I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, should assume that he has such wide support as he imagines. I certainly would not give it. I do not see the need for two levels of transparency. The Government's proposal to reduce it to 3 per cent. is perfectly adequate in my experience.
One aspect of the matter has not yet been raised. If one comes down to a level of 0.05 per cent. one is likely to involve a great many people who manage their own investments. Small investors in small companies can easily have 0.05 per cent. Are we to impose a legal burden on them to comply with an Act of which they may have little knowledge, though that is no excuse not to do so? One is moving out of big business and towards the small man. I submit that that is a dangerous thought which requires further consideration.
Lord Strathclyde: I am grateful to my noble friend for saying that. He is absolutely correct. In the past few minutes, and throughout our proceedings in Committee, I have tried to please the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, and have tried to explain why we are taking certain stands. I thought I had explained clearly in my opening remarks that his proposal simply would not work and would not be any better than what we are proposing. I hope he will not feel that I am being rude if I say that there is no point in the Government considering further something which we believe will not work.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I am grateful to the noble Earl who preceded the Minister. He pointed out something which I thought I had tried to explain. The threshold of 0.05 per cent. is probably too low. The Minister is always kind in these matters and does his best to meet the difficulties being raised. I shall read what has been said today. I see that the Minister is

555
giving a sigh of relief. I shall relieve him completely by asking leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 230 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 91 [Disclosure of interests in shares]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Aylestone): On Clause 91 the first two amendments have been printed in reverse order. I propose to call Amendment No. 230ZA.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil moved Amendment No. 230ZA:
Page 88, line II, leave out from beginning of line to end of line 4 on page 89 and insert
(4) Section 210 is repealed.").
The noble Lord said: This is a brief amendment and it need not take up too much of the Committee's time. I put forward this series of amendments because of a growing concern prompted in particular by two recent bids—that of Nestle for Rowntree and that of Minorco for Consolidated Goldfields. Both have lent further force to my conviction that the balance of advantage lies unduly in favour of the bidder and to the prejudice of the company whose shares are bid for. I see no reason why a company should not be made aware easily and without difficulty of the adversary who is stalking it and what are his intentions towards it.
This amendment is directed towards suggesting that any change in the disclosure provisions, which to my mind are of the greatest importance, should not be made by anything other than primary legislation. My confidence in governments varies from time to time. Indeed, there are occasions when, I am bound to say—I hope my noble friend will not take this too personally—I feel that Ministers tend to take a very relaxed view of problems which to other people are intensely serious. In fact they leave them rather comfortably to what are described by some people as market forces. Such market forces deserve varying degrees of respect from time to time. However, they are not always the objects of admiration which Ministers sometimes suggest.
Therefore I ask the Government to give serious consideration to the amendment. I say that the disclosure provisions laid down in the Act should not be changed by secondary legislation. I certainly have the gravest doubts about them being changed merely by codes of practice and less formal methods. I hope that the Government will see their way to giving kindly and favourable consideration to this modest amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I agree with the noble Lord. Lord Peyton, in his arguments. It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I follow him and speak also to Amendments Nos. 230AZA, 230ZA, 230ZAA and 230ZB. We had an exchange between the two Front Benches and certain other noble Lords in Committee the other day about the number of times the Government are proposing that primary
556
legislation can be changed by a statutory instrument. Here, indeed, is a case in point.
In replying to the debate that we have just had, initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, referred to the 3 per cent. threshold as being the one which the Government had decided upon. That may be so. However, at any stage if the Bill is enacted in its present form the 3 per cent. can become 2 per cent., 1-5 per cent., 4 per cent., 5 per cent., or, indeed, any other percentage which the Secretary of State decides upon. Moreover, any regulations made under the provisions of the Bill are by negative rather than affirmative procedure.
The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, has tabled an amendment, Amendment No. 230ZAA, changing it to the affirmative procedures. At least that is a step in the right direction. If I may say so, I agree wholeheartedly with what the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, said. If we are to have the 3 per cent. threshold, let it be 3 per cent. enshrined in the primary legislation, not to be changed by a statutory instrument. I shall say again what I said before. Every time the Government produce such a clause which allows them to change primary legislation by statutory instrument they will face opposition from these Benches.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I should like to express my support for the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton. I support it for the reasons he gave and also for those just mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel.
Lord Mottistone: In speaking to Amendment No. 230ZAA, upon which 1 have been advised by the CBI, I must say that it does not go as far as the other amendments, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams, just pointed out. However, I should like to emphasise why the CBI believes that the many sections which are covered by subsection (1)(a), (c) and (d) of this new clause need to be dealt with, if they are going to be dealt with by regulation, by the affirmative rather than the negative procedure.
The sections concerned go to the heart of the disclosure obligation and cover respectively the definition of relevant share capital, the notification period for disclosure and exemptions relating to interest in shares. It would be quite wrong for those sections to be amended without proper parliamentary debate. In the 1985 Act and its predecessor that power was strictly circumscribed, but now the Bill greatly widens the part of the legislation which can be amended by regulation.
I should like to say to my noble friend the Minister that even if he cannot go the whole way, as other Members of the Committee with amendments in this group have tried to persuade him, he needs to think about the amendment tabled in my name as being pretty well as far as it would be reasonable to ask the Committee to go. I should have thought that it would be better if he were to go for one of the more resolute amendments. However, if that is not the case, it would be quite wrong for him also to throw away Amendment No. 230ZAA.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I rise to support my noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil on the grounds which he put forward. However, I think that there is an additional one. Over the past four or five years the Government have, quite properly, been looking at and amending the Insolvency Acts, the Companies Acts and the Financial Services Act 1986 which has to a certain extent thrown the marketplace into an expensive confusion.
If we are to make further changes but leave the door wide open to changes by regulation, I should find it most difficult, were I in those markets, to feel that I was living and working in a stable environment; that is, an environment which could be changed because something happened elsewhere. For example, my noble friend mentioned the case of Nestle/Rowntree. Indeed, that might prompt someone on some occasion to make a regulation. In those circumstances, where is the market planning and where is the company planning? Let us leave aside the poacher and the stalker.
Therefore I think that what my noble friend Lord Peyton is suggesting in principle is something to which we should address ourselves most seriously to try to find a solution to what is a very difficult problem.
Lord Rippon of Hexham: Perhaps I may join in the chorus of support in favour of the observations made by my noble friends Lord Peyton and Lord Mottistone. I wonder whether the Minister can tell the Committee if he has read the discussion which took place on a rather similar issue during a debate on the Children Bill. Further, can he say whether he has studied what was said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and the response given by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor? Does he agree that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is right in what he said on that Bill as regards amendment by regulation? If there is to be amendment by regulation, I agree that one should put it in the primary legislation when it is what the Government really intend to do if that is possible. If it is to be done by regulation, will he agree, as in the case of the Children Bill, that it should be done by affirmative resolution? I understand that where there is negative resolution only, it is not the practice of this place to divide. However, in the debate on the Children Bill the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor appeared to indicate that that practice may be changed but stated that it would not be very satisfactory because of the pressure on parliamentary time and such matters. Therefore I hope that the Minister will at the very least agree to accept the amendment put forward by my noble friend Lord Mottistone.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Perhaps I may come back into the debate in response to the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Rippon. In the negative procedure in this place it is only possible to pray against an order, and that is an extremely difficult procedure. As regards the affirmative procedure, we have no power of amendment and by convention we do not divide. I should prefer to see the whole matter in primary legislation. I regard the amendment tabled
558
by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, as being very much the bottom line that we could accept.
6 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: The first thing to say about new Section 210A is that it does not confer unrestricted new regulation-making powers on the Secretary of State to amend Part VI of the 1985 Act. It allows him to change three specific provisions in Part VI which at present he cannot change. It extends an existing power and it re-enacts another.
Under Section 201 of the 1985 Act, the notifiable percentage may already be altered by regulations. My noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth was worried that, if we pass the Bill, he might be working in an unstable atmosphere when working in the financial area, but I must point out to him that he is already living in an unstable atmosphere.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: That is why I want it changed.
Lord Strathclyde: The figure can already be changed by regulation. I do not believe that my noble friend has felt worried that the existing power to make regulations has been used in an unwholesome way.
Lord Williams of Elvel: If that is the case, why are the Government amending the Bill to reduce the figure to 3 per cent. in the first place? Why not do it by statutory instrument?
Lord Strathclyde: That is a different question that we have already dealt with at considerable length in our earlier debate about transparency. Perhaps I may continue to deal with the points raised in this debate.
Section 201 of the 1985 Act is re-enacted in new Section 210A(1)(b). Under Section 209(1)(j) of the 1985 Act, the Secretary of State may add to the list of types of interest exempted from the requirements of Sections 198 to 202. That is subject to no parliamentary procedure. That provision is repeated in substance in new Section 210A(1)(c), but the new section also allows the Secretary of State to take away or amend existing exemptions and to alter what is to be taken to be an interest in shares under Section 208. The new section gives the Secretary of State the ability to change two further provisions which cannot be altered under the 1985 Act. Those are the definition of "relevant share capital" and the deadline for notifications in Part VI of the 1985 Act. Like the existing Section 201, different provisions may be made by the regulations for different cases.
Those are, therefore, precisely drawn powers, focused on specific provisions in Part VI. The Secretary of State will not be able significantly to extend the scope of Part VI or impose broad new requirements upon companies or those with interests in shares. I know that noble Lords opposite are doubtful when the Government argue that it is necessary to be able to be flexible in applying detailed regulations, and after the debate we have just had I understand that some of my noble friends too are concerned. Sometimes, however, flexibility is desirable in order to deal with fast changing market

559
practice in the financial services sector. That is certainly true in relation to the disclosure of interests in shares. For example, the term "interest" is drawn widely in Section 208, which says that,
"a reference to an interest in shares is to be read as including an interest of any kind whatsoever in the shares".
There are, nevertheless, a number of rights which would not amount to an interest. For that reason, Section 208 deems certain rights (such as a right to purchase shares) to be interests for the purposes of Part VI. New cases, however, can raise questions about what is or what should be taken to be an interest in shares. As the practices of the market develop it may be necessary to amend Section 208 to deem further rights as interests. It is important that the Secretary of State should be able to close loopholes as they appear. We must ensure that those who are determined to conceal their identity are not able to devise methods of avoiding with impunity the obligation to disclose.
There is also a more general need to be able to adapt the detailed provisions within a framework laid down by primary legislation. Under the 1985 Act, the Secretary of State may impose a single notifiable percentage and period for disclosure across the board. All types of interest must either be subject to that regime or they must be completely exempted. That restricts the possibility of imposing different requirements to meet different needs. The Government believe that Clause 91 strikes the correct balance to meet the needs of the market in 1989. But they are conscious that, when the provisions of Part VI were first introduced the threshold for disclosure was 10 per cent. It has since been reduced to 5 per cent., and Clause 91 would lower it further to 3 per cent.
It would be unwise, in the light of that history, rigidly to set the detailed requirements without the possibility of any further development. The structure and the nature of the market have changed considerably since the disclosure requirements were originally introduced. They will continue to change rapidly in the future. It would be unfortunate if we had to watch that change take place without being able to meet quickly any new demands for disclosure it makes upon the system.
I do not accept the position of those who argue against regulation-making powers as a matter of principle. A large number of statutes confer such powers. It is entirely proper for legislation such as the Companies Act to provide the framework for a system of supervision, allowing changes of detail to be made by the Secretary of State. If we adopt the approach that everything must be in primary legislation, the system will become too rigid, imposing unnecessary burdens on those carrying out their normal business and permitting evasion by those who wish to frustrate attempts to supervise their activities.
My noble friends Lord Peyton and Lord Rippon of Hexham, made the point about not trusting Ministers or governments. My noble friend Lord Rippon mentioned the debate that we had in Committee on the Children Bill; but the Children Bill deals with an entirely different issue. It goes wider
560
and is larger. If I remember correctly, the word "repeal" was referred to and my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said that he would look at the point again. That was a major issue. We are talking about detail, not vast principles which may or may not be argued several times. I hope that, in the light of my comments, my noble friend Lord Peyton will withdraw his amendment and my noble friend Lord Mottistone and other noble Lords will not feel it necessary to move their amendments.
Lord Mottistone: I was not arguing against regulations. I was saying that they should be made by affirmative and not negative procedure. My noble friend has not addressed that point.
Lord Strathclyde: My noble friend is correct. I am afraid that I was carried away. I was going to deal with his amendment. I recognise the concern of the Committee that even the specific provisions referred in new Section 210A should not be subject to amendment without careful parliamentary scrutiny. In the light of that, if my noble friend Lord Peyton were to withdraw his amendment and my noble friend Lord Mottistone and other noble Lords chose not to move theirs, I would agree to return on Report with an amendment making the exercise of all the powers contained in new Section 210A subject to affirmative resolution.
I should prefer to bring forward a government amendment because the drafting of the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Mottistone would leave us with two subsections providing for the affirmative procedure. I hope that that explanation will clear up the issue.
Lord Mottistone: I am so glad that I asked my noble friend to comment specifically on my amendment. I am grateful to him for accepting the point of what I had to say. I fully accept that there may be drafting errors in my amendment and I look forward to seeing a government amendment on exactly the same lines when we come to Report stage.
Lord Peston: I do not wish to pursue the remarks of noble Lords on the constitutional side where I am somewhat out of my depth. I am however worried about the economics of all this and the behaviour of markets. I feel that the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, was not properly answered. Standing back from the debate, I am very puzzled that on the whole a government regarding themselves as non-interventionist and essentially laying down a set of rules should now produce an argument about reacting rapidly to circumstances in a most interventionist manner.
The Government ought to take a view of the kind of rules they want. I do not deny that I am more of an extremist on transparency than most noble Lords, I go, for instance, for the 0'05 per cent. rule rather than 3 per cent., let alone 10 per cent. It seems to me that the key point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is that there ought to be a rule. Broadly speaking, markets ought to assume that governments, except in very special circumstances, will stick to the rule. After all, that is what markets are about. The market mechanism should work

561
within a fixed set of rules rather than giving Secretaries of State a chance to come in at exactly the point where they might well destabilise the situation.
I was delighted to hear the response of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, and I do not wish us to be sidetracked. However, it seems to me that when the Government are thinking about the matter, particularly within companies' legislation which affects financial markets, they ought to be biased on the side of rules, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, mentioned. I say this as a very strongly interventionist economist generally. I am not seeking simply to make a debating point. I believe that in markets of this kind there should be a set of rules which could be changed if there were drastic changes in circumstances. But the rules ought not to be changed apart from that. I thought that that was what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, was saying. I wish to add my support to what he said. I hope that the Government might think a little more about his remarks before later stages of the Bill.
Lord Aldington: Can my noble friend enlighten me? I understand what he says about the importance of regulations, but I do not understand how any noble friend of mine can believe in a system which gives to Ministers by regulation a power to alter primary legislation. I simply do not understand that. I had thought this the great point of principle, something which we stood for.
I have to say that the Opposition are not the only ones to have made the point. I have been in opposition at some time: all oppositions always make that point. It is well known. I simply cannot understand why, in the same clause of the Bill, we have the alteration of primary legislation so that 5 per cent. becomes 3 per cent. as the percentage for notifiable interest. Then in the next subsection there is a power for the Minister to alter it again. I do not understand that.
It is quite intolerable that we should be leaving to the Secretary of State, almost the day after we pass the Bill, the power to alter 3 per cent. back to 5 per cent. I should be most unhappy if that were what was proposed. Perhaps I have misunderstood the Bill, but I do not think so. There is something basically wrong. I ask my noble friend to apply his mind, between now and the Report stage, to the general point of principle about the alteration by Ministers by regulation of primary legislation.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I wish to express my genuine and sincere sympathy for my noble friend. I was not trying to raise a laugh but saying something which I profoundly mean. I find that Ministers who have not been all that long in this place—I have not been here long myself—seem to find themselves in singularly invidious positions at times. This is one of them. Personally, I am very sorry that my noble friend the Secretary of State is not present—I am sure he has a very good reason for being absent—to take some ofthe heat himself.
I wish to make four points. First, the disclosure provisions seem to some of us to be very important. Secondly, while we have the greatest respect for our colleagues on the Front Bench, the garments of
562
Vol. 504omniscience and infallibility do not always seem to fit them quite as well as they suppose. Thirdly, the Minister—rather surprisingly to my mind— influenced by my noble friend's charm and eloquence, which I manifestly lack, has already moved in the right direction. Would it not be possible for him to move just that much further and accept what he seems to brush aside as a point of no principle—except that for us it is a point of principle. And it is important.
I do not think that the Minister understands how profoundly irritating some of us find it when arguments which we put forward as strongly as we can are lightly brushed aside.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Morris: One must always remember the principle that one should watch very carefully gifts borne by junior spokesmen. Section 201 of the Companies Act 1985 is repealed in its entirety under the repeals section of the Bill. Section 201 clearly states that:
"No regulations shall be made under this section unless a draft of the instrument containing them has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House".
I am suggesting we are offered absolutely nothing at all. This provision was not contained in the original draft of this part of the Bill in order that it should be given back subsequently as an Aunt Sallie for the much more important and substantial amendment of my noble friend Lord Peyton which I heartily support. I shall not try to argue further because no one could have put it better than he did.
Lord Rippon of Hexham: Perhaps I may briefly comment on what my noble friend the Minister had to say about the discussion which took place on the Children Bill. It arose originally out of a power to repeal by regulation. I think he will accept that the debate went far wider than that. It was pointed out that "amend" can mean something very close to "repeal". It is not an excuse for leaving out of primary legislation what clearly ought to be in.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: In the circumstances and in view of my noble friend's silence in response to what I have just said, I wish to press the amendment.
6.18 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 230ZA) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 90; Not-Contents, 94.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Blease, L.

Airedale, L.

Bruce of Doninglon, L.

Aldington, L.

Caldecote, V.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Alport, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Ampthill, L.

Carter, L. [Teller]

Ardwick, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Aylestone, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Birk, B.

Craigavon, V.

David, B.

Morris, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Mountevans, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Nicol, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Onslow, E.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Oram, L.

Ennals, L.

Pender, L.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Pennock, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Perry of Walton, L.

Ezra, L.

Peston, L.

Falkender, B.

Peyton of Yeovil, L. [Teller.]

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Gallacher, L.

Rea, L.

Galpern, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Greenway, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Grey, E.

Rochester, L.

Halsbury, E.

Roskill, L.

Hampton, L.

Russell, E.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Seear, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Seebohm, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Serota, B.

Jay, L.

Shackleton, L.

Jeger, B.

Shannon, E.

Kagan, L.

Shepherd, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Kinloss, Ly.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Listowel, E.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Swinfen, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Lockwood, B.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Underhill, L.

McNair, L.

Whaddon, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Mishcon, L.

Winstanley, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Hanson, L.

Arran, E.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Harrowby, E.

Astor, V.

Harvington, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Henley, L.

Beloff, L.

Hesketh, L.

Belstead, L.

Hives, L.

Blatch, B.

Holderness, L.

Blyth, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Boardman, L.

Hooper, B.

Borthwick, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Lauderdale, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Long, V.

Bridgeman, V.

Lyell, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Margadale, L.

Butterworth, L.

Marley, L.

Buxton of Alsa, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Caithness, E.

Merrivale, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Mersey, V.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Milverton, L.

Carnock, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Cathcart, E.

Munster, E.

Chelwood, L.

Nelson, E.

Coleraine, L.

Newall, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Orkney, E.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Oxfuird, V.

Cottesloe, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Reay, L.

Cross, V.

Renwick, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Rochdale, V.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Rodney, L.

Dilhorne, V.

St. Davids, V.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Ferrers, E.

Somerset, D.

Geddes, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Sudeley, L.

Gisborough, L.

Swansea, L.

Gridley, L.

Swinton, E.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Terrington, L.

564

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Trafford, L.

Westbury, L.

Tranmire, L.

Windlesham, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Wise, L.

Trenchard, V.

Young, B.

Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

6.26 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 230AZA and 230ZAA not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alport): I think that I am right in calling Amendment No. 230ZB now. Not moved?
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 230ZB:
Page 89, leave out lines 5 to 8.
The noble Lord said: Indeed it is moved. I apologise for the slight delay in moving the amendment. I shall do so briefly. The point at issue is that in my view a company which is bid for does not know and cannot easily find out who its adversary is or what he intends.
As the position stands at the moment, if a person on whom a Section 212 notice is served does not comply with the notice within a reasonable time the company can go to court. The amendment would have the effect that if a person upon whom a Section 212 notice is served does not comply with it within seven days, the company could itself apply those sanctions which are laid down in Part XV of the 1985 Act. That would have the effect of freezing the shares, disfranchising them and rendering them nontransferable.
I realise that there are those who would have reservations about so radical a move. I am certainly not wedded to any of the details contained in the amendment or to the precise way in which it is drafted. It is a probing amendment designed to attract the Government's attention to a problem in the hope that, if they are not content with the solution contained in the amendment, they will themselves bring forward an amendment at a later stage of the Bill.
Lord Strathclyde: I am slightly confused. I thought that Amendment No. 230ZB had been grouped with Amendment No. 230ZA, on which we have just voted. I may be wrong and the noble Lord may have spoken to another amendment. If that is so I am not sure which amendment that is. Am I right in thinking that the amendment to which the noble Lord spoke is amendment No. 230ZB:
"Page 89, leave out lines 5 to 8"?
If that is the case I have already replied to the amendment.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I am sorry if I am at fault. I am referring to Amendment No. 231A, which is the next amendment that stands in my name.
[Amendment No. 230ZB not moved.]
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran moved Amendment No. 230A:
Page 89, line 8, at end insert
("(6) After section 211 (register of interests in shares) insert—"Duty to bid for remaining shares
211 A.—(1) When a person has acquired more than 15 per cent. of the nominal value of the share capital of a company he shall come under an obligation to make an offer for the remaining share capital of that company.
(2) When a person comes under an obligation to make an offer as required under subsection (1) above, he shall make a public statement of his intentions for the future management of that company."").
The noble Lord said: We are dealing here again with a register of interest in shares. This raises a policy matter and I think the simplest course for me to take is to read out the proposed amendment:
"When a person has acquired more than 15 per cent. of the nominal value of the share capital of a company he shall come under an obligation to make an offer for the remaining share capital of that company-.
I should like to make it clear that this is a probing amendment and your Lordships will recognise the public interest surrounding these matters.
The second subsection of the amendment is probably more important as regards basic principle than the first one. I quite agree that there may be some discussion possible in relation to whether 15 per cent. of the nominal value is the correct figure. As this is a probing amendment, I am quite flexible as to the figure. The second subsection of the amendment says:
"When a person comes under an obligation to make an offer as required under subsection (1) above"
whatever may be the percentage concerned
"he shall make a public statement of his intentions for the future management of that company-
As I have said, this is a probing amendment and I understand there are some general discussions in progress at the present time with the Government on these matters. I beg to move.
Lord Roskill: Before I deal with the point which the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, mentioned last, may I declare an interest? I have for the last 18 months or so been chairman of the appeal committee of the Takeover Panel. The noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, as your Lordships know, is the chairman of the panel but he is out of the country at the moment and I have not been able to make contact with him. However, I have very little doubt that had I been able to do so or were he here he would say, much more eloquently, what I am about to say.
The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, is absolutely right, if he will allow me to say so. The 15 per cent. question, if I may put it in that rather succinct way, is at the moment under discussion with the panel and also with the CBI. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, who is in his place and who knows much more about this than I do, is nodding assent to what I have just said. Therefore it would be undesirable, I respectfully suggest, that this matter should be pursued by way of an amendment to the Bill at this moment.
There is a wider question involved and perhaps I might just touch on it for a moment, and no more. As your Lordships know, the whole operation of the
566
Takeover Panel is a voluntary non-statutory one. I venture to say at the moment that it would be most unfortunate if a single part of the function of the panel suddenly and, as it were, by a side wind by means of an amendment of this kind became statutory. I do not want to say any more about that issue: it is a controversial one. It may arise in future in connection with European Community directives: one cannot speculate as to the future. I hope in view of what I have said that the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, will think it right not to press this amendment.
Lord Peston: If it will help the noble Lord when he comes to reply in a moment, the position from these Benches is that we strongly support the two principles involved in this amendment. In the first subsection there is the obligation to acquire the share capital, which is important, but I think that the principle contained in the second subsection is of overwhelming importance as regards the making of a public statement about the future management of the company. We certainly do not want to muddy the waters in regard to how it should be done, whether by the Takeover Panel or in any other way. What we would like to hear, as no doubt would the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, is a sympathetic response from the Minister saying that the Government also accept the principle—I find it hard to believe that they would not, particularly the second one on management—and that they will see to it one way or another that progress will be made. We would wish to support the amendment in terms of its content although we fully understand the point which has just been raised, particularly about whether putting it into statute at the present time is the correct way to deal with this.
Lord Boardman: The noble and learned Lord, Lord Roskill, referred to me, and therefore I should like to say that I strongly endorse the remarks he made. I believe that his speech on this was absolutely correct and it is fully supported by me.
Lord Carr of Hadley: I do not for one moment wish to press the point as to whether this is the right place or the right way in which to take action on this but I want to add my support to the principles contained in the amendment. The amendment covers two points which I made in my speech on the Second Reading of this Bill. Although I am quite prepared to accept that it would not be right to do it now and in this way, I think we ought to have from the Government—if not now, certainly before the Bill completes its progress here—some statement of their feelings on this matter. Very important matters of policy are concerned. As many of us made clear on Second Reading when we were talking about mergers and monopolies, all is far from well in this field. If efforts are not made in whatever may be the appropriate way to clean up what is going on at the moment the whole market economy system could be brought into serious and growing disrepute.
Viscount Caldecote: I should like most strongly to support what my noble friend Lord Carr has said. I believe that the principles of this amendment are very important. As regards subsection (1) it would seem

567
appropriate for it to apply only to limited companies. I expect the noble Lord would accept that. I also believe that subsection (2) is very important indeed and I hope that the Government will give it due consideration.
Lord Hanson: I would not want to interfere in any way with what the CBI and the panel are discussing at this time but I am not entirely sure that the provision here for the 15 per cent. figure has not overlooked investments of a greater figure than those which are made. When a company is being formed, for example, many people will invest in it on a fairly large scale, which they may reduce at some time. They have no intention or wish to take over that company or to make an offer for it. In my company there are many examples where we have taken a 25 per cent. or 20 per cent. share in a company in order to help it on its way.
I may not have this right, but I think it should be looked at, certainly in the circumstances that there should be no obligation: I do not understand that. If this is on a gradual basis of acquiring capital on the market in a company under threat, that is one thing. I believe the amendment should make that clear. As everybody knows who is in business, the intentions are always made clear in regard to the second subsection there. The Companies Act already requires anybody making an offer for a company to state in some considerable detail what his intentions are for the company. I repeat that I have no wish whatever to interfere with the panel's handling of this matter at the moment, but I feel that this point should be borne in mind.
Lord Marshall of Leeds: While I fully understand what the noble Lord has said and have every respect for what my noble friend Lord Boardman had to say, I am just wondering whether your Lordships' Chamber should have to defer or wait upon the deliberations of anyone, even of the Takeover Panel or indeed of the CBI.
Lord Morris: I hope what I say will not be taken amiss, but I think it might be worth while in the rather broader aspect of this amendment which was raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Roskill, to wait for Part VI of the Bill where the whole subject of mergers will be debated. Indeed we would have the benefit of the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, who I hope will be back from abroad, and also the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce. If there are two men in this country who know more about this than anybody else I would suggest that it is those two. Notwithstanding that, these are matters of the greatest concern, not least of great political concern. I think that we should wait until Part VI of the Bill, which I understand is to be debated on 2nd March.
Lord Strathclyde: I have listened with interest to this debate. I should like to say at the outset that the Government are not prepared to accept these proposals. There are a number of reasons for this, which I shall deal with in turn. Many noble Lords have said that this is a difficult, complex and highly-charged issue and therefore I shall have to speak at
568
length. However, I hope that the Committee will be forgiving and understand the reasons for doing so.
First, we need to distinguish between merger policy and takeover regulation. Although they both deal with take-over bids, they are quite distinct had have different objectives. Merger policy is concerned with identifying those mergers which give rise to issues of public policy, notably in relation to their effects on competition, and taking action where necessary to protect the public interest. The Committee is familiar with the system and the roles of the Director General of Fair Trading, the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and my noble friend the Secretary of State. Some changes to the statutory system of merger control are to be made by Part VI of the Bill, which your Lordships will soon be considering in great detail.
Takeover regulation, on the other hand, is concerned not with the result, but with the process by which control in a company passes from one set of shareholders to another. In the UK, responsibility for regulation of takovers rests with the Panel on Takeovers and Mergers, which administers rules set out in the City Code on Takeovers and Mergers. The introduction to the code states that it is not concerned with the financial or commercial advantages or disadvantages of a takeover, which are matters for the company and its shareholders. Instead, the code and panel operate principally to ensure fair and equal treatment of all shareholders in relation to takovers, and to provide an orderly framework within which takeovers are conducted.
I have made the distinction between merger control and takeover regulation at some length because their respective objectives are quite distinct, and proposals concerning each must be considered against the appropriate objectives. Thus, in relation to the amendment which the noble Lord has proposed, there is an argument, which I shall return to in a moment, that the threshold for a mandatory bid should be reduced from its current level of 30 per cent. in the interests of takeover regulation. As I have said, I shall deal with that argument shortly. But proposals of this sort also appeal to those who believe that takeovers should be made intrinsically more difficult, so as to protect the incumbent management of companies. I wish to say that this Government are completely opposed to such ideas. Issues of public policy apart—and we shall be considering them under Part VI of the Bill—the Government believethat it is perfectly proper for shareholders, in a fair and properly informed market, to decide whether control of a company should pass to a new bidder. We believe that it is not in the interests of the process of wealth creation nor in the longer term interests of the employees of a company themselves for an existing management to barricade itself inside a company and thus avoid the consequences of its own shortcomings.
The first effect of the noble Lord's amendment would be to set at 15 per cent. the threshold at which a bid for all a company's shares must be made and to enshrine that threshold in statute. I think there is general support in the Committee for the concept of a mandatory bid itself. Such a concept is already contained in Rule 9 of the City Code on Takeovers

569
and Mergers. Its purpose is to fulfil the first general principle of the City Code, which is that all shareholders of the same class of an offeree company must be treated similarly by an offeror. The rule is accordingly designed to prevent people obtaining effective control of a company without giving other shareholders the opportunity to sell their shares to the new controller at a price which reflects the cost of obtaining control.
The point at which effective control is obtained will obviously vary from case to case. At present the City Code sets this at 30 per cent. Some suggestions have been made, notably by the CBI, that effective control may be obtained at a lower point. This is why the Takeover Panel has set up a working party to consider certain topics related to takover practices. I understand that the question of a reduction of the threshold at which a requirement to make a full bid arises is one of the topics to be considered by that working party: indeed I should not be surprised if it were very close to the top of the list of topics to be considered.
I should say, however, that the Government, while supporting the concept of the mandatory bid, are not convinced that a reduction in the 30 per cent. level is required. We are not compelled to conclude that take over regulation has been less than effective because the threshold is set where it is. But we shall await the conclusions of the working party with interest.
It will come as no surprise to noble Lords that the Government do not support the idea of enshrining the mandatory bid in statute. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, referred at Second Reading to his party's view that takeover regulation should be put on to a statutory basis. It may be that the noble Lord will table an amendment to this effect at some suitable point; if so, I look forward to debating the wider principle. I should like at this juncture to remind the Committee of my remarks at Second Reading, when I referred to the significant advantages of the present system of a non-statutory code. This system enables the panel to apply its rules with the flexibility which is necessary to ensure that the principles of the code are maintained in each case. This is vital in an area of fast-changing market practice. Moreover, a statutory system would inevitably lead to greater use of litigation for tactical reasons in contested takeovers, which would lead to delay and might result in the outcome being determined by legal tactics rather than by the shareholders who are the proprietors of the companies bid for. I note in passing that Rule 9 of the code, with its explanatory notes, runs to 17 pages. The noble Lord's amendment covers the ground in four lines. I know that this is a probing amendment and I recognise that the noble Lord intended to debate the principle, not the drafting. But, even with the advantages of flexible application, the code finds it necessary to cover the subjects of persons acting in concert, of a series of transactions, of acquisitions by directors, of shares held by groups some of whose members may increase their holdings, of preference shares with voting rights, of convertible securities, warrants and options, and of the distinction of shareholdings, among other matters. If the noble Lord really wants the mandatory bid enshrined in
570
legislation, then he is expecting someone to deal with all these matters and others, which may give rise to substantial loopholes.
The second part of the noble Lord's amendment would require an acquirer, at the point at which the mandatory bid is triggered, to make a public statement of his intentions for the future management of the company. As with the first part of the noble Lord's amendment, this would put into statute a provision at present contained in the City Code. Rule 24 of the Code requires an offeror, whether the bid is voluntary or mandatory, to cover in his offer document his intentions regarding the continuation of the business of the offeree company, any major changes to be introduced, including redeployment of fixed assets, the long-term commercial justification of the offer, and his intentions regarding the continued employment of the employees of the offeree company and its subsidiaries, as my noble friend Lord Hanson pointed out.
I believe that the requirement to make such a statement of intention has its proper place in the City Code, and I understand that the question of whether bidders should be required to issue a detailed prospectus setting out their plans for the development of the company they seek to buy is one of the topics being considered by the working party. For the reasons I have outlined in relation to the first part of the noble Lord's amendment, the Government are opposed to putting such requirements on to a statutory footing.
I have spoken at some length because the amendment put down by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, raises some fundamental issues. I am sure that we shall debate some of these issues further when we come to later parts of the Bill. However, in view of the arguments that I have advanced, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Ezra: Perhaps the noble Lord would kindly clarify a point that he made in his long and informative statement. He made it clear that he confirmed the view already expressed that i:his issue is being considered by the Takeover Panel. At the same time, I thought that the noble Lord said that the Government would not accept that the threshold should be reduced below 30 per cent. Is this therefore an instruction to the Takeover Panel?
Viscount Caldecote: I should like to ask the Minister one question. He rightly referred to the importance of the efficient management of companies. Would he not agree that the uncertainty resulting from a substantial minority holding of around 25 per cent. of a company over a long period is extremely detrimental to the efficient management of that company because it creates uncertainty in the minds of management and all employees, and that something needs to be done to reduce the number of occasions when that happens?
Lord Strathclyde: Perhaps I may briefly reply to my noble friend's point. My noble friend Lord Hanson answered that when he said that in his experience

571
companies very often welcomed shareholdings of 20 per cent. or 25 per cent. and that the management did not feel under any threat whatsoever. Furthermore, in some cases perhaps it may be a very good thing for some companies to feel slightly threatened from a bid. It is ultimately the shareholders who ought to decide these matters and not the managers.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, asked me to clarify the point about the 30 per cent. level. The Government's view is that the threshold should not necessarily be reduced. We wish to see what the working party finds. We certainly have no desire to issue any instructions to the working party, either publicly in a Committee such as this or privately in a smoke-filled room.
Lord Peston: I am extremely disturbed by the replies that we have had. It is quite wrong to raise the question of merger at this stage. This is not about mergers. The noble Lord will see me in an extremely fierce mood because he knows I am extremely antipathetic to the merger movement, which I think has been mostly detrimental to the British economy over the past few years. However, that is for another day.
This is about takeover procedure, on the one hand. Although my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel has mentioned the statute point, one is trying with regard to this amendment to have an open mind and to listen to wise thoughts. That is what we are doing. One is holding back from insisting on a statutory approach. I was doing that in the hope that I would hear some sense from the government side. However, I have heard nothing of the kind.
I am rather staggered at the cavalier approach to the management of companies. What matters is the operating side of the company. Management has to manage and produce goods, services, and so on. One is concerned that financial shenanigans of one kind or another will get in the way of that consideration. I regard as preposterous the notion that it will be a good thing to threaten management. Management ought to be raising the efficiency of the company. It ought not to be looking over its shoulder. That is exactly what is wrong with the British economy. It should not be looking over its shoulders at these financial activities.
I cannot speak too strongly of my view about this matter. It is not my amendment. However, I do not like the reply that we have received. I find it most discouraging. I cannot believe that it is in the interests of the Government that this reply should be on the record. I am sorry to have to speak to the noble Lord in these strong terms so close to the dinner hour, but I do not think that his answer is acceptable.
Lord Carr of Hadley: I should like to add a word of my own concern on this. The Minister quite rightly drew a distinction between merger control and regulation of takeovers. That is a very valid and important distinction to make. For that reason I would not wish to press this amendment tonight. Nor would I agree necessarily with the 15 per cent. figure in the first clause. However, having made that distinction, the Minister did in one sense what we wished him to do but in a way that was disturbing.
572
Having said that takeover regulation is nothing to do with Parliament, this Chamber, or the Government, but is fairness between shareholders, he then gave a pretty strong government steer—to put it no higher—as to how he wanted that working party to report. If that is the idea, I find it immensely disturbing.
It is the Takeover Panel's regulatory role above all to ensure fairness between shareholders. That is a matter we can best leave to it. However, fairness between shareholders can be achieved in different ways. It can be achieved in the way that encourages very short-term thinking in the industry—I know that I am oversimplifying, but I believe that I have to tonight—or it can be achieved in the way that does not press such short-term considerations.
Some of us are concerned that it should be done in a way which helps efficient enterprise and management and does not hinder enterprising, efficient, long-term thinking management. Many of us are not satisfied that the present situation exerts the right pressure. It concerns me if the Government believe that the way in which matters progress at the moment is encouraging the right management. Some of our best and most enterprising management leaders in this country think exactly the reverse and are very concerned about it. The matter needs very deep consideration and I do not like to see the Government taking what seems to be parti pris attitude to it without first giving it that consideration. I hoped that we might make some contribution to such consideration in the debates in this Chamber without pressing amendments to be put on the statute book.
Lord Boardman: I should declare an interest as a member of the Takeover Panel. This amendment shows the enormously wide range of considerations that come into fixing a statutory limit in the way that the amendment suggests. My noble friend Lord Caldecote produced factors to argue for a lower limit; and my noble friend Lord Hanson debated why a lower limit could be disadvantageous to shareholders. I believe that this debate shows the need for retention of flexibility. I believe also that it is very effectively attained by the Takeover Panel as it operates at the moment.
I am sure that the working party will take into account many more considerations than could possibly have been discussed by Members of the Committee in the 26 minutes that we have been debating this amendment. It raises an issue which has been useful to the debate. However, I hope that it will not be pressed. I hope that the Takeover Panel and the working party will have an opportunity to take into account the many factors that have been debated this evening, and many other factors that arise, and that we shall do nothing to try to limit the flexibility which in my experience has worked so well to date.
Lord Strathclyde: Perhaps I may briefly comment on what has been said, especially by my noble friend Lord Carr. I do not feel that I gave any steer whatsoever to the Takeover Panel or the deliberations of its working party. I mentioned that we were not prejudging the issue by saying that the

573
case for reducing the threshold had already been made and that therefore anything else is entirely up to them.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Peston. Today we are not discussing the great issue of takeovers and mergers. As Members of the Committee are fully aware, there will be another full day in which to discuss this issue at some length. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, is greatly looking forward to that. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: This has indeed been a very interesting debate on a matter of considerable public policy. To use the happy phrase of the noble Lord. Lord Strathclyde, it is a highly charged issue. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hanson, that 15 per cent. is too low having regard to practical matters in relation to businesses, on which he is such an expert.
I was very much impressed by the noble Lord, Lord Marshall of Leeds, when he asked why this Committee should wait for the Takeover Panel to come to a decision. Why should we wait, in particular having regard to the debate that we have had this evening? Before I come to any decision on what to do about this matter, are the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Roskill, able to say when they expect this matter to be dealt with by the Takeover Panel? Has it been given high priority?
The noble Lord, Lord Carr, mentioned the point very strongly at Second Reading. The Government have had great opportunity to consider the matter. They do not wish to press any matters or to give any strong indications of their view at this stage. Therefore we are waiting for the Takeover Panel. Does either the noble and learned Lord, Lord Roskill, or the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, know when the panel is likely to take on this matter?
Lord Roskill: I am very sorry to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran. I am afraid I am in no position to give any date at all. Whether Lord Boardman can I do not know.
Lord Boardman: 1 am afraid I can give no help either, except that I know that the panel is considering this together with all those other issues with considerable urgency. I hope that it will not be too long before it comes to a conclusion or a recommendation.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: As the Takeover Panel has this matter under its wing, if that is the correct expression, and some priority is being given to those considerations, having regard to this debate I see that the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, is nodding his head in agreement with what I am saying—I imagine that it will be considered as a matter of urgency. In those circumstances and as I said at the outset that this was a probing amendment, the matter has in my view been probed long enough this evening and I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. [Amendment No. 231 not moved.]
7 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil moved Amendment No. 231A:
Page 89, line 8, at end insert
("(7) After section 216 insert
"Notice under s.2I2.
216A—(1) Where any notice is served by a company under section 212 on a person who is or was interested in shares of the company or on whom the company has reasonable cause to believe to be or to have been interested in shares of the company and that person (not being a person not obliged to comply with the notice by virtue of section 216(5)) fails to give the company any information required by the notice the company may at the expiry of seven days from the date of the notice declare that the shares in question shall be subject to the restrictions of Part XV of this Act.
(2) Upon the making of any such declaration the company shall forthwith

(a) give notice thereof to any person upon whom the relevant notice under section 212 had been served; and

(b) shall publish such notice in the Gazette and thereupon such declaration shall be of immediate effect.").

The noble Lord said: I should like to take the opportunity of apologising to the Committee for the fact that I was mistakenly induced to speak to this amendment when another number was called. 1 got my numbers muddled up.
Let me make it clear that the purpose of my three amendments is not to prevent or frustrate takeover bids, but merely to ensure that the company bid for has a reasonable opportunity to ascertain what is going on, who is involved on the other side and what he intends to do, and when. At present, if a person on whom a Section 212 notice is served does not comply within a certain period, then under the law the company must go to the court, which is free to impose sanctions. The effect of my amendment would be that if a person fails to comply within seven days then the company could itself apply those same sanctions, which would amount to freezing the shares.
I am slightly comforted by the knowledge that the Stock Exchange issued a statement on 20th February saying that, following changes to be made in the listing rules, companies will be permitted to make provision in their articles of association for the imposition of sanctions against the shareholder 14 days after a Section 212 notice has been served if the shareholder fails to comply. That is a useful step forward, but I should still like to hear what my noble friend the Minister has to say about this amendment. I commend it to him for serious and sympathetic consideration, remembering the exchange that we had just now. I beg to move.
Viscount Bridgeman: Perhaps I may intervene in the debate as an active member of the Stock Exchange. I am afraid that I do not find my noble friend's amendments very attractive, though I note that he gives measured approval to the 14-day period imposed by the Stock Exchange. I readily accept that the management of companies have the right to know the identity of their shareholders and that they should be able to take steps against shareholders who fail to reveal their identity. But shareholders also have rights. There is no fundamental conflict between these rights, but where conflict occasionally arises a balance must be struck.

