Sitting of 24 January 1989

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS

  BRITISH RAILWAYS (PENALTY FARES) BILL [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time on Thursday 26 January.

  CONTINGENCIES FUND 1987–88
  Ordered,
  That there be laid before the House accounts of the Contingencies Fund, 1987–88, showing the receipts and payments in connection with the Fund in the year ended 31st March 1988, and the distribution of the capital of the Fund at the commencement and close of the year; with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon.—[Mr.
  Norman Lamont.]

Oral Answers to Questions
  HEALTH

    General Practice (Cash Limits)
    Mr. Hayes: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to cash-limit general practice; and if he will make a statement.
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): My objective is to achieve a good quality service for patients and value for money in general practice, as in the rest of the National Health Service. My hon. Friend may wish to await our proposals for the whole of the NHS which will be published shortly.
    Mr. Hayes: As I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend appreciates the importance of general practitioners giving value for money to the patient and the taxpayer, will he take into account that they also act as a helpful safeguard—a safety valve—for a cash-limited hospital sector, which makes it important that there be the absolute minimum of Treasury interference?
    Mr. Clarke: General practice is the key to a great deal of the British Health Service's success. The general practitioner is the first person to whom a patient looks for advice for himself and his family. The general practitioner is the gatekeeper to the rest of the Health Service, deciding on referrals to the most suitable part of the service. I certainly accept the value of general practice and I am sure that our proposals, when published, will underline its crucial role and seek to support general practitioners in carrying it out.
    Ms. Harman: How does the Secretary of State answer patients' justifiable fears that when general practitioners
    854
    are kept to fixed budgets they will limit patient care so as to keep within the budget? Will not doctors give treatment to suit the budget rather than treatment that suits the patient, and what happens if the money runs out?
    Mr. Clarke: At the moment, I am telling people with hypothetical fears about hypothetical proposals that they should wait for our full proposals to be published, together with the supporting arguments, which I am sure will set the hon. Lady's fears at rest.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the low percentage of GDP that we spend on our excellent Health Service is a measure of the value that we receive from general practitioners and their cost-effectiveness in delivering health care? Can he assure me that after the review of the NHS the general practitioners will play a leading role in delivering services to their patients?
    Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend's first point and I shall try to match up to his hopes on the second point. We have a pretty cost-effective service. One reason for that is the fact that general practitioners refer people, thus making the best use of the hospital service. I much prefer our system to that which prevail in other countries, where patients are expected to have individual specialists for whatever complaint they think that they have, and thus go to the part of the service that they judge best, without professional advice.