575]
Through its rules the Stock Exchange attempts to strike such a balance. Its requirements on listed companies allow them to disenfranchise by provisions in their articles shareholders who fail to respond adequately to a Section 212 notice within 28 days. As many members of the Committee may be aware—indeed the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, has already referred to this—the Stock Exchange has been considering whether this requirement needs amendment. The results were announced yesterday and under the proposals the time limit will be reduced from 28 days to 14 days. The new limit will not apply to shareholders who hold less than 0-25 per cent. of a company's stock. However, I am confident that this latter category of small shareholders is not the target of the amendments.
This period, in the Stock Exchange's opinion, correctly balances the interests of investors with the interests of the company. Investors should not have their rights automatically curtailed after too short a period. The company needs to know promptly who its shareholders are and to take appropriate action if not informed. I believe that after the rule change announced by the Stock Exchange this balance has been properly struck.
The Exchange consulted widely before making the change and it is especially interesting to note that several members of the Listed Companies Advisory Committee, which includes representatives of many of the leading UK companies, suggested that a seven-day period would be too short even for well-intentioned shareholders.
My noble friend should pause to consider the implications of this period of seven days. He should ask himself whether the UK, as an attractive financial centre in which companies can easily raise capital, will benefit. His proposals would make those who invest in this country very open to having their rights restricted. I take it that my noble friend is agreeing to the 14 days and that he will not therefore press his amendment
Lord Morris: I have listened very carefully to what my noble friend Lord Peyton said, as I did to my noble friend who has just spoken. I suspect that he would have absolutely no objection to this amendment becoming part of the general public law of England and reflecting entirely the intentions of the Stock Exchange. It seems to me to be a very good idea and no doubt we could count on his support.
I have put my name to this and indeed to all the amendments of my noble friend Lord Peyton, but I think the Clerks must be using invisible ink in regard to all of them. However, that is de minimis. It would not be my intention to throw out the baby with the bathwater. I consider that the term of 14 days as opposed to seven days would be a great improvement on the current position. if my noble friend the Minister will consider the merits of this amendment in a slightly different form, I shall look forward very much to hearing what he has to say.
Lord Hanson: I feel that it should be mentioned at this time that this amendment refers to very few people in this country and to very few companies. It will certainly create employment. That will be good
576
because to produce the information as requested within seven days a large number of people will be needed in the business of recording share ownership. Section 212 inquiries to large diversified companies, especially if they have in-house pension funds, cannot always be answered immediately. If more and more power is given to demand such information at short notice, equal attention should perhaps be given to what constitutes reasonable cause for making the inquiry.
A company of our size, for example, receives inquiries very soon after small purchases of shares, less than 1 per cent. or perhaps 2 per cent. Usually that information is given immediately to the inquirer by the company secretary of the company whose shares have been acquired. There is no particular problem from the point of view of companies like ours in providing this information. One suspects that the time limit is being reduced. I hope that my noble friend has this number muddled up as well and that he will follow the example of the chairman of the Stock Exchange. For example, on occasion as a result of what has appeared in the press my company receives inquiries about whether we hold shares. If the inquirers follow the press they will be busy all the time because the press takes a great deal of interest in such matters.
It is unreasonable to ask for seven days. Everyone knows of the difficulties about mail deliveries, and seven days is not possible. I oppose it, I oppose 14 days and I believe that 30 days is all right. Nevertheless, a requirement of 14 days is fairer than seven days and I hope that I can persuade my noble friend that it is a more reasonable figure.
Lord Peston: It may be useful if this side of the Committee is allowed to join in the debate, even though I have never obtained a substantial interest in any company or been in the position of threatening to take one over. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Morris; it is fundamental that a company should know who its shareholders are. I should like to add a second fundamental principle. 1 believe that financial markets exist for the sake of industrial and commercial firms and not the other way round. In other words, what matters is what industry does.
We are sympathetic to the spirit of the amendment. It appears to be in the spirit of several earlier amendments connected with the style of activity in such markets. I prefer seven days to 14 days but I follow the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Morris; 14 days is a substantial step forward from 30 days. In that connection we are moving forward in a sensible direction. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, will press for the provision of seven days but he should know that we are sympathetic towards what he has said.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: The noble Lord, Lord Peston, most charmingly apologised for intruding into our debate on this side of the Committee. Had he been present earlier he would have heard me apologise for intruding into what I regarded as a nightmarish debate between the Front Benches. I can compare it only with a dull game of tennis in which the ball is lobbed very slowly from one side to the

577
other and in which there is no prospect of anyone killing the ball. Even worse, there is no prospect of either side giving up as a result of exhaustion because the effort involved in the game is so small.
The amendments were tabled in order to reflect a profound and widespread unease among many companies about the possibility of an immense amount of effort being deflected to expensive and unnecessary defence operations. They spring from nothing more than that and were never intended to frustrate and prevent takeover bids.
Furthermore, there is no magic attached to the drafting. It may well be that, if accepted, the amendments will require certain safeguards. If my noble friend on the Front Bench makes a positive and constructive reply I shall withdraw them on that basis.
In reply to my noble friend Lord Bridgeman I welcome the move made by the Stock Exchange. However, we in Parliament are not obliged to accept a decision of the Stock Exchange as being the same as a provision contained in an Act of Parliament. I still wish to see inserted into the Bill a provision which shortens the period.
My noble friend Lord Hanson has great experience in such matters. I am not muddled in my numbers and nor shall I be unreasonable or greedy. I should look favourably on the provision of 14 days with any necessary safeguards. I do not wish to create unnecessary labour; we already have enough in this country. However, I should like to hear the Minister's reaction to what has been said and a promise that at a later stage he will bring forward a generally acceptable amendment.
Lord Strathclyde: In an earlier debate my noble friend Lord Peyton offered to me his sympathy for being on the Front Bench. He suggested that the Secretary of State should be present to take the heat. I should like to point out to him that whenever I see the Secretary of State I pass on any heat that I have received.
My noble friend also said that he was disappointed because his arguments about the problems he faces were dealt with lightly. That is not the case. We take seriously all amendments, particularly when the noble Lord speaks, and a great deal of deliberation takes place in deciding our response. It is most unfair to accuse my officials of dealing lightly with any problem that he raises.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I am sorry to intervene. I have never mentioned my noble friend's officials and I do not accuse them of dealing lightly with anything. I intended to convey the fact that I do not believe my noble friend has any idea of the irritation caused to Back-Benchers when they have to listen endlessly to governments saying that they know better.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: I do not wish to make a great song and dance about the issue and I accept what my noble friend has said.
As regards Amendment No. 231A, I do not believe that it is either desirable or necessary for companies
578
Vol. 504to be given by statute the powers described in it. Under existing company law, there are two possible ways for companies to obtain the imposition of restrictions to the rights of shares. The first is provided for in Section 216 of the 1985 Act, where companies may apply to the court for an order imposing the restrictions of Part XV of the Act if information requested by a notice is not given in such reasonable time as the notice requires. Secondly. companies may take powers in their articles of association allowing them to impose restrictions. The ability of listed companies to take such powers is constrained by the listing rules. As the Committee is aware, the Stock Exchange proposed to relax those constraints and made an announcement yesterday. My noble friend Lord Bridgeman has already spoken of the effect of the Stock Exchange's proposals.
The present range of sanctions available to companies through the court procedure and through the adoption of powers in their articles is adequate to meet their requirements. Where a company needs to take swift action to discover the identity of a person holding an interest in its shares, the courts are prepared to impose restrictions quickly. They have indicated that they would probably regard a period of two days as a reasonable time in which to require a person to respond to a Section 212 notice, even when that person is resident overseas. Orders under Section 216 have been imposed by the courts on an ex parte basis, and there is no suggestion that the procedure leads to any delay. Moreover, the involvement of the courts ensures that the rights of shareholders are not arbitrarily or unfairly attacked.
Where a company exercises its own powers to apply sanctions other safeguards are necessary to protect shareholders. The first of these is that shareholders themselves should approve the inclusion of the powers in the company's articles of association. In addition, the listing rules currently provide that only voting rights may be restricted and that sanctions may be applied only 28 days after the issuing of a Section 212 notice. The package of proposals announced yesterday by the Stock Exchange will give companies significantly wider powers in respect of holdings above 0 25 per cent. Dividend and transfer rights will be subject to restrictions, and instead of the 28-day period, a 14-day period will apply.
Furthermore, companies will he able to keep restrictions in place for a set period after disclosure has been made. Shareholders will not be able to sit on their restricted shares until the last moment and then regain their rights by disclosing at the last moment, save before an AGM, when the information is too late to be of use to other investors.
The changes proposed by the Stock Exchange go a long way towards meeting the aims of my noble friend's amendment. It is possible to argue that a period of 14 days is too long. Indeed, the Government suggested that seven days might be appropriate when discussing this subject in their consultative document. But I believe that we must accept the judgment of the Stock Exchange on this matter. As the competent authority for listing rules under Part IV of the Financial Services Act, the Stock Exchange has been delegated the responsibility for

579
balancing the interests of company management and shareholders. The Government welcome the changes proposed by the Stock Exchange as representing a significant step towards improved transparency even though they do not go so far as the amendment in respect of the period within which sanctions may be imposed.
I hope therefore that my noble friend will agree that, with the proposed changes to the listing rules and the willingness of the courts to act when greater speed is required, companies do not require the new powers that his amendment is designed to give. The Government do not believe that this is an area where legislation is now required, and I ask him to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I hope that my noble friend will accept that I am accustomed to acting with great moderation. In those circumstances and with a sense of considerable self-sacrifice, I am prepared to accept the rather meagre bone offered by my noble friend in the name of the Stock Exchange instead of something written into the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil moved Amendment No. 231B:
Page 89, line 8, at end insert—"(6) After section 212 insert—
"Interest in shares before date of notice.
212A—(l) Where a notice is served upon any person under section 212 and any other interest in the shares comprised in the company's relevant share capital to which such notice relates subsists or has subsisted at any time during the 3 years immediately preceding the date on which that notice was issued the person upon whom such notice is served shall forthwith transmit a copy of that notice to any other person who (so far as lies within his knowledge) has or had an interest in such shares.
(2) Any such other person to whom such notice is transmitted shall thereupon be required to give the company (so far as is within his knowledge) the information regarding all interests in such shares comprised in the relevant share capital of the company which he would he required to give if he had received a notice under section 212 relating to such shares so comprised requiring him to give such particulars of interests therein as may be the subject of a request under that section (for which purpose the information requested under section 212(2)(a) and (b) shall be that as is referred to in section 2 I2(3))."").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is very short. And, again, it is a probing amendment. The drafting has no particular magic for me. I should not object if safeguards were required.
A Section 212 notice now affects only the person upon whom it is served. My amendment has the effect of putting a duty on the person upon whom it is served to acquaint any others whom he knew to be interested in the shares of the fact that notice had been served upon him. Those other people will then be affected by the notice in the same way as the original person who had received it. I hope that I have made my relatively simple point clearly. 1 shall be interested to hear what my noble friend says. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: This amendment is designed to reduce potential delays when the recipient of a
580
Section 212 notice identifies other persons as holders of interests in the shares of a company. I would not wish to argue against that objective. The amendment would not, however, reduce delays significantly, and it would create serious technical difficulties which I do not think could be overcome.
The new section that would be inserted by the amendment is an attempt to require a person who receives a copy of a notice issued to another person to give information regarding interests in shares which he would be required to give if sent the notice direct from the company. This would be neither practicable nor fair. It would not be practicable because a company has to draw up each notice to meet both its own needs and the circumstances of the recipient. Companies have a certain discretion under Section 212 as to the information they request.
Questions that it might be appropriate to direct at, say, the registered holder of the shares might be less than helpful to the company when directed at a broker who is holding the shares on behalf of a client. A registered holder might be asked in general terms about any present or past interests of other persons within his knowledge. But a well drafted notice sent to a broker might ask specific questions about other interests, perhaps even asking whether particular people have an interest in the shares, or in what capacity the broker holds his interest. It is not possible therefore, simply to refer, as the proposed new section does, to,
"such particulars of interests therein as may be the subject of a request",
under Section 212.This would not be helpful to the company, and it would impose a vague requirement upon the person to whom the notice was transmitted. It might not be clear to what extent he should answer the questions in the original notice, and he might not be able to satisfy himself with any certainty that he was complying properly with the requirement.
For these reasons, I do not think that it would be in the interests of companies themselves to create what would be a cumbersome and potentially burdensome new requirement. I ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I very much anticipated that reply. It was, if I may say so, much longer than my very short point deserved. I merely ask my noble friend to recognise that there might be a point here. Will he look at the amendment again before Report stage? That is a very modest request.
Lord Strathclyde: I am sorry that my noble friend feels that 1 am speaking too long in reply to his comments. I shall gladly cut down my meagre words. As to his point about the notice principle, we have already looked at that. At the start of my remarks I said that I should not wish to argue against the objectives. In the light of that, I am happy to reinspect the issue, but I cannot give any guarantee that the Government will come back on Report with an amendment to cover the matter. However, we shall consider it.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I am so profoundly grateful to my noble friend. I had to work terribly hard for

581
that comparatively small fish but I have caught it and I am glad to have it on the bank at last. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil moved Amendment No. 231C:
Page 89, line 8, at end insert—
("(8) In section 204(2) for the words "acquired in pursuance of the agreement" there shall be substituted "the subject of this agreement" and the words "and, (b) any interest in the company's shares is in fact acquired by any of the parties in pursuance of this agreement" shall be deleted.").
The noble Lord said: I am sorry to pester the Committee with so many amendments, but I shall move this one with the same brevity as the others. At present, provisions governing concert parties apply only to shares acquired after the party was entered into. The amendment includes shares which were acquired before the person concerned entered the concert party. That is very simple. I am sure that my noble friend can answer briefly. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: Again, this is an interesting proposal which my noble friend brings forward. I should like to remind the Committee of the reason why the provisions on concert parties were introduced in the 1981 Companies Act. It had become apparent that it was possible to evade the obligation to disclose by distributing interests in shares among a number of people acting in concert, none of whom individually held an interest as large as 5 per cent. Consequently, groups of people acting in concert to acquire shares are now required to aggregate their separate interests for the purpose of disclosure. Groups of shareholders should be able to adopt a common strategy towards the conduct of a company without being obliged to show their hand in advance to the management. This is a perfectly proper activity for the owners of a company to pursue.
In the light of what 1 have said, I hope that my noble friend will withdraw his amendment. We obviously reserve our position on Report but we shall consider what my noble friend said.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: Overflowing with gratitude, perhaps I can thank my noble friend and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil moved Amendment No. 213D:
Page 89, line 8, at end insert—
("(9) After section 220 insert
("Aggregate interest in shares.
220A—(1) This section shall apply to the acquisition of interests in shares comprised in a company's relevant share capital which result in that person so acquiring any such interest having an aggregate interest in shares so comprised in excess of the following percentage levels of the nominal value of the share capital of that company, namely: 3 per cent., 10 per cent. and 15 per cent. (each such percentage level being referred to as a trigger level).
(2) No acquisition of an interest in shares in a company's relevant share capital which would cause the interest of the acquiror in shares so comprised to exceed the next higher trigger level above his then current percentage interest in shares so comprised may be made, unless the acquiror had not acquired any such interest in shares so comprised in the ten days preceding the date of such acquisition.
(3) Where any person acquires or a company has reasonable cause to believe that a person has acquired any interest in shares comprised in the company's relevant capital in breach of the provisions of this section the company may declare that any shares so comprised in which such person has or had an interest or in which the company has reasonable cause to believe that the person to have or to have had an interest shall be subject to the restrictions of Part XV of this Act.
(4) Upon the making of any such declaration the company shall forthwith—

(a) give notice thereof to any person in respect of whom the company has made a declaration under sub-section (3); and

(b) shall publish such notice in the Gazette and thereupon such declaration shall be of immediate effect.").

The noble Lord said: I again apologise for wearying Members of the Committee. This is another short but important point. Under the present law, the bidder is free to make the running in two stages. He can acquire as much as 29'9 per cent. of the shares of a company. In doing so, in many cases he need speak to only relatively few large institutional shareholders. This makes it possible for a bidder to acquire with very great haste a large proportion of the bid for a company's shares and thus preclude the effective operation of the disclosure provisions.
This amendment proposes a breathing space for 10 days after each of three points: that is, after 3 per cent. of the shares have been acquired there should be a breathing space during which no further acquisitions can be made for 10 days; likewise after 10 per cent. and 15 per cent. I hope that my noble friend has rewarded my brevity by taking into his mind what I have attempted to say, and I look forward to hearing from him. I beg to move.
7.30 p.m.
Viscount Bridgeman: I am sorry to be so ungrateful to my noble friend Lord Peyton after his generous treatment of me earlier, but I am not attracted by this proposal to prevent levels in shareholdings being crossed without a 10-day pause for reflection.
That proposal appears to be an invitation for a share price to be pushed up against a potential bidder, with money pouring into the acquisition of that company's shares and the potential buyer proceeding to buy up to the next trigger level at stated intervals. I doubt whether such a proposal would make a bid situation any less volatile. I doubt whether it would make companies more bid-proof, if that is the intention. I am sure that the Committee would rightly view such an intention with some suspicion. The bid-proof company is not always the best run company. I hope that my noble friend Lord Peyton will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I should like to support at least the theme of the amendment. However, I should very much like to know what the noble Lord's answer is to the observations made by the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman. I should like also to know why, with a theme that the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, has

583
put so briefly, it is necessary to have almost a whole page for the amendment.
The noble Lord, Lord Peyton, has had some fun this evening in pressing the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, about his brevity. Therefore, why has the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, put such a long message in an amendment which he says is so simple?
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I can easily answer that question. I cannot claim that this marvellous piece of drafting is my own work. It was drafted by someone far more skilled than I. It was drafted by an expert who has grown up and has been nurtured in a world where simplicity is regarded almost as odious as is brevity. That being the case, he has been obliged, in order to conform with modern practice and what is known as respectability, to spread himself over a whole page. To be fair, he was seeking to amend a Bill which is not in itself a monument of simplicity or brevity; hence any tendency to bad habits was thereby encouraged and is therefore to be forgiven.
My noble friend Lord Bridgeman suggested, I believe, that I was in favour of bid-proof companies. That is precisely the opposite of my position.
Lord Strathclyde: The previous amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Peyton have contained technical proposals which could be said to fall broadly within the scope of Part VI of the 1985 Act even if, in the Government's view, they would not actually further the objectives of Part VI. This amendment, however, raises a major issue of principle which goes beyond Part VI and runs counter to the Government's policy on takeovers.
I have listened to the brief points made by my noble friend. The Government will not be persuaded, however, that there is a case for allowing the management of a company to restrict the rights of shares acquired by a potential offer or simply because he is acquiring those shares faster than is convenient for the directors. It is entirely proper for a person to acquire an initial stake in a company so long as he discloses his acquisition. Furthermore, other shareholders should not be prevented by management from selling their interests to a potential offeror. This would be an unwarranted limitation of their freedom to dispose of their shares on the best terms available.
I hope that in this case my noble friend will read carefully what I have said and decide whether or not he wants to bring forward an amendment at another stage of the Bill.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I always read what my noble friend says, particularly (if I may say so) when he says it with relative brevity, as he did.
I am sorry my noble friend has concluded that the amendment is unacceptable, but the point I want to leave with him at the end of the day is that there is great unease among many people that a company under attack has very few means of ascertaining who precisely is against it and what he is proposing. Those are not empty words. I hope that the Government will consider it their duty to digest them. If not, it will be necessary for me to come back at a later stage and not be as reasonable and delightfully withdrawing as
584
I am today positively shy. I beg leave to withdrawthe amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Davidson: This may be a convenient moment to break for dinner. I suggest that we do not resume the Committee stage before 8.35 p.m. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
House resumed.

Nature Conservation and Amenity Lands (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1988
7.37 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Lyell)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Lyell) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 14th November 1988 be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, The amending order has as its main purpose the creation of a new single body to advise the department on matters relating to both nature conservation and the countryside. The new body will be known as the Council for Nature Conservation and the Countryside.
Your Lordships may remember that when the draft of the Nature Conservation and Amenity Lands (Northern Ireland) Order 1985 was published there was considerable discussion on the administrative structure for conservation in Northern Ireland. At that time Dr. Jean Balfour was asked by my honourable friend Mr. Chris Patten to produce recommendations as to the best way forward. Dr. Balfour favoured a single advisory body instead of the two existing committees. It is fair to say, however, that the concept of an independent body which would have executive powers also had a considerable degree of support.
The respective merits of each approach were weighed very carefully, and while the creation of a separate organisation which would express its own views had advantages it was ultimately decided that, given the size of Northern Ireland, Dr. Balfour's line was the correct one and more could be achieved by an advisory body working within the departmental framework. However, the new advisory council will be free to express the conservation view on any issue and will have the ability to be legally represented at any public inquiry. I feel that giving the council both an independent voice and the ability to influence thinking within the department at an early stage takes the best of the features from each of the possible approaches.
The operation of the new council will be kept under review and I have no doubt that it in turn will monitor the progress of conservation within Northern Ireland. For our part we share the pleasure of my colleague Mr. Needham that Professor Palmer Newbould and Mr. Robert Hanna have accepted the posts of chairman and deputy chairman. The proven records of both those gentlemen in the field of conservation will be enhanced by the wide range of

585
interests and experience represented by the remaining 18 members of the council.
As well as assuming the functions of the two existing advisory committees, the Ulster Countryside Committee and the Committee for Nature Conservation, the council will undertake the additional tasks of advising the department on the payment of grants to voluntary bodies and on promotional and educational activities. The ability to be represented legally at public inquiries which the council will have was another significant aspect of Dr. Balfour's recommendations. Like the existing bodies the council will be able to create subcommittees to advise it in specific areas as well as to appoint to these sub-committees persons who are not members of the council. We believe that this process will enable the widest available range of expertise to be tapped by the council.
The conservation service will supply the council's secretariat and provision for this has already been made. Following Dr. Balfour's report a substantial number of additional senior posts were provided in the conservation service itself with corresponding increases at more junior grades. The staffing resources needed by the service are kept under constant review and additional posts added as the need arises. The council will be able to provide advice on the whole range of resources required.
I now turn briefly to a matter which received prominence during the debate in your Lordships' House as well as in another place in 1985. This relates to areas of special scientific interest. Your Lordships will see that in Article 10(1) in the order before us this evening, the word "may" in Article 24(1) of the 1985 order is replaced by the word "shall". Your Lordships will find that at page 18 at the top. The effect of this will be to make it mandatory for the department to declare a site as an area of special scientific interest where the department is satisfied that it is of special scientific interest and that it needs to be specially protected. This amendment is being made in accordance with an undertaking which I gave to your Lordships in February 1985.
There is one other aspect of the draft order which I would like to bring to your Lordships' attention this evening. Your Lordships will note that a second paragraph has been added to Article 10 since the consultation process. Article 10(2)(a) involves an amendment to Article 25 (1) of the 1985 order which would enable the department to issue what we call consents to notifiable operations in areas of special scientific interest where consent to carry out such operations has not been sought by the landowner in writing. This amendment would enable the department to take the initiative in issuing consents when it was aware of the landowner's wishes. This proposal would lessen the amount of paperwork required from the landowner and it would have the valuable effect of smoothing the practical operation of the legislation. I want to make it clear that the department would still have to give its consent in writing.
I have concentrated on those aspects of the order which I consider to be most important. I will attempt to answer any points that your Lordships wish to
586
raise on it. I commend the order to your Lordships, and I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 14th November 1988 be approved.— (Lord Lyell.)
7.45 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for explaining the purpose of the order. I also take this opportunity to thank the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland for the explanatory memorandum and for the letter of 25th October last about the outcome of the public consultation on the terms of the first draft order. Plainly, by setting up a single Council for Nature Conservation and the Countryside to take the place of the existing Committee for Nature Conservation and the existing Ulster Countryside Committee, the order gives effect to one of the major recommendations made in 1984 by Dr. Jean Balfour in her report to Ministers.
Northern Ireland has now reached an important milestone with this order. We are pleased that advantage has been taken of this reorganisation to confer a few additional powers on the new body. We note that about a quarter of the respondents to the original draft order thought that the new council should have even more powers. I make note of their response. The council will have a membership of 20 instead of 14 as originally envisaged. I am particularly pleased that it will have power to appoint committees whose members, apart from two, need not be members of the council. That should be very helpful in involving more people in the work of the council.
I listened as carefully as I could to the Minister's explanation of Article 10(2). It seems to be a tricky article, but the wording is acceptable. What is more important is that it is acceptable to the people in Northern Ireland. With this new machinery in place the department will be in a far stronger position to ensure the preservation and conservation of the countryside in Northern Ireland. We have been told that the order will not involve the employment of additional staff and that it will not lead to any significant increase in public expenditure. The Minister will know that this will be a disappointment for some organisations which have been pressing for additional resources to be committed to this important work.
We are pleased that in Article 10(11) the order honours the undertaking given by the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, to the House in February 1985. It has taken some time to honour the undertaking but here we are at long last when the word "may" has been replaced by the word "shall". We welcome the change. It will now be mandatory for the department to designate that a site is an area of special scientific interest where it is satisfied that it is so and needs to be specially protected. May the department comply with that injunction. Moreover, it is felt that much more effort is required to protect sites of special scientific interest in Northern Ireland. One knows that the department will have heard the plea of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds on this issue. We welcome this order.

587
Conservation is not just about landscape, hills, lakes and coastlines. It is also about people who live in towns and villages in Northern Ireland and their appreciation and enjoyment of the landscape and of the beauty of nature. We wish the chairman and the members of the new council every success in the important work which they are undertaking as trustees for the people of Northern Ireland.
Lord Blease: My Lords, I thank the Minister for outlining the details of this order to the House. I also thank my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies for his usual analytical and very thorough examination of the matters before us. I believe that he has covered most of the points that I would wish to have dealt with. In welcoming and supporting the order perhaps I may use shipbuilders' jargon. The legislation has been a long time on the stocks. The order is a very modest piece of legislative change. Perhaps the Minister can explain why it has taken such a lengthy period to produce such a simple advisory measure.
I wholeheartedly agree with my noble friend that conservation and the protection of the countryside and wildlife are issues of urgent public concern. The essence of the order was discussed at length in the Northern Ireland Assembly some six years ago, and, as the Minister explained, we have had the Balfour Report. From reading both the Assembly debate and the Balfour Report it is clear to me that the order falls far short of the expectations of the various interests and the relevant voluntary working groups that took such a positive and lively part in the Balfour review. However, on a more helpful note, this order is viewed by many as a beginning. I know that many of those with an active interest in nature conservation, wildlife and the future for rural life in the Province are anxious to give every support to the order and to the proposed council.
I have known members of the two existing advisory committees—the Committee for Nature Conservation and the Ulster Countryside Committee. These organisations have done excellent work over the years and should be thanked for their dedication. I wholeheartedly concur with the Minister's remarks about the appointment of Professor Palmer Newbould as chairman designate and Mr. Robert Hanna as deputy chairman. Both are highly respected in Northern Ireland for their great expertise and knowledge in this field.
The future success of the new council will depend not on the detailed legislative measures before us but on the effectiveness of the relationship between the council, the Department of the Environment and the Department of Agriculture. The relationship can be greatly strengthened by making available to the council administrative resources to help it to perform its functions. It is important that suitable numbers of skilled, trained staff are available within the various sectors of the department to implement the agreed proposals and conservation needs identified by the council.
The Minister and my noble friend referred to the staff. The order does not contemplate further measures in that connection. I hope that this will be open to review at some stage. The need for additional staff will require urgent attention if the conservation
588
measures are to go ahead. I could make comparisons with the position in Great Britain. However, at this time of the evening I shall not continue in that vein.
Can the Minister explain in a little more detail a point arising in Part I of the schedule? It says that,
"The Department may appoint a person to be the Secretary to the Council".
In his opening remarks he said that secretarial and other help will be given to the council to carry on its work. I hope that, in co-operation with the council, the department will provide suitable secretarial assistance and facilities. Are we to have an annual report from the council, and will it be made available to both Houses of Parliament? It is important that we should have a review from time to time of what is happening.
The department has issued planning guidelines. The Department of the Environment in Northern Ireland should be praised for preparing guidance to the planning service on nature conservation matters. This guidance will play a helpful role in establishing ground rules for planners and developers. Will the Minister draw to the attention of his honourable friend Mr. Needham the request that the guidance should be publicly and freely available, as happens in Great Britain? With those remarks, I support the order.
Lord Dunleath: My Lords, this sensible rationalisation is to be welcomed but I would respectfully ask the Minister how much attention will be paid to those public spirited, well informed, civilised people who are to sit on the new council. Is the noble Lord aware of the frustration experienced by members of councils such as the Historic Buildings Council. They make recommendations and the department goes ahead and does exactly what it was going to do anyway. How much clout will the new council have?
I can envisage that people under the chairmanship of Professor Newbould, people who have every desire to contribute towards the preservation, conservation and improvement of the countryside and its natural resources, may become frustrated. Will they be listened to and will they be effective in what they say? Will they be able to overview the activities of departments which seem to be able to bypass planning restrictions and controls? I think in particular of the Northern Ireland electricity service which seems to be able to move in and erect poles for power lines wherever it wants, irrespective of the desire of the landowner. The planning office is unable to exercise control over that. Will the new council have some influence in such matters?
Not only areas of outstanding natural beauty and of special scientific interest are valuable. The whole of our countryside in Northern Ireland is valuable and must be preserved. I respectfully suggest that the council should have an input in relation to the entire countryside of Northern Ireland and should be able to influence decisions made with regard to electricity poles, road building and developments of that kind. Having said that, I believe the new council is to be welcomed.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State is to have a single advisory body rather than two. That must make sense. On the other hand, I very much share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath. The advisory council will play an effective part in discharging its responsibilities only if Ministers pay decent regard to its recommendations. I am not asking that every recommendation should be automatically accepted—that is going far too far—but if its views are consistently ignored there would be a substantial danger of a crisis of morale in the new body.
I should like to raise two further points. First, I welcome the fact that the new council will have the right to be legally represented at public inquiries. I think that that is a very important power. Indeed, I welcome that unreservedly. However, I shall be grateful if the Minister can deal for a few moments with a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, regarding the resources available to the council. It is all very well to say that there will be no significant increase in public expenditure, but obviously one wants some guarantee from the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, that the council will have adequate resources in order to carry out its responsibilities. Of course without such resources it clearly will not succeed.
Following on from that particular point, I should like to refer to remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Blease, about Part I of the schedule. He raised the issue of the secretary of the council. I assume that the person appointed will be a member of the Northern Ireland Civil Service, but no doubt the noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong. However, one important consideration is this. Will the new chairman and deputy chairman be consulted before the official is appointed? I think it would be quite wrong to, so to speak, impose an official—however admirable that official might be without the clear approval of the new chairman and deputy chairman of the council. Having said that, I must say that I very much welcome the order and I do so unreservedly.
8 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, for my part, I welcome the nice words which have been said about the order and I also welcome the very close attention which has been paid to it by your Lordships. I reiterate once again that the order is fulfilling an undertaking which I gave four years and a week or so ago in this House.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, to whom I am most grateful for his close attention, mentioned two points so far as concerns Article 10. I think that he would agree that both paragraphs (1) and (2) and the combination of the two items in paragraph 10, deal with consents, as I put it, and use the word "shall" as opposed to the word "may". I believe that that is a major improvement. The noble Lord was also concerned about the council having adequate or more powers. We believe that giving the council the power to appoint such experts as it may want to give it special advice in special circumstances provides it with all the flexibility it could want.
The noble Lord had one particular query about the council concerning additional staff. I wish to stress to him, and to the noble Lords, Lord Blease and Lord
590
Harris of Greenwich, that, while extra staff are not needed because of the creation of the new council per se, the needs of the conservation service are monitored very closely and on a regular basis. I assure the House, and all noble Lords who have spoken, that additional staff have been provided when necessary. I certainly believe and undertake that that will be the process in the future.
The noble Lord, Lord Blease, asked about the secretary of the council and the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, also raised that matter. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Blease, will certainly know—and I hope also that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, will accept—that conservation in Northern Ireland is the responsibility of my department, the Department of Agriculture and, to a much greater extent, the Department of the Environment. The whole world of conservation in Northern Ireland is the concern both of government and of the towns and villages. I dare not give an accurate figure to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, but I think that it is extremely likely that the secretary of the council will be known. I am most confident that the secretary will meet with the approval of both Professor Newbould and Mr. Hanna. However, I shall undertake to bring that point to the attention of my right honourable friend the Minister.
The noble Lord, Lord Blease, asked about available resources. In addition to the close ties which the council will have with the staff of the conservation service, two posts have been created specifically to provide a full-time secretariat for the council. I wish to assure all your Lordships that fully adequate measures and resources will be provided to service the new council.
The noble Lord, Lord Blease, also raised a query as regards the resources needed to carry out the work of the countryside and wildlife branch. The number of senior posts has risen in the period since the Balfour Report was received—a little over four years ago— from five to 10. Moreover, at the more junior level, there has been a net increase of 17 persons. All the scientific staff engaged in the nature and countryside conservation work are suitably qualified. Moreover, they have another immensely valuable quality; namely, huge enthusiasm. Certainly from my observations of everyone involved in the conservation service, both in my own department and elsewhere, the qualifications are very impressive, but the enthusiasm on top of that is even more noteworthy.
The noble Lord, Lord Blease, had a further query about the period of consultation. Many major points were raised during the consultation and I hope that the noble Lord will accept that we felt we should take into account all those points and attempt to have the order before us this evening in the best possible shape.
The noble Lord also asked about the annual report. This will certainly be considered in conjunction with the chairman. I do not think that it will necessarily happen every year, but certainly the report will be taken care of every three years. If the noble Lord, or any other Member of your Lordships' House, wished to ask me for information I am sure

591
that I could provide it either in this place or through other channels.
The noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, quite rightly raised one or two queries about how much attention would be paid to the council. He of all people will know that neither Professor Newbould nor Mr. Robert Hanna are known for being shrinking violets. Indeed, both are frequent visitors not only to my office in the Department of Agriculture—and very welcome visitors on a regular basis—but they are also very well-known and regular visitors to the Department of the Environment.
I stress to the noble Lord that the council will have major input into all aspects of conservation. I shall reply to one specific point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath. Under the Nature Conservation and Amenity Lands (Northern Ireland) Order 1985, the Northern Ireland electricity service, and all similar statutory undertakers are required to take into account the needs of the countryside and nature conservation.
1 was pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, approved of legal representation at public inquiries. That is certainly one important aspect of how we see the new council working. I hope that I have given him a sufficient undertaking as regards the resources that we see as being available for the council to carry out its work. However, we believe that, more than those resources, the flexibility of the human resources will enable it to carry out specific and urgent tasks by appointing persons who are not members of the council to serve and give specialist advice on sub-committees.
I hope that I have covered all the points raised by noble Lords, and I am most grateful for the attention which has been paid to the order. However, if I have missed any points, I shall certainly write to the noble Lords concerned.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Laganside Development (Northern Ireland) Order 1988
8.10 p.m.
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 25th October 1988 be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of the order is twofold: first, to establish a new authority, the Laganside Corporation, to promote and market development opportunities for the riverside area of Belfast known as Laganside; and, secondly, to enable the new corporation to undertake within its designated area physical works, including works to the river, infrastructure provision and environmental improvement schemes, and, more importantly, to pay grants to encourage private sector development.
The proposal is further evidence of the growing confidence in Belfast as an investment opportunity. A combination of public and private sector investment has resulted in a quite remarkable turn around in the city's physical infrastructure, appearance and confidence.
Since 1985, the private sector has invested some £200 million in major retail and office developments
592
in the central area. The proposal seeks to extend that central area by empowering the designation of nearby lands and creating a corporation with the necessary powers to tackle their regeneration. Some £240 million of potential investment has been identified, of which £200 million could come from the private sector.
It is to maximise that exciting potential that the Government propose to establish the Laganside Corporation. The corporation will be similar in many respects to urban development corporations already established in England and Wales. To enable it to fulfil its task of regenerating its area, it will have power to acquire and dispose of land, to offer financial assistance, to enter into agreements to help secure development to make by-laws to control the use of the river and to undertake works to or adjacent to the river. One of its first major tasks will be the construction of a new weir and lock across the River Lagan which will give a constant level of water and help create a more attractive river environment.
Like existing urban development corporations in Great Britain, the Laganside Corporation will not be a permanent body and will be dissolved once it has completed its task of regenerating its area.
We estimate that it will require a budget of approximately £80 million over an assumed 15-year lifetime.
The proposed Laganside land area covers some 350 acres, of which 120 acres, mostly in public ownership, has potential for development. The potential development sites include redundant Belfast Gasworks, Maysfield, Laganbank, Donegall Quay, Clarendon Dock and, most importantly Abercorn Basin baths, rooms and other sites which bear my noble friend's illustrious name. The Abercorn Basin is one of the more important sites in the area. The corporation's boundary will be designated by separate subordinate legislation following the making of the main order. The corporation's area of operation can, if necessary, be extended by order to include any further riverside land which becomes available for development.
Finally, I stress (though I believe it will be clear to anyone who knows Northern Ireland) that the proposals have been generally welcomed locally because of the benefits which will accrue in terms of both urban development and the expected improvement to the Laganside River environment. I therefore commend the order to the House, and I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 25th October 1988 be approved.—(Lord Lyell.)
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, we now arrive at the banks of the brown and polluted River Lagan in Belfast. Again, I should like to thank the Minister for introducing the details of the order. It establishes the Lagan Corporation, which is to be responsible for the economic regeneration of at least 120 acres of semi-derelict land alongside the River Lagan, which I understand reaches into the city centre.
We understand that the Laganside Corporation will be the driving force behind the dockland-style initiative in Belfast; that a substantial part of the funds

593
will be provided by the private sector; and that it is hoped that investment will generate about 2,000 to 3,000 jobs in the course of the next 10 or 15 years. That would be a substantial contribution, though obviously much more is required. That gives us a growth of about 2,000 jobs a year. I mentioned that fact because the development has been described by the Environment Minister for Northern Ireland as the boldest and the most imaginative proposal for the city of Belfast in nearly 300 years. It is gratifying to be given that inspiring message. Our hope must be that the Minister's assessment will prove to be correct, that the jobs prediction will be sustainable and that this development will be the basis for even greater development.
We hope that the development will contribute to the social and economic well-being of the communities outside the corporation's designated area. I agree with the Minister that the order has been generally welcomed in Northern Ireland. He will also know that there are people in west Belfast who believe, rightly or wrongly, that the proposed investment represents the wrong kind of investment, relying as it does so heavily on the marina, leisure-time activities, offices and shops. They say that the development is in the wrong place. I refer especially to the Lower Ormeau Residents' Action Group and to the Community Technical Aid Organisation, which were anxious to petition your Lordships' House on the basis of hybridity. Bearing in mind that there will not be a second corporation of that model in Northern Ireland, it is important that the case made by the objectors in west Belfast is answered. I put it no higher than that.
The corporation, like the UDCs in England and Wales, is not accountable to the people who live and work in the designated areas. To a Social Democrat, that is a central weakness of all urban development corporations. I should like to ask the Minister one or two questions which flow from the corporation's lack of accountability to the people living and working in the designated areas. The corporation will have the power to make by-laws. Will Belfast City Council have an opportunity to comment on the draft by-laws which the corporation is empowered to issue? Will those by-laws require the approval of the department? Will the Minister impress on his honourable friend the need to impress on the corporation the value of adequate consultation with the city council and with organisations which represent the adjoining communities if they are likely to be directly or adversely affected by the exercise of the corporation's powers? We should have thought that the corporation would be sensitive to the impact that the powers may make on the adjoining community.
The Minister referred to the corporation's power to acquire land. Will it have power to acquire land compulsorily or only after agreement? As I understand it, it is not intended that the corporation will be a permanent body: it will be dissolved in about 15 years' time. If we can look ahead 15 years in the circumstances of Northern Ireland, to whom will the responsibilities of the corporation ultimately be transferred? If there is a continuing liability on the part of the corporation, who will undertake that
594
continuing liability upon the dissolution of the corporation? Will it be transferred to the local authority, to the Department of the Environment or to another transferee body?
Having raised those few questions, I have a very strong feeling that the corporation wild brighten the Laganside waterfront. Our hope must be that it will bring benefit to the city of Belfast and the communities beyond the city. It is for those reasons that we welcome the order and wish every success to the corporation and all those who will devote their labour and energies to the partnership between the public and the private sector.
The Duke of Abercorn: My Lords, in welcoming and supporting the long awaited order I wish to declare an interest for since autumn 1987 I have been chairman of Laganside Limited, a government-sponsored company which might be described as an interim vehicle in order for the responsibilities for this ambitious redevelopment on Laganside River to be transferred on a phased and orderly basis from the Department of the Environment to the proposed corporation. I have no doubt whatsoever that the interim period will prove most beneficial for the redevelopment of Laganside.
In this type of major project it is necessary for a person of real vision and energy to take the initial and all-important lead. Belfast is fortunate that Mr. Richard Needham, the Minister responsible for the Northern Ireland Department of the Environment, has undertaken this role with such evident success as well as energy and determination.
From the outset we in Laganside have adopted a policy of quality and, wherever possible, originality. My colleagues in Laganside believe that the people of Belfast deserve nothing but a development of the highest possible quality. Again there will be specific and important flagship developments which we hope will not only raise morale within the community but also attract considerable positive interest from outside Northern Ireland. At the same time--and I wish to make this very clear we are sensitive to the genuine concern of those who feel that a quality redevelopment will bar lower income groups from the undoubted benefits of the scheme. I wish to reassure not only this House but also those who genuinely harbour concern that good design need in no way involve high cost, as has been clearly demonstrated in recent years by the very successful Northern Ireland Housing Executive.
Inner city renewal is primarily an environmental challenge in order to create a change in image which in turn creates the right climate for commercial investment. Therefore I hope that this House will be interested to hear that earlier today in Belfast the Minister, Mr. Richard Needham, announced a comprehensive redevelopment of £20 million within the Laganside area but without a request by the successful developer for an urban development grant. I trust that the House will agree that that bodes well for the future. In fact through improving the all-important infrastructure with the implementation of the new weir by 1991 and continuing feasibility studies, progress is being achieved on all fronts with minimum delay. Since it is essential for a corporation

595
to co-ordinate all the start-up work and to ensure the successful conclusion of redevelopment on either side of the River Lagan, I support the order.
Lord Dunleath: My Lords, we must be grateful to the Minister for having presented this order to us, and also to the noble Duke for his very informative speech. I think that this is a most exciting opportunity for Belfast, perhaps the most exciting during the last century.
I wish to ask whether there is an overall architectural concept for the redevelopment of Laganside. I sincerely hope that it will not be piecemeal, a bit here and a bit there, but that rather in the way that Nash designed Regent Street and Piccadilly Circus a design which has so unfortunately fallen by the wayside since then—there should be a concept for the entire project. The scale should be proportionate to the city and to the river itself.
It is worth reflecting how valuable urban waterways can be. Venice is of course the obvious city which people talk about, but I admire Leningrad and Amsterdam every bit as much. I think that the Lagan in Belfast could be every bit as great an enhancement. I am sure that under the noble Duke's direction that will turn out to be the case. I sincerely hope that the development will not be prejudiced by commercial interests and the erection of 1960s utilitarian type buildings of which we have seen all too many, unfortunately, in recent years. I hope that the opportunity will be taken to transform Belfast from being a city of no great repute in the past to a city which we can all be proud of. I am sure that that is possible and I wish the noble Duke and the Minister every success in the project.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Blease: My Lords, like other noble Lords in this House, I am not a public representative in the elected sense, but the Laganside Corporation project has given rise to more representations and correspondence to me than I have received on any other matter with which I have dealt over almost the last 11 years. I am sure that the Minister, with his experience in his ministerial duties and in Northern Ireland, will agree that the order we have just debated and approved as well as this order embrace very important community factors in the Province. They both deal with matters concerning active community involvement. My noble friend Lord Prys-Davies has already mentioned democratic processes and the nature of community participation in schemes of this nature.
The two orders being discussed this evening involve citizens from all walks of life in Northern Ireland where people are being invited to look for new horizons and work together for the common good and future wellbeing. I feel that if those community factors are nourished, nurtured and encouraged, they should cut across any narrow sectarian divisions which may exist in the Northern Ireland community in particular in this area.
Active community involvement needs to be clearly identified in terms of social initiatives to be taken and
596
the practical working together of public agencies, investors, public and community organisations, voluntary groups and individuals. Those are important factors which must be incorporated in some form of active participation and co-operation for the overall benefit of the community and a better life for all.
A number of aspects of the proposed Laganside development deserve the highest praise. I concur with the remarks made about the Minister. He has given good leadership. I believe that the planners appointed by the DoE—a London firm and a Belfast firm—have produced an excellent study. Their report is one which I think will stand in substance and in principle.
I feel that I can best contribute to the debate by reading from a document sent to me concerning Sailortown, if the Minister is listening. Sailortown is one of the areas decimated in the process of urban renewal in the city of Belfast. I was sent a copy of a seven page letter from the Boyd Partnership to the Department of the Environment on 14th September on behalf of the residents' association in the Pilot Street area. It says:
"The area bounded by Princes Dock Street, Garmoyle Street, Corporation Street, Corporation Square and the river is an area rich in historical and visual resources—Harbour Office, Sinclair Seamens Church, St Joseph's Church and the Clarendon and Ritchie Docks—contained by the new dock entrance, major traffic routes and the river. It has the potential to be a real 'people-place' a jewel in Belfast's new docklands".
That is the heart of the matter. Unless people in that particular area are involved I believe that the project will lose its dynamic.
The document goes on:
"Social/community and recreational facilities in the area are experiencing a re-birth; St Joseph's Church is being refurbished and new community rooms established; Pat's Bar is being radically improved".
That is an important development.
"The general shop on Garmoyle Street has been re-opened and the Dockers Club extended and improved; 'The Flying Angel' missions to seamen building has just been completed".
Since the letter was written the mission has been opened officially by the Princess Royal
The point of the letter is that planning permission has been stifled on the fringes of the development area. The letter states:
"Community housing and the social schemes around the edge of Laganside offer a number of strategic advantages. They can be started quite quickly to provide the right environment for Laganside to develop within; they can help to integrate Laganside with the local community to the benefit of both (avoiding the notorious London Docklands problems); they can avoid the derelict edge to Laganside which will occur if speculators are encouraged to sit on land waiting to see what will be the most lucrative complement to 'Laganside across the road'; they can avoid the 'Laganside shadow' which could blight non-grant-aided areas just ouside the boundary of Laganside".
I believe I have quoted sufficiently from the letter to the Department of the Environment to indicate that there is serious concern about the manner in which the projects on Laganside go forward.
I conclude by asking few questions to clarify the situation. Can the Minister explain just how rigid or flexible is the proposed Laganside designated area plan? Will minor adjustments be allowed to meet the requirements of the Belfast area plan?

597
I believe that the financing of the proposal has to be more explicit. It is not mentioned anywhere in the order, but the Minister has indicated that something like £80 million of public money will be put forward with £280 million expected to he generated from private sources.
Schedule 1, paragraph 15, deals with the appointment of a chief executive and other officers and servants. The explanatory document states that Laganside Corporation, when it becomes operational, requires a staff of some 20 or 30 people. The corporation will rely heavily on the use of private sector consultancy experts to be paid by the corporation. I note and agree the requirements stipulated in the order that the chief executive should be appointed jointly by the DoE and the corporation. Am I correct in assuming that other staff posts will be advertised publicly? That is an important aspect to many people in Northern Ireland.
I should also like to ask the Minister whether I am right in assuming that the annual report which will be laid before the Assembly will also be laid before each House of this United Kingdom Parliament?
Finally, perhaps I may ask the Minister to comment again on the employment which the development corporation plan is to generate. I have heard conflicting figures. I think that the commissioned plan states 2,000 to 3,000 jobs, 80 per cent. of which would be in the service sectors and would be new employment activity. Can he comment on that point?
I support the order. There is an onus on the Laganside Corporation fully to consult the various organisations which are deeply involved in the area and to carry out a very up-front public relations exercise to answer the questions that have been asked by the people in Northern Ireland.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I should like to say just a few words about the order. I welcome it unreservedly. It is altogether admirable that Belfast—still faced with a daunting security problem—will soon have a development corporation doing extremely valuable work. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Blease, I do not regard the London Docklands Development Corporation as having such an unfortunate reputation as he has implied. Having seen the work of the corporation, I very much hope that some of the best we have seen in docklands will be witnessed in Belfast also.
However, there is undoubtedly one major problem in the docklands which may exist in Belfast—the very ugly interface between considerable poverty and affluence. It will certainly be one of the most formidable challenges for the new development corporation to ensure that it deals sensitively with these issues, rather more sensitively, it is only fair to say, than has happened in some parts of docklands.
Turning to the first schedule, the constitution of the corporation, it says in the second section that, of the members who are appointed, one will be appointed after consultation with Belfast City Council. I assume, and no doubt the Minister will tell me if I am right, that the city council will be asked
598
to nominate a representative. I think that is an important consideration. Some of the London local authorities, in my view extremely fool shly, decided not to make recommendations for membership of the Docklands Corporation and they lost a great deal thereby. I very much hope that the city council will be encouraged to make nominations, because undoubtedly the work of the corporation will proceed far more smoothly if it has civilised working relationships with the local authority. I should be grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, could reassure me on that point. However, having said that, I think this is a day for some degree of celebration so far as Northern Ireland is concerned and I welcome the order without any reservation at all.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, we have had a fascinating debate on what is one of the most encouraging orders I have presented to your Lordships in my career serving in Northern Ireland. The tenor of all your Lordships' speeches has been optimistic and I am immensely grateful for that. Your Lordships have raised queries and I hope to be able to answer all of them. If I miss any of the points that have been raised, I shall write to those noble Lords who are concerned. Many of your Lordships will appreciate. certainly the noble Lords, Lord Prys-Davies, Lord Blease and Lord Dunleath, that some of the queries call for rather lengthy answers and therefore it is not unlikely that those Members of your Lordships' House will be receiving replies in writing from me. I hope that the usual channels will make such communications available to those of your Lordships who are interested.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, is quite right to stress that the whole of the Laganside development plan should indeed build on the thriving commercial and business centre of the city. I think it is accepted that it is part of the city's pride and joy and is much admired by everybody, no matter where they live. I agree that West Belfast is the subject of its own development plans and I do not think your Lordships would wish me to touch on that subject tonight, even briefly.
The noble Lord asked me about the by-laws for the corporation. First of all, they require the approval of the Department of the Environment and, secondly, they will be published so that everyone, including the city council, will be able to make representations before the by-laws come into effect.
As regards land acquisition, the corporation can acquire land compulsorily, but I would stress to your Lordships and especially to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, that of the 120 acres concerned, 96 per cent. is already publicly owned by various corporations that I mentioned: the derelict gas works and other corporations. It would not appear that there would be a major problem there hut certainly the balance concerned me. All the indications we have of the land that is not publicly owned show that the owners share the enthusiasm of my noble friend the Duke of Abercorn, who warned me that he would have to slip away, and also the enthusiasm of everybody in Northern Ireland.

599
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, asked what would happen when the corporation was dissolved. In something like 15 years from now, which would perhaps be a reasonable target, the corporation's main role, the regeneration of the city centre, would be finished. Decisions would then need to be taken on the transfer of the property and the structures which are owned by the corporation. More germanely, decisions will have to be taken as to who will control the section of the river between Stranmillis Weir and the harbour limits and the new weir structure. I do not think that should prove to be a major obstacle. I think that the Laganside Corporation would be able to consider that. I do not think that there will be liabilities but I should like to consider this and if there is anything further to add to what I have said I will write to the noble Lord.
The noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, referred to the exciting opportunity for the city of Belfast. He asked about the overall architectural concept. I am advised that the corporation will be guided in its work by a concept plan. I am not an architect but only an accountant; I understand the plan has been prepared for the Department of the Environment by architects—their names are Shepherds, Epstein and Hunter—as well as by town planners, who are a building design partnership. I hope that that will be of some help to the noble Lord and will indicate the quality of the overall plan for the architectural outlook for the whole city.
The noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, also said that he did not wish to see any of the new development reflecting the 1960s. I think that the city centre of Belfast is particularly striking and certainly I would not regard it as ugly. I understand that the plans drawn up by the Laganside Corporation are exciting and innovative in many aspects: they are very much to be welcomed.
I shall have to write to the noble Lord, Lord Blease, about the number of jobs concerned. As regards the rigidity of the area of Laganside, the initial boundary will be that which is contained within the explanatory memorandum, which I hope can be made available to him. 1 believe it is available in the Printed Paper Office and certainly it was circulated during the consultation stage. The boundary will run from the Abercorn Basin downstream right up to Stranmillis Weir upstream. It will include all the points that I referred to in my opening remarks.
As regards the staff posts being publicly advertised, I would say it is possible that a few staff will be seconded from the Department of the Environment. Apart from those, staff posts will be advertised publicly in the usual manner. The post of chief executive has already been advertised and I am sure that my noble friend the Duke of Abercorn would concur.
The annual report will certainly be laid before your Lordships' House and another place. Your Lordships will find that confirmed in Schedule 1, paragraph 19. It will also be laid before the Assembly and will be sent to both Libraries here, to Members of another place who represent constituencies in Northern Ireland and party spokesmen. I shall
600
undertake to see that it is circulated to those of your Lordships who are interested in this aspect.
I feel I have probably omitted one or two questions that were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Blease, but I will write to him about those. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, to whom we are very grateful for his remarks, referred to the docklands development downstream in Greenwich. I am sure that the development in Belfast will be good and of a particularly high standard. The noble Lord asked whether the city council would be appointing a member to the board of the corporation under paragraph 2(2)(b) in the schedule. It is most unlikely that the city council will not appoint one of its expert members who would have a major contribution to make to the board. if I am wrong about that or if there is a problem, I shall certainly correct anything in writing.
I conclude by thanking all noble Lords who have spoken. The words of the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, are most apt: this is an exciting opportunity for Belfast. Many of us believe that it is one of the most exciting developments in the history of Belfast in our lifetime because that is the scale of what can be done, regeneration not only of the city but for the people of Belfast.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Companies Bill [H.L.]
8.50 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 91.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 231DA:
Page 89, line 8, at end insert
("(6) Part 11 of the Companies Act 1985 (a company's management; directors and secretaries; their qualifications, duties and responsibilities) is amended as follows.
(7) Leave out section 286(1)(e).").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 231DA standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Peston. It may be convenient if I speak also to Amendment No. 231DB.
These amendments direct themselves to the position of the company secretary. The company secretary is mentioned in various places in companies legislation, in the Companies Act 1985 and in the Insolvency Acts. There has never been a definition of what a company secretary should do. There has been an earlier debate in your Lordships' Committee about who should sign the accounts of a company. There were a number of your Lordships in Committee who thought that it was not right to accept the Government's proposal that the company secretary should sign those accounts. Be that as it may, it posed the problem of what the company secretary really was. It seemed proper both to me and to the Institute of Chartered Secretaries and Administrators to put forward an amendment which would try to define the duties of a company secretary.
To some extent this has come out of what I might call, without offence, the Guinness affair. Your Lordships will be well aware of what I am talking about. The Guinness affair involved board

601
committees keeping particular information secret from the whole board. It was believed at the time that the company secretary should have had the opportunity to supervise the minutes of those committees and to report them to the full board of directors. The Guinness affair is in the past to the extent that it has happened, but the resolution of that affair is not yet completed. The legacy of that affair and indeed of other problems which have occurred in public companies has led the institute to try to establish a definition of what a company secretary is meant to do.
Amendments Nos. 231 DA and 231DB try to define what the secretary should do. It is in many senses a radical definition of the role of secretary because it asks for a clause in the Companies Act which specifies that the secretary shall be responsible to the directors for the effective administration of the procedures and arrangements for compliance with the law. Therefore, in a sense, the secretary is here being defined as what, under the Financial Services Act, we should call a compliance officer. The amendments ask for the presence of the secretary at any board meeting or any board committee meeting and provide that the secretary shall be entitled to review their minutes and shall prepare the minutes or arrange for their preparation so that the full board can be aware of what any board committee does. They also specify that the directors of a company shall receive at each meeting the minutes of any committee which the secretary has prepared and furthermore and this is perhaps most important—that the secretary shall be removed from office only by a resolution passed at a properly convened meeting of the directors, and shall be entitled to receive notice of that and to be heard.
The position of the secretary is as yet undefined. The Guinness affair has shown that things can go on in companies—and things still go on in companies—of which the secretary is unaware; that there must be a conduit, which the secretary is properly qualified to be, to ensure that the whole board of directors, which is responsible under law for the conduct of a company, is informed of what takes place not only in meetings of the board itself but in committees of the board which may be set up perfectly legitimately by one means or another but which may from time to time take place and resolve matters which the whole board is not aware of.
The amendment seeks to establish in law what is the role of the individual who is not just the secretary of the company but the compliance officer, the chief legal officer of the company. I would support the institute, which put this amendment to me, in thinking that it is time that that should be defined. The Government may disagree with one or other of the various provisions in my amendment but I submit that it is the right moment to define in the Bill the role of the company secretary.
Lord Strathclyde: The Government are opposed to this set of proposals, both for reasons of general principle and also because they consider that the implications of the individual changes are in some cases highly undesirable in themselves.
602
Turning first to the specific issues, I should like to draw the attention of noble Lords to the very restrictive implications of the change relating to the appointment of the secretary. The consequence of this would be that for any plc the directors of a company would not be able to appoint as secretary of that company the person whom they wished to appoint unless that person had the prescribed qualifications. This would hold true not only for plcs but also for any private company in a group containing a plc, no matter how small that company might be. The discretion given to directors under the current law to appoint the best man for the job, regardless of formal qualifications, would be entirely removed.
The present law of course specifies certain qualifications that a company secretary may hold. I do not wish to play down in any way the value of those qualifications or the suitability of people holding them to perform the tasks for which a company secretary is responsible. However, the list at present is not exclusive. The board may appoint as secretary someone whom it regards as suitable even if that person does not hold one of the stated qualifications. The Government do not believe that a valid case has been made for removing that element of discretion.
Equally, we have very considerable misgivings about the provisions relating to the dismissal of secretaries. There is a tried and tested framework of employment protection legislation in this country with safeguards against wrongful dismissal and procedures for obtaining compensation for such dismissal. It would be invidious and unjustified for the secretary of the company to be given exceptional privileges in this regard compared with any other employee.
We also regard as redundant the proposal that directors be given a duty to establish procedures and arrangements to ensure compliance with the law. Directors already have a clearly established duty, both as individuals and in respect of the company, to comply with the law, and they are the people who bear the consequences if they do not comply. We therefore believe that they are the best juLdges of what should be done to ensure compliance. Indeed, it is integral to the role of directors that they exercise their own judgment on such matters. It is not for the law to take such decisions for them or to dictate what the internal administrative arrangements of their companies should be. Again I remind Members of the Committee that we are discussing not merely the imposition of such structures on enormous pies but on every company in the country, regardless of its size, which is part of a group containing a plc.
It follows from those basic objections to this proposal that we are opposed also to the consequential proposal that the secretary be given responsibility for oversight of such procedures and arrangements. This would detract from the directors' own fundamental responsibility.
Turning to the remaining issues, we are of the view that these are also internal procedural matters which should not be regulated by law. The directors can and should decide for themselves how to deal with such

603
issues. That is not to say that they do not reflect good management practice, but we cannot and should not attempt to legislate on management procedures.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, mentioned one case—Guinness—to make his point. Obviously I cannot comment on that case. However, I hope that he will read what I have said. I hope that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
9 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I do not think that the noble Lord has understood the role of the secretary of the company. The secretary of the company is the chief legal officer of the company. He is by extension the person who is meant to ensure that the board of directors of the company comply with their responsibilities. He does so at the moment—I know from personal experience—without having any statutory or constitutional basis or a basis in the articles. The problem is that he is a servant of the company, yet he is trying to ensure that the directors of the company comply with their legal responsibilities. There is the great dilemma. The secretary's role must be defined in some way or another. He is there to make sure that the directors adhere to their responsibilities. It is no good the noble Lord saying that the directors are bound by law to adhere to their responsibilities. We know perfectly well that it does not always happen. If the secretary's job is to do that, he should be given some definition in the statute. We have spent hours defining the role of the auditors. I am spending five minutes trying to define the role of the secretary.
Lord Strathclyde: I shall be brief, but the noble Lord, Lord Williams, commented that I had said that directors of companies were bound by law and that they would not necessarily comply with the law. The noble Lord is suggesting that secretaries are somehow brought under the law. I could say exactly the same to him: that they would not necessarily comply with the law. I therefore do not see how he is improving the position or even proving his point.
He also suggested that the company secretary should prepare minutes of a meeting. I do not wish to imply that this is not a good idea, but to try to cover that in legislation is inappropriate. It is properly a matter for the internal organisation of the company, and any legislation would be virtually impossible to enforce. Furthermore, the compliance officer analogy that the noble Lord used is wrong. The compliance officer is a role in a company in a sector subject to a particular supervisory regime. In the generality of companies the directors themselves are responsible for the internal regulation of the company. Finally, the secretary is not necessarily the chief legal officer of the company. Certain companies have legal directors who do their job perfectly well.
I do not think that the noble Lord is talking pie in the sky. I know that he has had representations from the institute on this matter. Obviously it is concerned for the professional nature of its members. However, the Government do not feel that this is particularly important or relevant. I hope that he will think again.
Lord Williams of Elvel: The Government may think what they like. I have certain experience and I hear from the noble Lord, Lord Hanson, sitting on the Back Benches that he has certain experience of the way in which companies are run. The secretary is the person who draws up the minutes of board meetings and should draw up minutes of committee meetings of the board unless committees are established in a way that is perfectly legal under the law. The secretary is the person who makes sure that those minutes are observed, that matters arising are properly dealt with and that the directors are aware of their reponsibilities. That is the job that secretaries normally perform.
I speak as one who has been a director of many companies over the past 25 years. I admire the way that secretaries generally do this. However, they do so as employees of the company. They therefore have essentially a conflict of interest because they are employees. They do not go to their chairman and say, "By the way, I am terribly sorry but the committee which you set up is not in accordance with section this, that and thus of the Companies Act". It is very difficult for a secretary to do that.
The noble Lord makes a face but the root of the Guinness problem is that a secretary finds great difficulty in going to his chairman or managing director and saying, "I'm terribly sorry. You pay me my salary, but I have to tell you that what you are doing is not in accordance with the companies legislation". This is the problem that the amendment is designed to remedy. If the Government dismiss it as pie in the sky or rubbish, then I am afraid that they have not really understood what the job of a company secretary is and what the problems are that are faced by a company secretary.
I shall not press this to a Division, but I hope that the Government will consider the amendment and the representations of the institute and will perhaps look a bit more seriously at the possibility that there might be a role for the secretary defined in law, in the same way as there is a role for the auditor defined in law.
Lord Boardman: I hope that I shall not be considered to be denigrating company secretaries, but I feel I must say something in response to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, because I do not feel that he really understands the practical position in a corporation. The secretary is a statutory officer of the company. The chain of responsibility lies to the chairman and through the chairman to the board of directors. Anything that crossed that and tried to establish a second tier of authority set up in opposition to the board and the chairman would be wrong.
Secretaries are people for whom I have the highest regard. They have acquired a status and a training which did not exist some years ago. The secretaries and their organisation deserve great credit for what they have done. But let us put them in the right posture; that is, as officers of a company with responsibility to the chairman and through the chairman to the board. That, I believe, is the position which exists today, and it is the right one.
Viscount Caldecote: I fully support what my noble friend said and I take up one point that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, made. When I was the chairman of companies in the past I remember several times a secretary coming to me and saying, "Chairman, I do not think you can do that. You cannot do this or that". There is no problem for the secretary to say that, and if the chairman is sensible he will take wise advice. That is the way it should be done, as my noble friend has said.
Lord Pennock: May I take that further? As an erstwhile chairman I have had a number of secretaries working with me and on many occasions, as the noble Lord has mentioned, these things have happened. The efficiency, the effectiveness and the way in which the secretary performs his tasks is a direct reflection on his calibre and ability. Usually one has secretaries of calibre and ability. To buttress the system with some legislation in this way would not make it more effective.
Lord Carr of Hadley: I must very briefly support my noble friends. I do not believe that I have the reputation, at the moment anyway, of being a "yes" man in support of the views of my noble friends on the Front Bench. I believe most strongly that the Government's view is right in this matter and that the amendment is wrong.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I must immediately apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that I missed his presentation of these amendments. We all recognise where they came from. I was invited to put them down and put my name to them, but I decided I would not and I shall tell the Committee my reasons later.
I recognise that these are amendments proposed by the Institute of Chartered Secretaries and Administrators. One has the greatest respect for secretaries of companies, as the noble Lords, Lord Boardman and Lord Carr, and others have said, but I thought that the amendments that we were being asked to put down carried the position too far in favour of the secretaries. Therefore I could not support them. As the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, said, the amendments seek to introduce a second tier in the government of a company.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I can see the phalanx of company chairmen and managing directors against me. I understand that. I can understand the noble Lords, Lord Boardman, Lord Pennock and Lord Hanson, and the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote—I leave out the noble Lord, Lord Carr, because I believe that he may be on our side on a subsequent amendment—would certainly agree that the secretary is an employee of the company, responsible to the chairman. Any good chairman will have a secretary who will say to him, "Chairman, you cannot do this". But my friends and I have to say that there are companies which do not have chairmen like the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, and the noble Lords, Lord Boardman, Lord Hanson and Lord Pennock. There are occasions when companies require a compliance-type officer. I believe that the
606
secretary is the only person who can fulfil that role. If Guinness had had a secretary holding the powers contained in my amendment, the problems which arose may not have done so.
In the light of the phalanx, the fact that Members present and those in the dining room who are chairmen of companies oppose me, and also in the light of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, which surprised me, 1 beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 231DB not moved.] Clause 91 agreed to.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 231 DC:
After Clause 91, insert the following new clause:
("Composition of Board.
. At the end of Part IX of the Companies Act 1985 (company's management; directors and secretaries; their qualifications, duties and responsibilities) insert the following new section after section 310
"310A. At least one third of the directors of a public company shall be non-executive, and one of these shall be Chairman of the Board." ").
The noble Lord said: I face the phalanx again. However, that which faced me when I supported my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington on the Second Reading of the Bill successfully introduced by the late Sir Brandon Rhys Williams contained more Members of the opposite Benches who spoke against that Bill than are present this evening. I am sure that quality will make up for quantity and that I shall encounter the same power of opposition as that which then faced my noble friend Lord Bruce.
The ultimate accolade for a spokesman of the Opposition is to incur the anathema of the CBI. I am glad to say that I have received that ultimate accolade. Members of the Committee will be aware that the CBI has issued a parliamentary brief stamped in red letters. It states that my amendment is, "A danger to economic health", to quote from its title. My noble friends will also have received it. I am grateful to the CBI for giving me the privilege of being declared a kind of anti-Christ in the debate.
I hope that when Members opposite speak they will put away the speeches that have been written for them by their private secretaries and also those written for them by the CBI. This is not a Second Reading debate. It is a debate in Committee on the role of non-executive directors; whether, as a result of my amendments, the economic health of the nation will be endangered; whether the interests of British industry will be seriously affected; and whether the proposal is against the public interest in general.
My Amendments Nos. 231DC, 231DD and 231 DE are designed to introduce into our legislation not a new element but a best-practise element in public companies as they now exist. As far as I know, many public companies have non-executive directors. Some do not; but most do. As far as I know many companies have non-executive directors as chairman. As far as I know, many public companies have compensation committees which set the

607
emoluments and perquisites of executive directors. As far as I know, a number of companies—I should not like to say "many" because I have made no analysis—have audit committees. The object of these amendments is to try to reflect what I said on Second Reading of the Bill and also what the noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley, said.
I believe that it is time to write into our legislation that there should be non-executive directors on public company boards and I drafted an amendment specifying one third of directors which I believe follows that proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley. I believe, if anything more strongly, that there should be compensation committees because all Members of the Committee will be aware that over the past two or three years the compensation awarded to chief executives, managing directors, chairmen and senior executives of companies has been exaggerated to a certain extent.
I believe that my third amendment on audit committees presages a Community requirement which at the end of the day will be implemented in our legislation and will ensure that the audit committee of non-executive directors will be responsible for making sure that the financial affairs of the company are, within the context of a board of directors, at least vetted by people who are not themselves executives.
Perhaps I may turn to the CBI brief. The CBI brief says that my amendment will introduce inflexibility into the way companies run their affairs and will impair the competitiveness of British industry. It goes on to say that executive directors and the conduct of companies' affairs should not be subject to supervision and that if there is supervision, that strikes at the heart of the principles of UK company law under which all directors, executive and non-executive, have equal responsibility for all decisions made.
It goes on to say that compensation and audit committees as a mandatory requirement is a step towards a two-tier board system. This is perceived by industry as likely to lead to a division of two or more boards. Finally it says that all those matters should be for a company to decide and must so remain.
Nowhere in the CBI brief can I see any indication that the shareholders have the right to say what they think about the matter which I am discussing. Industry is described as it is and I perceive industry to be those people who work on CBI committees and who represent those companies which are large companies and, in many cases, are chief executives and chairmen of those companies. I have nothing against that but I find it very odd that that purports to be representative of industry.
I have a quarrel with the CBI brief over the fact that it is suggested my amendments strike at the heart of the principles of UK company law; of course they do not. We all accept that executive and non-executive directors alike have a responsibility under UK company law, an equal responsibility. Nevertheless, in best practice there is a non-executive element which has a role in balancing the executive element, because, as we know, from time to time the executive element can try to override the interests of
608
shareholders. The CBI claims that that is a matter for a company to decide and must so remain. However, Parliament decides what should be the constitution of companies. That is why the Bill is before this Chamber. If we perceive that there is a mischief, that there is inadequate representation for shareholders and that the interests of shareholders and employees are not being properly represented on boards of directors, it is for Parliament to take the necessary measures.
I believe that this is part of a long running saga. I do not believe that I am going to win the argument this evening. I do not expect to win a Division were I to call one now. However, I have to say to Members opposite that I believe that the whole question of employee ownership, of non-executive directors and how companies are managed—the question of company governance is not one which is yet resolved. I believe that in the 1990s we shall move forward, whether on our own account or in Europe, towards a type of system that my amendments represent.
I look forward to hearing noble Lords opposite either agreeing with me or arguing their case, having thrown away the CBI brief with which they have been supplied. I beg to move.
Lord Carr of Hadley: As the noble Lord mentioned my name perhaps I can be the first to go into bat on this side of the Committee. I have not received the CBI brief. Whether or not that is an oversight I am not sure. I was on the council of the CBI for a good many years and also the chairman of two important committees, or one unit, of the CBI and I have a great regard for that organisation. It does not mean that I share all its views but I have a great regard for the work that it does and the expertise it brings to bear on these matters. I have not had the brief so I have no idea whether I shall be taking its line.
It is true, as the noble Lord said, that in my Second Reading speech on this Bill I expressed, and have long felt strongly, the need for a strong cadre of well qualified and fully independent non-executive directors. The words "fully independent" are at least as important as the word "non-executive". It is also true that I expressed the view—I have a distinguished colleague sitting behind me who I do not expect to agree with this—that the chairman and the chief executive positions should be held by separate people.
I believe that view is important. I have always wished that the position could be brought about without legislation but I have become rather impatient about the lack of complete progress on this matter. Therefore, on Second Reading I went so far as to say that if necessary I would, though with regret, be prepared to see legislation used to bring about these changes. I would accept that with great regret but I cannot accept the wording of the amendments now before us because they seem to omit a number of important points.
The first important point that I should like to make—and it is not clear from the wording of the amendments whether they agree with what I am about to say is that we must maintain the positionthat committees of the board are committees of the

609
board which report to the board and to no one else; and that they in no way short circuit the chairman and the board. For example, the amendment refers to the committee being responsible for "fixing the emoluments". I cannot accept that. The committee should be responsible for recommending but not for fixing.
Lord Williams of Elvel: 1 apologise for my drafting. I accept that it is a committee of the board, that it should recommend to the board and that the board should be responsible. If my drafting in that respect is defective I apologise to the noble Lord. He is right to make that point. If it were possible to do so, I should like to amend my amendment.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Carr of Hadley: Thank you; that is helpful so far as it goes. One of the troubles with legislation that I have not got over yet is how one defines the term "non-executive". Amendment No. 231DC says that one of the non-executive directors,
"shall be Chairman of the Board".
Having been the chairman of a large company which has always laid great emphasis on the fact that its chairman is non-executive, in practice it is very difficult to say where "non-executiveness" ends and "executiveness" begins. I remember being interviewed by the company's staff newspaper on the day I took office. I was asked to explain what I thought my role was. I said that in the end my role is that the buck stops with the chairman. If the buck stops with the chairman he cannot—however non-executive he may wish to be—be too firmly divorced from the use of executive power if the buck is ever to stop with him. I am very nervous of the laying down of the non-executive nature of the chairman as strongly as is proposed. I know that many of my noble friends and others will not agree with me, but I feel that the office of chairman and that of chief executive should be held by two separate people.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord again, but does not the buck stop with the board?
Lord Carr of Hadley: Of course the buck stops with the board and I stand corrected on that. However, when one is talking about the responsibilities of individuals, I believe that in the end there is no individual in the company with whom the buck stops more clearly than with the chairman. He is in a special position as regards stopping bucks if the going gets tough. The other matter is how we are to stress in legislation this need for the cadre of non-executive directors also to be fully independent. They could all be retired executives of the company. I have known that position and I had some hand in changing it. Those people had worked very well in the company but I did not believe such appointments right in principle.
The chairman can always appoint his old pals. If we are considering what matters can go wrong, we shall not stop that by passing this kind of legislation. I have not yet seen how one defines a fully
610
independent nature. One of the ways of doing that is to adopt the practice that many companies now increasingly follow. In their annual reports they give a brief CV about their directors, their backgrounds and their current positions. That provides some information to the shareholders and to the public which is perhaps a better guarantee of their degree of independence and qualification than any other. There is that problem.
There is also the problem that I have already mentioned about the necessity for committees. I am not by any means convinced that either the compensation committee of the board or the audit committee should be compelled in law to consist solely of non-executive directors. Let us consider the work of the compensation committee in practice. I believe that it should be mainly composed—perhaps with one exception—of non-executive directors. How one can make recommendations about the top echelon, other than the chief execuLtive himself, without having the counsel in the closest possible form of the chief executive, I do not know. When one comes to deal with the chief executive's own remuneration it is natural that he departs from the meeting. I believe that to be compelled by law to have a compensation committee which must not include anybody but non-executive directors would be a mistake.
When it comes to audit committees it would be a mistake to compel by law. The non-executive element should be dominant. One purpose of these committees is to draw together and increase the confidence between the executive and non-executive elements. That is one of the matters that is wrong with two-tier boards. With a wholly management board and a wholly non-management board you get this dichotomy. The great merit of the single board in this country is that where it is properly conducted it brings these two elements together. When you have a management committee of the executive then I believe that in practice in this country we get the benefits of the two-tier board system without any of the disadvantages. 1 should be loth—and here I agree with the CBI, irrespective of whether I have read its brief—to push by legislation a movement to two-tier boards on the European model. That would not be for the good of British industry.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am sorry to intervene again. Does the noble Lord agree that a committee of non-executive directors—I am talking about a compensation committee—could have a perfectly friendly relationship with the chief executive of the company and could arbitrate and recommend to the full board without having that executive membership?
Lord Carr of Hadley: I have said all I wish to say at the moment. I am not saying it would be impossible, but why have a separation there? Speaking as a one-time chairman of a large company, if I cannot trust the chief executive to be a full member of a committee with two or three of his board colleagues, albeit non-executive ones, it does not seem to me that the company is in good shape or that the chairman is doing his job.
Lord Grimond: Even at 25 minutes to 10 and even with the Committee so well supplied with experts, it may be a mild advantage to have the view of an amateur in this matter.
I am not a complete amateur in that I have actually been a non-executive director, believe it or not, of the Guardian and of the Manchester Evening News. I wholly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that we should return to this important matter. It is vital to know who will appoint these directors. It is also vital to know what relationship they are to have with the company in general, including the people who work in it. If they are simply to be friends of the full-time directors and from the same background I cannot think that they would do much good. We had one or two non-executive directors with specialised knowledge who were of great service to the paper. We also had what in a sense could be described as the kind of committee the noble Lord has been talking about. It was composed of the trustees of the paper and representatives of the workers and the journalists. It served a useful purpose.
During the great crisis of my time, at which one might think non-executive directors would be peculiarly useful, they were not very useful. We were told that we were rapidly going bankrupt and that we should amalgamate with The Times. This has obvious implications outside the newspaper industry. It might be thought that it is on that wider matter that nonexcutive directors would be so valuable. In point of fact, when this arose they were not in sufficiently close touch with the paper's financial position to be able to overrule the advice of our financial advisers, who said, to put it bluntly, that we were going bankrupt.
The people who saved the Guardian from a fate worse than death—amalgamation with The Times—were not the executive directors, although they, including myself, behaved quite reasonably, but the real Guardian characters who were engaged in its day-to-day administration. They were the people who said, "No, not on your life, we will not amalgamate with The Times". They had sufficient knowledge of and authority within the paper to carry the day and overrule our advisers.
I am not saying for a moment that that is a reason against appointing non-executive directors, but I suggest that this is a difficult matter and that we ought to return to it. I should like further elaboration at a future stage of the Bill on how they are to be appointed and exactly what their functions will be.
Lord Pennock: If we are to present ourselves as a phalanx in a somewhat arrow-headed formation, perhaps I may follow in the discussion. I should like to begin by reassuring the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that I am reading my own notes. That presents a difficulty. Many years ago—more years than I care to think—I presented an essay to my tutor. He scribbled some hieroglyphics on the bottom. I went along to see him and asked, "Could you please decipher the heiroglyphics?" He looked at them for a long time and rather shamefacedly peered over his pince-nez and said, "Yes, what they say is that I can't possibly read your writing". I find myself somewhat in that condition tonight. However, perhaps I may make four brief points.
612
First, legislation is not necessary. The cause of non-executive directors, which is the aim and object of the amendments, is to be encouraged and lauded. Indeed, it is already happening and we are doing very well. As the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, said, there will be few companies today which do not have effective and practising non-executive directors. Moreover, as a member of five boards in that capacity, I can assure the noble Lord that they are working, possibly because of affairs such as the Guinness affair, with increasing authority, respect and expertise.
Secondly, legislation in this field could be counterproductive. If we seek to force this upon companies, especially smaller companies which have not yet seen the light, then I fear that we will simply get the adoption of a number of ill-qualified non-executive directors, lacking in the necessary authority and expertise, recruited in order to fulfil the requirements of the law. I do not think that that is the object of the amendments and I believe that they would fail.
In my view the amendments could be, in the way suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Carr, divisive; they could be divisive by virtue of the suggestion that we have remuneration committees and audit committees which are exclusively the domain of non-executive directors. I think that that would, and could, begin to produce a lack of that balance to which the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, referred and which he praised as something well worth while on a British board.
Finally, as regards the concept of a non-executive chairman, again as a permanent, inflexible requirement on any board, perhaps I may take issue. Like the noble Lord, Lord Carr, I think that in many situations, in companies of increasing complexity, the combination of a chairman who looks outward and considers the impact of the activities of a company on the outside world and a managing director who looks after the shop and runs the business is a very good one. However, there will be many occasions, often of a critical nature-for example, where the running of a company requires a shake-up and an overall change—when there will be a real necessity for a hands-on, effective executive chairman.
Therefore I take issue with the inflexibility which might be produced by such legislation; it would be unreal, impracticable and unproductive. In conclusion I must say that the aim of the amendments is to be praised, but my worry is that we should be going about it in the wrong way.
Lord Boardman: I have sat on a number of boards and been chairman of many boards of various shapes and sizes. One thing which I certainly have learned is that one should not be too hidebound in one's approach to this particular issue. I think that companies' requirements vary. I believe that there are occasions when a very large non-executive content is an advantage. Indeed, in the company which I chair at the moment two-thirds of the directors on a large board are non-executive. However, on other boards with which I have been concerned there has been a small non-executive element. Therefore I believe that we should have considerable flexibility in the matter.

613
We should also bear in mind—the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, may have overlooked the point—that the composition of the board rests with the shareholders. It is the shareholders who appoint or dismiss the directors. If the shareholders feel that they are best protected by having a larger number of non-executive or a larger number of executive directors, the decision is ultimately in their hands. We should not ignore that point.
Perhaps I may follow the point made by my noble friends Lord Pennock and Lord Carr about the definition of a non-executive director. I find that definition extremely difficult. Perhaps I may give an example. I happen to be a chairman of one of the big four clearing banks. One of the other of the big four banks has, as I do, a chief executive. Technically we both call ourselves non-executive chairmen. I am sure that we both say that the hours we put in—the shareholders will no doubt say the amount that we are paid—does not distinguish us from the others. The other two banks have chairmen and chief executives.
As I understand the amendment, it would mean that the two chairmen who do not have chief executives and act in that role would be disqualified from so doing. 1, and the chairman of the other bank who is in the same position as I am, would remain free to continue as non-executive chairmen. That is an area which would not stand close examination.
We must retain flexibility so that companies and shareholders can obtain the composition which best suits the requirements of that company. In most cases with which I have been concerned, I entirely support the need for an audit committee made up of non-executive directors. I support a remuneration committee with a non-executive majority, not a committee made up exclusively of non-executive
614
directors for the reasons given by others. Those are essential components of a large company. We should have flexibility, and at the end of the day it should be left to the company and its shareholders to find the composition which best serves their purpose.
9.45 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: I do not support the amendment. I declare an interest as a non-executive director of one or two small companies. If one has a fixed number of non-executive directors who are compartmentalised their influence will be much less than if they are on the board on their own merit. They will then not be seen to be in conflict with the chief executive. The chief executive is there to be supported and possibly occasionally criticised by the non-executive directors. If they are compartmentalised, which will be the inevitable result of adopting an amendment such as this, then the non-executive directors' influence will be reduced.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I do not wish to interrupt noble Lords who wish to speak, but we have heard a series of speakers who have shared with us their experiences as non-executive chairmen and executive chairmen and non-executive this and that. I do not propose to ask for a government response to the amendment because we want to get on with the Committee stage.
The debate has been interesting. I have been interested to hear how noble Lords opposite justified their personal positions or the positions of their friends. We shall read what has been said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 23 IDD and 231DE not moved.]
The Earl of Onslow The Earl of Onslow moved Amendment No. 231DF:
Page 89, leave out lines 18 to 22 and insert:
("within 42 days after the annual general meeting for the year, whether or not that meeting is the first or only general meeting, or the first or only general meeting of the company in that year.").
The noble Earl said: I am not my noble friend Lord Mottistone. For want of a better word, he nobbled me before he went out to dinner and asked whether I would move the amendment in his place. If I appear not to be completely knowledgeable about the matter, it is because I am moving the amendment solely so that it can be brought before the Committee and does not go by the board.
My brief is simple. It is a CBI brief. It considers that the Government's proposal to regulate the date of the annual return more strictly would greatly reduce the present flexibility that companies have when compiling their annual returns. Annual returns will, if the Bill is implemented as it stands, have to be delivered on a specific date, so imposing an additional deadline on companies. The CBI would prefer the present requirements to be retained so that the existing flexibility will be preserved. That seems reasonably sensible. I have no intention of pressing the amendment. I am merely moving it so that the Members of the Committee have a chance to make their views known. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Onslow for moving the amendment. I was aware that my noble friend Lord Mottistone would not be here.
The Committee may find it helpful if I first explain the structure of the new Section 363 which is inserted into the 1985 Act by this clause and the reasons the Government want to adopt the system for determining and changing the return date for a company's annual return. I shall then explain why I do not believe that the amendment moved by my noble friend would achieve these purposes.
Subsection (I) requires the company to deliver to Companies House successive annual returns made up to a date not later than the company's current return date. There is therefore nothing to prevent a company from preparing and delivering a return made up to a date which is earlier than the company's current return date. That new date then becomes the company's subsequent return date by virtue of subsection (1)(b). The only restriction is that a company cannot leave a gap of more than 12 months between its returns.
This structure was developed following a consultative exercise in 1986 and 1987 on the delivery of annual accounts and returns to the Registrar of Companies. It meets two principal requirements. First, it is clear from the consultation that companies want the flexibility to change the date of their annual return relatively easily, whether, for example, this is to bring the return date of all companies within the group together or to be able to file the annual return and the annual accounts at the same time. I have explained how the new Section 363 gives this flexibility.
616
The second requirement is to ensure that each company has a clearly identifiable return date. That is the latest date to which an annual return can be made. Why is this important when it has not been seen as such up to now? It is important to enable Companies House to introduce what is known as the shuttle document for the annual return. This idea proposed in the consultative document involves Companies House in Cardiff and in Edinburgh sending out to each company in advance of the return date an annual return form already completed with the information provided by the company in the previous return. The company need then only amend its shuttle document as necessary and have it signed and dated by the appropriate officer.
Most consultees, including the CBI, warmly welcome this as offering a significant reduction in the burden of form-filling. There are firm plans to introduce the shuttle system but it will take some time to do so.
My noble friend's amendment does not meet either of these objectives. It is more rigid than the system proposed in the Bill in that it retains the link to the annual general meeting. That link also presents problems for the shuttle document. The provisions for the holding of AGMs require that one is held every calendar year and that no more than 15 months can elapse between consecutive AGMs. The annual return is not therefore due on a particular date and Companies House would find it virtually impossible to know when best to send out the shuttle document. I do not plan to say any more, and 1 hope that my noble friend will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Hanson: I thank the Minister for his explanation of the Government's view. However, I feel that perhaps the Government are not taking into account the difficulty that arises with certain companies in meeting a particular deadline. Have they taken into account, for example, that certain companies have a 13-month year; that is to say, 13 by four weeks in the year? There are variations on this. It is not always possible in this day and age for companies to produce these figures. Most of us try to produce them very quickly indeed. The banks certainly are the best examples there.
It seems to me very reasonable to suggest that the date should be flexible. The whole of this evening has been spent on talking about flexibility, understanding and reasonableness on these matters from both sides of the Committee. I feel that something could be gained by looking at the amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, along those lines. Companies do not wish to delay their accounts. They have to operate in accordance with the present law. I should like to see a little flexibility in the matter. If the Minister would consider that possibility I am sure that the Committee would be grateful for his consideration.
Lord Seebohm: I should like to support those remarks. I was for some time chairman of Barclays Bank DCO. No doubt the noble Lord, Lord Williams

617
of Elvel, will be glad to know that I was executive chairman. The company operated in approximately 40 countries. It was impossible to issue the accounts in 28 days. I think that we closed our books in September and it was very rarely before January that our accounts were completed. Therefore I believe that flexibility in that area is necessary.
Lord Strathclyde: I should like to reply briefly to the noble Lord who has just spoken. I believe that there is a certain amount of misunderstanding of the government proposals. If Members of the Committee who disagree with the Government's view look more closely at our proposals they will see that we have allowed a certain amount of flexibility. We have no desire to create a totally fixed or rigid system. I think that there is sufficient flexibility to get round the problem which my noble friend Lord Hanson mentioned.
The Earl of Onslow: I should like to read what my noble friend has said. To be honest, I understood hardly a word of it. I am sure that that is not what one is supposed to say in your Lordships' House, but honesty does not come amiss. I should like to read what my noble friend has said, and I am sure that my noble friend Lord Mottistone will also do so.
I agree very much with what my noble friend Lord Hanson said about the need for flexibility, and I can see the Government's point of view that flexibility must not be allowed to lapse into laxness. I think that that is what the whole discussion is about. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran moved Amendment No. 231E:
Page 89, line 22, at end insert—
("or,
(c) if the company is a wholly-owned subsidiary of another company, the return date of its holding company.").
The noble Lord said: The amendment concerns the duty to deliver annual returns. I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Hanson, that it is best to be flexible in the matter of return date. However, new Section 363(1) states that the return date is:
"(a) the anniversary of the company's incorporation, or (b) if the company's last return delivered in accordance with this Chapter was made up to a different date, the anniversary of that date".
It seems to me that that does not deal with the case of a large group of companies. My amendment is directed to assisting groups of companies. It provides that if the company is a wholly-owned subsidiary of another company, the return date shall be that of its holding company. That appears to me to be a straightforward and helpful suggestion. It would mean in practice that the company secretary could deliver all the annual returns for all the companies in the group at the same time. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: I have no quarrel with the intention behind the amendment but I do not believe that it is necessary. As I explained in relation to the
618
previous amendment moved by my noble friend, the new Section 363 which Clause 92 inserts into the 1985 Act gives a company considerable flexibility to change the date to which it makes up its annual return. I do not, therefore, see the need for the amendment.
Subsection (1) requires the company to deliver to Companies House successive annual returns made up to a date not later than the company's current return date. There is nothing therefore to prevent a company from preparing and delivering a return made up to a date which is earlier than a company's current return date. That new date then becomes the company's subsequent return date by virtue of subsection (1)(b). All that is needed to align a subsidiary's return date with that of its holding company is for the subsidiary to prepare a return as at the next return date of its holding company. The company cannot of course in the meantime fail in its obligation to prepare and deliver successive returns—it cannot leave a gap of more than 12 months between its returns to await the next return date of its holding company. But apart from that restriction—which simply reflects the general rule that there should be no more than 12 months between the dates to which successive returns are made up—there is complete flexibility.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I am afraid that at this time of night the noble Lord does not seem to have addressed his mind to the point which this amendment is intended to deal with. It is a provision to help groups of companies. I did not understand from his answer that the Minister had dealt with the position that so often arises with groups of companies. As I said, if we had this amendment, where for a company wholly owned as a subsidiary of another company the return date should be that of the holding company, it would solve the difficulties that may arise. I will read what the noble Lord has said and see whether it will be necessary to bring this back again at Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 231F:
Page 90, line 13, at end insert
("(6) The Secretary of State may authorise alterations of a company's return date in such circumstances as he may prescribe by regulation on the payment of a prescribed fee.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this amendment standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Peston. Its purpose is to allow a change in the return date which would be approved by the Secretary of State. We appreciate that the date on which the return is to be made up is to be fixed so that the registrar can easily keep a permanent record of when returns are due, but in our view there are certain specified circumstances when the registrar, acting on behalf of the Secretary of State, could be empowered to authorise changes to the date.
The special circumstances might well be that a company wishes to change its return date to bring it

619
into line with that of an associated undertaking or on a change of accounting reference date under the new Section 225(2) of the Companies Act 1985—and indeed there might be other circumstances which the Secretary of State might feel were appropriate. Therefore it seems to us that this amendment would be a desirable addition to the Bill, and I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: I was initially slightly confused as to the exact purpose of this amendment. The requirement in the new subsection (1) of Section 363 is to deliver successive returns, each of which is made up to a date not later than the company's current return date. 1 cannot really see the need for the power of the Secretary of State proposed by the noble Lord. I have already explained flexibility in replying to an earlier amendment. Perhaps the noble Lord would read what I have said, and I think he will find that what I said earlier on is very relevant to this particular point and therefore the amendment is probably unnecessary.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I will certainly read what the noble Lord said in reply to an earlier amendment and I hope that he will read what I said in support of my amendment. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 232 and 233 not moved.]
Clause 92 agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 234, 234A and 234B had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 234BA.
After Clause 92, insert the following new clause:
("Time of meetings
. In section 370 of the Companies Act 1985 (general provisions as to meetings and votes), at end insert—
("(7) No meeting of a public company shall take place on a Bank Holiday.
(8) No meeting of a public company shall be convened to start

(a) before 10 a.m. or later than 4 p.m. on a Saturday or Sunday;

(b) before 12 noon on any day immediately following a Bank Holiday or after 1 p.m. on any day immediately preceding a Bank Holiday or Bank Holiday weekend;

(c) before 9.30 a.m. or after 6 p.m. on any other day.".").

The noble Lord said: I think I should start by explaining to the Committee that my four amendments have as their objective the protection of small shareholders in general and the promotion of shareholder democracy in particular. The Government never cease to assert that they want to encourage wider share ownership: an admirable objective. But unless the dice start to become a great deal less heavily loaded against the small shareholder the Government are not going to get very far. Unit trust sales, if not totally on the floor, have not recovered at all well from the trauma of the October 1987 crash; and if members of the public were somehow enabled to dispose of their privatisation
620
shareholdings without incurring huge expenses by way of commission, as is the case at the moment, the proportion of shareholders in the population might drop quite dramatically. At the moment they are effectively locked into their privatisation shares because of the costs of disposal.
Big Bang may have been a marvellous thing for institutions but it has been disastrous for the small shareholder. The costs of disposal of a modest holding may now absorb up to 10 per cent. of the gross proceeds, particularly when VAT is taken into account. In contrast, the institutions will get away with well under 1 per cent.
And, although this point involves small investors generally rather than small shareholders, one read with dismay in the Sunday Telegraph of 12th February that insurance companies are now being prevented by law from revealing the high commissions paid by their competitors to agents and to intermediaries, high commissions that are paid inevitably at the expense of their policyholders' profits. This seems to many people to run counter to the entire concept of investor protection. These modest amendments are intended to go some small way towards redressing the balance in favour of the small man or woman.
Perhaps I may defuse criticism in advance by freely conceding that at least two of the amendments are probably defectively drafted and will need improvement at the next stage, assuming that the general principle is agreed to by the Committee.
I should like to start with Amendment 234BA. On the face of it, this is the least necessary of the four. At least 99-8 per cent. of public limited companies treat their shareholders correctly as far as the timing of meetings is concerned; but possibly one in 500 do not, and it is against those that this amendment is aimed. It goes without saying that the rogue companies in question generally have something to hide not only from their shareholders but, just as importantly, from the ever vigilant eye of the city editors of national newspapers. Therefore, characteristically in these cases, meetings of shareholders are called for 4 p.m. on Christmas Eve or 9 a.m. on Boxing Day or 7 p.m. on New Year's Eve. To put an end to this I suggest some modest prohibitions which apply, as the amendment makes clear, to public companies only, because private companies with half a dozen family shareholders may quite validly want to hold their meetings at 7 p.m. on a Sunday evening or some other unusual time.
I have not excluded ordinary Saturdays and Sundays because there are a few public companies which have perfectly sound reasons for wanting to hold their AGMs at a weekend. Typically, they are companies whose operations are based somewhere in the country and whose shareholders live mainly in London or some other conurbation. They therefore hold their meetings at weekends so that the shareholders can travel out to see the company at work, as it were, and possibly have a day in the country as well. Naturally, if meetings are to be held at the weekends the times must be relatively convenient, which is why I suggest that they should not start before 10 a.m. or after 4 p.m.
As far as weekdays are concerned I suggest that there should be no earlier starting time than 9.30 a.m. The reason for this is that I do not see why shareholders living in Basingstoke, Ashford, Rugby or Colchester should have to struggle on to a packed commuter train to arrive in time for a meeting in London. Similarly, the latest starting time should be 6 p.m., which I suggest gives people who work in London a chance to attend an AGM or EGM after they have finished work, if the board of directors thinks that that would uit most of its shareholders.
Bank Holidays and Bank Holiday weekends are different. These are times when people very often go abroad for a long weekend or go to the north of Scotland. Therefore much greater restrictions are justified. Members of the Committee may doubtless have their own ideas: I am not suggesting that the times that I have suggested are necessarily entirely right. The important thing is to find a formula which will deter the small handful of rogues while not in any way impeding or inconveniencing the vast majority of perfectly honest and well-run companies. I beg to move.
Lord Peston: One of the pleasures of this Chamber is that it is educative. I did not have the faintest idea what the amendment was about or what the point was. I am indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, for the clarification. I am amazed to discover that there is a problem here in terms of the 0.2 per cent. of rogue companies. It certainly never occurred to me that companies would hold meetings on Bank Holidays or late at night. If this is a serious problem it ought to be taken up by the Government and some solution put forward. However, I admit that I am absolutely staggered at the problem.
I do not accept one part of the discussion. I do not see why we should become involved with the start time on an ordinary weekday. For those of us who begin work much earlier than 9.30, I have no sympathy for people who have the problem of crowded transport. However, that is another matter.
I shall be interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, will tell us of the Government's view. I am amazed to discover that the problem exists and that it needs a solution.
Lord Strathclyde: The Government are not convinced that present legal arrangements regarding notice for meetings and their conduct are inadequate or should be subject to more detailed regulation. In particular, it should be borne in mind that on occasion there may well be pressing and valid reasons for holding a meeting at a time or on a date which could be proscribed by this amendment. I have in mind, for example, the very tight deadlines which sometimes have to be imposed in connection with takeover proposals. In such situations we believe that the minimum period of notice required for such meetings and the right to appoint a proxy provide adequate safeguards for the shareholder. This amendment would make it necessary for all public companies to take specific powers in their articles of association to provide for the emergency situation.
622
In proposing this amendment the noble Lord spoke of directors having meetings to avoid editors of certain newspapers. I am sure that even with this amendment in place, if they wished to avoid the eagle eye of editors, they would find ways to get round it.
In general, for this type of proposed change to company law there needs to be serious consideration of the position and views of all involved parties and, if change is to be contemplated, it should be on the basis of evidence of real and widespread abuse. The Government do not believe that those criteria have been met on this amendment. I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Morris: The mischief that this amendment could cause is well illustrated by the practice of a company registered in Nottingham which used to hold its annual general meeting at 8.30 in the morning to ensure that the meeting was completed in good time for directors and members of the company to attend the first day of the Trent Bridge Test Match. It would be very sad if those arrangements could not take place. In my view that is the proper way to run a company.
Lord Monson: I am most grateful to all who have spoken. The noble Lord, Lord Morris. has made a valid point, as did the noble Lord, Lord Peston. I did not think that this amendment was perfect: I wished to have the views of other noble Lords.
But I believe that there is a problem. The rogue companies may number less than one in 500. They are not companies which are constantly going through a bad patch and have something to hide. Not every company goes through a bad patch consistently. If they do, they go bust and so do not hold meetings of any kind.
It has been useful to air the subject. I was as surprised as was the noble Lord, Lord Peston, but for a different reason. I referred to the Companies Act 1985 and was amazed to find that there was no restriction of any kind upon the hours at which companies can hold their AGMs or EGMs. This seems odd. I concede that the restrictions ought to be very much narrower. Perhaps there should be restrictions on companies holding meetings between 24th December and 26th December inclusive or something like that. It may or may not be worth returning at the next stage with more modest proposals such as that. However, for the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 234BB:
After Clause 92, insert the following new clause:
("Proxy forms
—. In section 372 of the Companies Act 1985 (proxies), after subsection 3 insert—
"( ) Any notice calling a meeting of a public company which is issued to its members shall be accompanied by a reply-paid form of proxy".").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is aimed at a slightly larger number of companies than the previous amendment was. However, in this case I would not call them rogue companies:

623
"inconsiderate" might be a more appropriate description. When I first took this matter up both inside and outside the House about 12 or 13 years ago it appeared that about 85 per cent. of the top 500 companies in this country automatically supplied reply-paid proxy cards or proxy forms to their shareholders accompanying the annual report or notices of extraordinary general meetings. However, about 15 per cent. did not and this included at least three well known blue chip companies. Now happily, whether as an unlikely consequence of my intervention or for whatever reason, at least 95 per cent. of the top 500 or so companies automatically supply reply-paid proxy cards or proxy forms, but that leaves a few mainly small companies which do not.
Most small shareholders are intelligent enough to know that their vote in practice counts for very little against the vote of the large shareholders or the institutions. When everything is going well perhaps it is sensible not to bother to vote for the re-election of directors or the re-appointment of auditors. But when things are going badly the shareholder ought to be able to register his or her protest against, let us say, a massive ex gratia payment being made to a retiring managing director—who has been responsible for putting the company into the red and halving the dividends while at the same time doubling his salary—without having to queue for 20 minutes or so at the post office to buy a 13p stamp with which to register that protest. This is especially true when the shareholder involved knows full well that his or her vote would mean no more than a gesture: but gestures have their uses. Of course if the shareholder thought that there was any chance of his or her vote tilting the balance, he or she would not mind standing in a post office queue, but that is fairly unlikely.
Some of the smallest public companies do not have business reply facilities. They would therefore be obliged to purchase stamps and to stick them on the proxy forms. That would be an unjustifiable burden. For that reason the Committee may feel that the amendment should apply only to companies with a paid up share capital of, say, more than £1 million. With that proviso I hope that the Committee will support the general principle of the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: At present the law already provides that every notice calling a meeting of a company must contain a statement with reasonable prominence that the member entitled to attend and vote is entitled to appoint a proxy. Active shareholder participation, however, is unlikely to depend on whether the company rather than the shareholder himself or herself meets the cost of the postage stamp. This seems to be entirely a matter, and a fairly minor one at that, for the internal organisation in running the company's affairs and its relationship with its own shareholders. I do not consider that this is a matter for legislation.
Lord Monson: It is very interesting that this Government are giving much the same reply as their predecessors when they were in power. It is funny,
624
because Labour never purported to care much about a shareholding democracy: but this Government do, and what I am proposing facilitates the effective exercise of a shareholding democracy. It is a question not so much of money but of time. I am disappointed in the Government's reply: I do not think they have properly thought through the implications of what I have said. But at this time in the evening I do not intend to go any further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 234BC:
Before Clause 93, insert the following new clause:
("Private company proxies
. In section 372(1) of the Companies Act 1985 (proxies) leave out "in the case of a private company".").
The noble Lord said: I wish to speak to the amendment standing in the names of my noble friends Lord Williams of Elvel and Lady David. The Committee will be aware of the content of Section 372(1) of the Companies Act 1985. In a way it is rather peculiar. The first part of the sentence refers to the entitlement of members of the company to attend and vote or to send proxies. The second part then refers to what the proxy can do. There is the oddity that only in the case of a private company does the proxy have the same right as a member to speak. It makes no sense to us whatever. Although we would not approve, we could understand a rule that the proxy could not speak at any meeting. We could understand a rule that the proxy could speak at all meetings. However, we cannot understand a rule that the proxy can speak at a meeting of a private company but not of another company.
We have tabled the amendment mainly in the hope that the Government will accept it or, alternatively, that they will offer an explanation of why it is wrong. I do not mind which. I am willing to be convinced although I should like to see the amendment accepted. I beg to move.
Baroness Lockwood: I wish to put forward another aspect of the amendment. It is important in the light of the encouragement given to more families to take out investments. The amendment would be particularly important to women because often a family investment is taken out by the husband or in the joint names of husband and wife. In such cases the husband would be regarded as being the principle investor and would have the right to attend meetings of shareholders. Even though the husband might appoint his wife as a proxy she would not have the right to speak under the present law.
A number of women's organisations are conscious of that aspect. In particular the Fawcett Society is campaigning for qualifying women to take up their rights at meetings of companies and alerting them to the problem they face if they are joint shareholders within the family.
Such an amendment could gain the sympathy of the Government. They are continually talking about the importance of encouraging women into business, to qualify for appointments to public boards and so forth. This is part of that process. If more women can be encouraged and be seen to take part in such

625
meetings and in the running of the country's businesses it would encourage and help them in their promotion.
For those reasons I hope that the Government will accept the amendment or come back with their own amendment in order to accommodate the situation.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My noble friend Lady Lockwood has said all that I wish to say on the subject. 1 should like to ask the Minister whether he has read the recommendations of the Jenkins Committee of 1962. I believe that they included similar recommendations to those that we propose but that they have never been implemented. If so, will the noble Lord consider taking away the amendment, read the report and return on Report with government proposals which outline the way they see the issues raised by my noble friends in the light of the recommendations made as long ago as 1962?
Lord Strathclyde: This is a long-standing restriction and one which affects a considerable number of interests. I am referring here not only to those shareholders in public limited companies who may wish from time to time to appoint proxies, but also to the many other shareholders whose interest lies in the smooth running of the meetings of such companies. Such meetings can on occasion attract a considerable number of shareholders who wish to speak. The present provision was introduced in 1947 on the grounds that to allow all proxies also to speak would open the way for what might be described as "professional" proxies whose purpose was simply to delay business by lengthy interventions. Although this restriction may seem a little hard on the proxy and the person he represents, it is important to bear in mind that the proxy does have the right to vote and that is the crucial factor. The private company is treated differently for the simple reason that it is in the private company that shareholders are more likely to be oppressed by majority shareholders.
There are also clear practical difficulties in large public companies where a proxy may well represent thousands of shareholders. It is perfectly feasible for those shareholders to decide in advance how they wish to proxy vote on specific resolutions. The exact wording of the resolution is set out in the material the shareholder receives and he can decide whether his proxy should vote for or against or abstain. But speaking is much more open ended. Even if the general intention is to speak for or against, there will often be a variety of arguments which could be used. There is no reason to suppose that all the shareholders who have appointed a particular proxy would be willing to endorse everything he might say or any particular argument he might advance.
Although it is true that a shareholder who is concerned about this point can appoint his own individual proxy, there is still no way to ensure that he will speak as instructed. It is also important to remember that a shareholder who has strong views to express has the opportunity to attend in person.
Having said that, I was interested in the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood. It was an angle which I had not come across before. I was not
626
Vol. 504aware that this particular problem aroused so much concern in women's groups. However, I am sure that if the noble Baroness says that there is widespread concern, then that is true.
As for the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, I have not read the specific aspect of that report but I shall do so before Report stage. Perhaps I may say in ending this debate that I make no commitment at all that we shall bring forward our own amendment on Report or at any other stage, but we shall consult further to see if anything can be done.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: Perhaps 1 may assist the noble Lord in his reading. If he refers to section 1749, clause 418(g) of the report, that will save him from reading the rest.
Lord Peston: Perhaps I may thank the noble Lord for his response. Of course I accept that people who talk too much can be a pain in the neck in all sorts of deliberations. Nevertheless, I believe that I interpreted his response as sympathetic. We shall be very pleased if the noble Lord consults with Members of the Committee on this side who are interested. If there is a way in which we can move forward, we should very much like to do it jointly and without controversy. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 234BD not moved]
Clause 93 agreed to.
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 234C:
After Clause 93, insert the following new clause:
("Power to acquire shares
. In section 428 of the Companies Act 1985 (power to acquire shares of dissenting minority), in subsection (I) after the words "nine-tenths" there shall be inserted the words ''or, when the transferor company is an investment company as defined m section 266 of this Act, nineteen-twentieths".").
The noble Lord said: This is an important amendment. What is more it is an amendment the drafting of which I should like to believe is flawless, unlike some others.
The Committee will be aware that the original purpose of what are termed investment trusts (which in law are known as investment companies) was to provide a safe vehicle for investors, both large and small, but in particular the small investor who did not have the time or the expertise to monitor his investments on a day-to-day or week-to-week basis and who might for much of the year be serving the country overseas in either a civil or military capacity. Such investors wanted their income and their capital to keep pace with what little inflation there was in those days and, ideally, to do rather better than inflation. That remains the function of investment trusts today—a function which they carry out a great deal more cheaply than unit trusts.
However, in recent years investment trusts have started to become victims of institutional predators who cast covetous eyes on their assets—assets which tend to be undervalued by the market for reasons which have always slightly escaped me although the market is often somewhat illogical. To those few

627
small shareholders simply looking for a quick capital profit, that is reasonably good news, of course, although the profits to be made on unitisation or liquidation are rarely large. However, to the majority of small shareholders who hold investment trust shares for the long term, which is just what the Government want investors to do, this is extremely bad news.
One takeover bid last year resulted in small shareholders having to pay in capital gains tax about 24 per cent. of the unsolicited sum they received from the company which took over the investment trust—all this so that one institution could benefit at the expense of all the small shareholders.
Acceptance of the amendment would not put an insurmountable hurdle in front of predators. But it would make things just that little more difficult for them. They would have to acquire 95 per cent. of the outstanding equity of an investment company before they could compulsorily acquire the rest, as opposed to 90 per cent. in the case of a conventional non-investment company. For ordinary or industrial trading companies it is perhaps sensible to facilitate the compulsory acquisition of minorities when a takeover takes place, as the minority shareholders might otherwise find themselves treated disadvantageously should the takeover company strip the assets or entirely change the nature of the business. Such a safeguard is not necessary where an investment company, with its enormous spread of risk, is taken over.
Acceptance of this amendment would help to protect minority shareholders in investment companies or at least help them to secure better terms from the takeover while at the same time making such takeovers slightly more difficult. Both those developments I am sure the Government must devoutly desire. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: In setting the threshold in the original Section 428 at 90 per cent. of share by value, the intention of the present Bill is to provide a balance between the interests of efficient changes of management control and the interests of shareholders. I am not aware of any criticism that these provisions are not working satisfactorily, notwithstanding what the noble Lord said.
I doubt, however, whether in practice raising the threshold to 95 per cent. for investment trusts would make a great deal of difference. Effective control would still pass at a much lower percentage of shares acquired. The main effect appears to be the creation of a smaller rump of dissentient shareholders.
The Government have no reason to curtail the protection of minorities, nor to discriminate in favour of investment companies; nor to doubt that the law in this area is working effectively. For those reasons we are not inclined to accept the amendment.
Lord Monson: I do not think that the events I have described have been happening long enough for the Government to claim that the law has been operating satisfactorily. Nor do I think that the present law
628
protects the rump of shareholders at all. As I said, small shareholders in some companies taken over fare extremely badly because while institutions have all sorts of tax breaks given by this Government—unjustly in my opinion—the small shareholders are landed with enormous capital gains tax bills as if they had been pure speculators when they are in fact long term investors. In that respect small shareholders come off badly.
I do not think it is good public policy to encourage the break-up of investment trusts. They fulfil a most useful service.
Lord Strathclyde: Perhaps I may briefly intervene. I understand the point that the noble Lord seeks to make. But he is discussing taxation—particularly capital gains tax and this Bill is not the appropriate place for such a debate. I suggest to the noble Lord, who probably has an extremely good case to make on capital gains tax and how it relates to small shareholders, that it would be better to make his case on the Second Reading of a Finance Bill. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will not feel the need to continue.
Lord Monson: As the noble Lord is aware, our powers to comment on the Second Reading of a Finance Bill are highly circumscribed in this House. I was advancing one argument for the amendment. The other argument is that it is not a good thing for the country as a whole that investment trusts should disappear. They fulfil a useful function much more cheaply than unit trusts. I should have thought that one of the objectives of the Government would be to preserve them and not to allow them to be swallowed up by institutions wanting to make a fast buck. However, it is late at night and while reserving my position, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 94 agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 234D:
After Clause 94, insert the following new clause:
("Abolition of doctrine of deemed notice.
. In Part XXIV of the Companies Act 1985 (the registrar of
companies, his functions and offices), after section 711 insert—
"Exclusion of deemed notice.
711A.—(1) A person shall not be taken to have notice of any matter merely because of its being disclosed in any document kept by the registrar of companies (and thus available for inspection) or made available by the company for inspection.
(2) This does not affect the question whether a person is affected by notice of any matter by reason of a failure to make such inquiries as ought reasonably to be made.
(3) In this section 'document' includes any material which contains information.".").
The noble Lord said: This clause abolishes—in so far as it exists the so-called deemed notice rule.That is to say, third parties are not to be deemed to have notice of any matter merely because it is disclosed in any document kept by the Registrar of Companies or is made available by the company for inspection. However, a saving is made that the abolition of this rule is not to affect the question whether a person should be taken as having notice by reason of a failure to make such inquiries as ought reasonably to be made.
In the case of a company's objects clause, our reforms of the ultra vires rule will largely mean that the constructive notice rule is redundant. However, we have followed Dr. Prentice's advice, supplemented by that of Professor Diamond, and propose to abolish it completely. We do not think that the rule that everyone should be taken as having knowledge of a document merely because they could have gone and inspected it on a register has a place in modern commercial life.
I have mentioned Professor Diamond. As the Committee will know, we have supported Professor Diamond's recommendation that in relation to documents kept by the registrar the deemed notice rule should he abolished. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: This brings us back to the constructive notice point in the registration of charges. We have to study what the Government have said and what they have put down. On balance at the moment we have no particular opinion, but I reserve our position on Report.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 234E:
After Clause 92, insert the following new clause:
("Rights of inspection and related matters.
.—(1) In Part XXV of the Companies Act 1985 (miscellaneous and supplementary provisions), after section 723 insert—
"Obligations of company as to inspection of registers, &c.
723A.—(1) The Secretary of State may make provision by regulations as to the obligations of a company which is required by any provision of this Act

(a) to make available for inspection any register, index or document, or

(b) to provide copies of any such register, index or document, or part of it;

and a company which fails to comply with the regulations shall be deemed to have refused inspection or, as the case may be, to have failed to provide a copy.
(2) The regulations may make provision as to the time, duration and manner of inspection, including the circumstances in which and extent to which the copying of information is permitted in the course of inspection.
(3) The regulations may define what may be required of the company as regards the nature, extent and manner of extracting or presenting any information for the purposes of inspection or the provision of copies.
(4) Where there is power to charge a fee, the regulations may make provision as to the amount of the fee and the basis of its calculation.
(5) Nothing in any provision of this Act or in the regulations shall be construed as preventing a company from affording more extensive facilities than are required by the regulations or, where a fee may be charged, from charging a lesser fee than that prescribed or no fee at all.
(6) Regulations under this section shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."
(2) In section 169(5) of the Companies Act 1985 (contract for purchase by company of its own shares), omit the words from ", during business hours" to "for inspection)".
(3) In section 175(6) of the Companies Act 1985 (statutory declaration and auditors' report relating to payment out of capital), in paragraph (b) omit the words from "during business hours" to "period".
(4) In section 191 of the Companies Act 1985 (register of debenture holders)—
630

(a) in subsection (I), omit the words from "(but" to "for inspection)" and for the words from "a fee of 5 pence" to the end substitute "such fee as may be prescribed";

(b) in subsection (2), for the words from "10 pence" to the end substitute "such fee as may be prescribed"; and

(c) in subsection (3), after "on payment" insert "of such fee as may be prescribed" and omit paragraphs (a) and (h).

(5) In section 219 of the Companies Act 1985 (register of interests in shares, &c.)—

(a) in subsection (1), omit the words from "during" to "for inspection)"; and

(b) in subsection (2) for the words from "10 pence" to "required to be copied" substitute "such fee as may be prescribed".

(6) In section 288 of the Companies Act 1985 (register of directors and secretaries), in subsection (3), omit the words from "during" to "for inspection)" and for the words from "5 pence" to the end substitute "such fee as may be prescribed".

(7) In section 318 of the Companies Act 1985 (directors' service contracts), in subsection (7) omit the words from ", during business hours" to "for inspection)".
(8) In section 356 of the Companies Act 1985 (register and index of members' names)

(a) in subsection (1), omit "during business hours" and for "the appropriate charge" substitute "such fee as may be prescribed";

(b) omit subsection (2);

(c) in subsection (3) for "the appropriate charge" substitute "such fee as may be prescribed"; and

(d) omit subsection (4).

(9) In section 383 of the Companies Act 1985 (minutes of proceedings of general meetings)

(a) in subsection (1), omit "during business hours";

(b) omit subsection (2); and

(c) in subsection (3), after "entitled" insert "on payment of such fee as may be prescribed" and omit the words from "at a charge" to the end.

(10) In Part IV of Schedule 13 to the Companies Act 1985 (register of directors' interests)

(a) in paragraph 25, omit the words from "during" to "for inspection)" and for the words from "5 pence" to the end substitute "such fee as may be prescribed"; arid

(b) in paragraph 26(1), for the words from "10 pence" to the end substitute "such fee as may be prescribed".").

The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 258. This new clause gives the Secretary of State the power to make regulations defining the nature of a company's obligations where the Act requires that a register, index or document must be made available for inspection and copying. The most obvious such provision in the 1985 Act is the right to inspect the register of members. Other examples are the right to inspect the register of charges, the right to inspect a contract for the purchase of own shares, and the right to inspect the register of interests in shares or the register of directors and secretaries. There are other similar rights.
A careful balance needs to be struck between the rights of the companies in particular the need not to impose unreasonable burdens on them—and the right of members and others to inspect registers without unreasonable obstruction. We need to consult interested parties further before reaching a final view. It would be a pity to miss the opportunity to take what I believe is a sensible step which will lead to an improvement in existing arrangements. Amendment No. 258 merely makes certain repeals which are consequential on the main change I have outlined. I beg to move.
Clause 95 ["Subsidiary", "holding company" and "wholly-owned subsidiary']:
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendments Nos. 235 and 236:
Page 95, line 38, leave out ("or controls").
Page 95, line 42, leave out ("or controlled").
The noble Lord said: These amendments and most of the other government amendments to this clause are intended to keep the clause in step with corresponding provisions in Clause 19, which the Committee has already considered. This clause defines the term "subsidiary" for non-accounting purposes. Clause 19 defines "subsidiary undertaking" for the accounting provisions in the Act. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 237:
Page 95, line 44, leave out from ("company") to end of line 49.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 238:
Page 96, leave out lines 1 to 10 and insert
("(3) The right to appoint or remove a majority of the board of directors means the right to appoint or remove directors holding a majority of the voting rights at meetings of the board; and for this purpose a company shall be treated as having the right to appoint to a directorship if

(a) a person's appointment to it follows necessarily from his appointment as director of the company, or

(b) the directorship is held by the company itself,

but a right to appoint or remove which is exercisable only with the consent or concurrence of another person shall be left out of account unless no other person has a right to appoint or, as the case may be, remove in relation to that directorship.").
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 239:
Page 96, line 13, leave out from ("only") to first ("the") in line 18 and insert ("when the circumstances have arisen, and for so long as they continue to obtain, and when").
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 239A:
Page 96, line 42, leave out ("a subsidiary") and insert ("any of its subsidiaries, or by a person acting on behalf of the company or any of its subsidiaries").
The noble Lord said: I foreshadowed this amendment when we were considering two amendments to Part I of the Bill, Amendments Nos. 64 and 166, which were tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Williams and Lord Peston, and to which the noble Lord, Lord Williams, spoke. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendments Nos. 240 and 241:
Page 97, line 4, leave out (" "holding company" or "wholly-owned subsidiary" ") and insert ("or "holding company" ").
Page 97, line 7, leave out ("holding company or wholly-owned subsidiary") and insert ("or holding company").
The noble Lord said: These amendments make a minor change. I beg to move.
Clause 95, as amended, agreed to.
The Earl of Onslow The Earl of Onslow moved Amendment No. 242:
After Clause 95, insert the following new clause:
("Table G.
. The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument amend the Companies Act 1985 by the addition of Table G.").
The noble Earl said: I very much regret that I cannot be quite as quick as we have been with the last few amendments. The Government are aware of the object of this exercise. I had a letter today from Francis Maude of the DTI. It says that it would be useful if the debate in Committee brought out views on the demand for partnership companies. Under the present law Tables A to F set out various types of company. I should like the Government to add Table G, which would enable partnership employee-owned companies to be bought readily off the shelf, or rather their articles to come off the shelf.
At the moment it is expensive to set them up. The employees of one company spent £750,000 buying it and then paid another £100,000 to various members of the legal profession to make sure that the articles were correct. That was a waste of £100,000 and it should have been done much more cheaply.
My noble friend's colleague in another place asked me to produce evidence of demand. To a certain extent demand and evidence of it in a situation like this is a case of chicken and egg. In the United States legislation was first introduced in the mid-1970s. There were then practically no employee-shareowned companies. However, there are now 7 million employees in the United States who own their own companies. The National Freight Corporation is obviously a good example of this, as is the John Lewis Partnership. They are examples of highly successful employee-share-owned companies. Surely we should therefore be encouraging the maximum amount of employee participation in the ownership of their companies. Moreover, we should be encouraging the widest possible form of share ownership. I therefore hope that my noble friend will look at the amendment favourably. I beg to move.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I only wish to say that I support the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, on this amendment, and that I also hope the Government will consider it favourably.
Lord Seebohm: I should like to speak to this amendment because it is very similar to one which was tabled in my name about eight years ago. That amendment was welcomed by all sides of the Chamber, especially by the noble Lords, Lord Boyd-Carpenter and Lord Mishcon. It seemed to me that if those two noble Lords agreed, then it was a jolly good amendment. However, the amendment was not accepted. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate said at the time:
"The principles he has explained"—
that is a reference to me—
"and the desires he seeks to achieve are ones that we would seek to facilitate".
In fact, he had about three objections to the amendment. The first was that to put the amendment

633
I had suggested on the face of the Bill would, as it were, freeze it and therefore amendments to the Bill would be very much more difficult.
The second objection was that there was no real evidence at that time of the extent of the demand for this kind of company. However, eight years have passed since then and things have changed a great deal. There is now a general acceptance of the fact that anything which encourages employee shares is a concept at which we should look very carefully.
The third objection, about which the noble and learned Lord felt very seriously at the time, was that there was no law which would enable companies to buy their own shares. That was a quite serious block to the proposals which we put forward at that time. However, that situation has now been put right and today it is perfectly legal to buy your own shares.
I think that Table A, when it was originally introduced, was an enormous help to companies when they were arranging their articles of association, and the same applies in respect of the other tables. I believe that what is proposed will be of great help to companies, especially to private companies which want to hand over their companies to their employees and which find the tangle of the legal procedures through which they have to go extremely difficult. Therefore I believe that the Committee should give very favourable consideration to the amendment.
Lord Vinson: Perhaps I may join with other noble Lords in welcoming this amendment. I do so as chairman of the Industrial Participation Association, which is a body that has been promoting wider ownership for over a hundred years. It seems to me that the amendment is eminently sensible and very much in line with the Government's whole philosophy of widening share ownership and diffusing economic power. I therefore hope that the Minister will give it very serious consideration.
Lord Grimond: I too should like to express my support for the amendment. It emanates, I think, from Job Ownership Limited, of which I was chairman until recently. The device of lists appears to have worked well. That may appear rather curious, but it works well and it saves a great deal of time and trouble in drawing up the relevant articles of association.
If I understand correctly what has been said, one of the objections raised by the Government when a similar clause was tabled for inclusion in a Bill some years ago was that there was no reason to treat what were then called job ownership companies particularly favourably. However, this clause will embrace a wider spectrum of partnerships. I think we are all agreed that an increase in employee partnership leads to efficiency and is to be encouraged on both industrial and social grounds.
As I believe the Government to be favourable to the idea, I should think that as the old objections to previous clauses have now been removed, they will be able to accept the clause or something like it.
Lord Carr of Hadley: Having stayed here for this amendment, at this time of night I shall not argue. I should just like to say how strongly I support the amendment and how bitterly disappointed I should be if the Government were to resist it.
Lord Strathclyde: I have listened to the debate with interest. Over recent years the Government have done a great deal, especially through their privatisation and taxation policies, to foster the greater involvement of employees in their companies. We have noted the development of other concepts, such as the type of partnership company my noble friend's amendment is designed to promote. I should say at this point that the Government are sympathetic in principle to the development of the kinds of organisation to which my noble friend has referred.
In view of the strong support expressed by the Committee for the concept of making provision for a Table G, I am prepared to consider my noble friend's amendment further with a view to bringing forward suitable enabling proposals at a later stage. At present the suggested amendment is defective in that it makes no reference to the subject to be covered by Table G.
The Earl of Onslow: All that one can say to that reply is, yippee. I thank my noble friend, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 242A:
After Clause 95, insert the following new clause:
("Shareholder protection.
Moneys owing to a shareholder of a company shall not, without his prior consent in writing, be retained by the company for its benefit, whether on the ground that the cost of distribution might exceed the value of the sum distributed or otherwise, unless the sum so owing is less than one pound.").
The noble Lord said: This is the last of my shareholders protection amendments for the time being. The Committee will undoubtedly be aware that following a rights issue, or the takeover of a company which involves the issue of cash and/or convertible or non-convertible loan stock in exchange for the equity or part of the equity of an existing shareholder, or following some of the other forms of capital reconstruction, the existing shareholder has frequently received a notification accompanying the offer document or the rights issue allotment letter to the effect that the balance of moneys owing to the shareholder would not be distributed to him but would be retained "for the benefit of the company" should those moneys amount to less than £1.
Latterly the so retained in that arbitrary fashion has crept up to £2 and now to £2.50. Soon no doubt it will rise to £4 or £5. That will not do. To an institution or a large private shareholder £2 or £2.50
is of course chicken-feed—salmonella-infested chicken-feed, what is more—and they do not want to know about it. But to someone with a tiny parcel of shares inherited from an aunt or as a result of some privatisation issue it may represent 1 per cent. or more of his or her capital. If there should be rights

635
issues at intervals of 15 or 18 months—I can think of some well-known companies which have had rights issues at that type of interval—over a short period the shareholder could end up losing 5 per cent. of his capital.
What is so objectionable is that this could become the thin end of the wedge. If capital sums are withheld on the grounds of cost or inconvenience to the company, why not withhold annual reports from the shareholder? After all, annual reports probably cost £2 or more to prepare and distribute. Why not withhold half-yearly net dividend payments of less than £2.50? I occasionally receive net dividend payments of under £2.50 from a small inherited holding which is too expensive to dispose of, and from unit trusts that hold Japanese shares with small dividend yields.
Companies are terrified of institutional predators, and are actively seeking many more small shareholders because of their well-known inertia and because they tend to be easily satisfied and sometimes almost pathetically loyal, and hence resistant to takeover blandishments. In attracting more shareholders for the purpose of self-preservation, companies must be prepared to take the rough with the smooth. If the small shareholder costs rather more to service than the large shareholder, as indeed he does, that is just too bad. He or she should not be cheated of what legally belongs to him or her for the sake of cost saving or convenience. It is an important matter of principle, and I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: The noble Lord has raised a very important point. I wonder whether he would be prepared to withdraw his amendment and wait for the Government's response on Report. I do not think this is a matter which we could debate at this hour in Committee. If he were able to do that, we could have a proper debate on Report.
Lord Monson: If the Government do not wish to reply now I take it from their silence that they are prepared at least to consider what I am saying; otherwise the noble Lord would have leapt to his feet and said that there was nothing in the amendment whatsoever. In view of the helpful suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
mendment, by leave, withdrawn. Schedule 13 agreed to.
Clause 96 agreed to.
Schedule 14 [Minor amendments of the Companies Act 1985]:
[Amendment No. 243 not moved.]
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 243A:
Page 197, line 20, at end insert
("Time limit for holding extraordinary general meeting convenedon members' requisition
. In section 368 of the Companies Act 1985 (extraordinary general meeting on members' requisition), after subsection (7) add—
"(8) The directors are deemed not to have duly convened a meeting if they convene a meeting for a date more than 28 days after the date of the notice convening the meeting.".").
The noble Lord said: This amendment makes a very small improvement to company law. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 243B:
Page 197, line 20, at end insert—
("Protection of company's members against unfair prejudice
. In Part XVII of the Companies Act 1985 (protection of company's members against unfair prejudice)—

(a) in section 459(1) (application by company member), and

(b) in section 460(1)(b) (application by Secretary of State),

for "unfairly prejudicial to the interests of some part of the members" substitute "unfairly prejudicial to the interests of its members generally or of some part of its members".").
The noble Lord said: This amendment confers more protection upon minority shareholders in transactions where the company's affairs are being managed in an unfairly prejudicial manner. It amends a defect. I beg to move.
[Amendment No. 244 not moved.] Schedule 14, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Henley: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
House resumed.
House adjourned at two minutes before eleven o'clock.

  UNEMPLOYED SCHOOL-LEAVERS: TRAINING AND BENEFITS
  UNEMPLOYED SCHOOL-LEAVERS: TRAINING AND BENEFITS
  PENSIONERS AND MEANS-TESTED BENEFITS
  PENSIONERS AND MEANS-TESTED BENEFITS
  LIBYA AND ISRAEL: CHEMICAL AND NUCLEAR WEAPON PRODUCTION CAPABILITY
  LIBYA AND ISRAEL: CHEMICAL AND NUCLEAR WEAPON PRODUCTION CAPABILITY
  CRIMINAL INTELLIGENCE INFORMATION: RELEASE
  CRIMINAL INTELLIGENCE INFORMATION: RELEASE
  BATHING WATER QUALITY SURVEY 1988
  BATHING WATER QUALITY SURVEY 1988