    Junior Doctors
    Ms. Armstrong: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he collects from district health authorities concerning the contracted hours of work of junior hospital doctors; and from what date such information has been collected.
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. David Mellor): Information has been collected each year since 1976 on the number of contracted hours of duty for each junior hospital doctor in England and Wales. Contracted hours comprise hours of work and hours on call. They fell from an average of 91·3 hours in 1976 to 85·7 hours in 1986.
    Ms. Armstrong: In the light of the grave concerns that junior hospital doctors are expressing about their ability properly to carry out their role, what reassurance can the Minister give to patients that their lives and future are safe in those hands?
    Mr. Mellor: The hours that junior doctors work are determined by the heads of their clinical teams. A key part of the judgment of those who determine those hours is to ensure that the doctor carrying out the duties is capable of so doing. However, the Government are dissatisfied with the situation in which a significant minority of junior hospital doctors are expected to work and to be on call for far too many hours. Last June my predecessor asked each district to set up a working party, consisting largely of doctors, to eradicate any scheduling worse than one in three. We are in the middle of that exercise, but the evidence that we are receiving from the regional health authorities suggests that further reductions are being made as a result of that initiative. The working party is on course to report fully by the end of September.
    Dame Jill Knight: Can my hon. and learned Friend confirm that not all specialties involve long hours for junior doctors in hospitals? Some are not really very bad. Secondly, is he aware that it has been put to me by professional concerns that because doctors' qualifications often depend on the hours worked in certain specialties, if the hours are shortened the time before qualification is likely to be much longer?
    Mr. Mellor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for introducing into the debate certain points that have sometimes been missed. First, although junior doctors' hours are undoubtedly onerous throughout the service, it is a minority who work the hours that we all agree to be excessive. The last study carried out on the average number of hours worked in different specialties revealed that the average hours of work for a junior doctor in psychiatry were 46 hours per week, but in general surgery the figure rose to 67 hours per week, which is obviously very high. As my hon. Friend says, a key part of junior hospital doctors' training takes place on the ward, where they see difficult cases being treated. Plainly, any action taken to reduce the number of hours that junior doctors work must take into account the need for them to gain experience and to be capable when they become consultants—we hope that most will become consultants by their late thirties—of dealing with a wide range of problems.
    Mr. Fearn: Is the Minister aware that nowhere is it laid down that junior doctors must work so many hours continuously? I stress the word "continuously". We know about the average figures, but it is the word "continuous" in which I am interested. Continuous working must detract from performance. Is the Minister taking any steps to stop continuous working?
    Mr. Mellor: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are in the middle of our initiative with a working party, consisting mainly of doctors, in each health district. We must see how that works out. The preliminary indications are that that is causing a reduction in the most onerous shifts in each region. The hon. Gentleman has made an interesting point about the number of hours that a person works, or during which he is on duty continuously, and whether that should be regulated. That is one of the matters that we have in our minds at present.
    Mr. Ward: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the word "average" is a little suspicious because it implies that many people are working a good deal more than the average as well as the fact that others are working a good deal less? Does he agree that many constituents are complaining that some of the doctors have established their case? I hope that he will proceed with all vigour to do something about this. I should like to draw attention to an article in The Evening Standard—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This is Question Time.
    Mr. Mellor: The last time that a major sustained effort was made to reduce the extremely onerous shift patterns of some junior doctors was in 1982 and it resulted in a 30 per cent. reduction in extreme shifts. We hope to achieve a similar result or even an enhanced rate of progress with the present initiative. My hon. Friend should be aware that some of the difficulties are structural. The NHS must offer 24-hour cover in every hospital unit throughout the land.
    856
    Some of the ways in which junior doctors' hours could be cut—by rationalising services in each district on to one site, for example—would lead to equal concern among hon. Members if that meant that smaller hospital units had to be closed.
    Mr. Robin Cook: If the Minister is so dissatisfied with the excessive hours of junior hospital doctors, why do the Government propose to resist tomorrow the Bill introduced in another place to reduce those excessive hours to 72 per week, which many doctors still regard as excessive? How can it be right to limit the hours for which lorry drivers can drive and airline pilots can fly, but wrong to limit the hours during which junior doctors can carry out complex medical treatment? If the hon. and learned Gentleman expects the House to take seriously his commitment to reducing those excessive hours, will he assure the House that he will withdraw the circular that he issued only last November requiring junior doctors to cover for colleagues on sick leave and thus work even longer hours than at present?
    Mr. Mellor: The hon. Gentleman is seriously in error if he thinks it a legitimate criticism of Ministers that we should be taking steps to prevent the expansion of a system whereby the NHS is obliged to pay £900 per week for the services of locum doctors from private agencies. The hon. Gentleman should look for a golden thread of principle to run through his representations. It does not seem to be there in this instance.
    The hon. Gentleman is excessively simplistic for a man of his supposed sophistication if he thinks that a parallel can be drawn between a lorry driver who can pull off a motorway into a lay-by when his hours of duty have expired and the need for the NHS to offer 24-hour cover in every one of its hospital units. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has made it clear that he believes that a work pattern of 72 hours is an acceptable long-term basis, but immediate statutory intervention is far too simplistic to deal with the complex problem.

    NHS Review
    Mr. Allen: To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he anticipates making a statement to the House on the National Health Service review.
    Mr. Macdonald: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received concerning the Government's review of the National Health Service.
    Mr. Squire: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will include the abolition of the regional health authorities in his review of the National Health Service.
    Mr. Blunkett: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if it is his intention to bring forward proposals to remove local authority representatives from district health authorities.
    Mr. Yeo: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received regarding the working of the internal market of the National Health Service.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I shall be publishing a White Paper on Tuesday 31 January. I shall make a statement on that day.
    Mr. Allen: Is the Secretary of State aware that Nottingham district health authority which covers my constituency of Nottingham, North, as well as his own constituency, meets on Thursday? Will that be the last ever meeting at which there is local authority representation on the health authority? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the health authority is underfunded by £8 million, even on his own reckoning? Will he use the review to put that money back into the health authority or will the review be used to fiddle the figures and get rid of the RAWP formula?
    Mr. Clarke: Nottingham health authority, like all the others, is a statutory body and legislation would be required to change its composition or its powers. The hon. Gentleman quoted the figure of £8 million. That is the target for the spending set under the RAWP formula, and one to which the region is much nearer than it has ever been before. The target is not any measure of underfunding—the hon. Gentleman is misusing the figure when he quotes it in that way. It is a target towards which the Government have moved the health authority rapidly.
    There has been a huge growth in the resources going to Nottingham health authority over the past few years, not least because of the Government's consistent policy of sharing resources more fairly across the country and making sure that they are provided more equally than they used to be.
    Mr. Macdonald: Does the Secretary of State appreciate that the National Health Service spends less of its budget on administration and bureaucracy than Marks and Spencer does? Is he committed to maintaining that level of efficiency? If so, will he give a categorical assurance that as a percentage of the National Health Service budget administrative and bureaucratic costs will not increase once the review proposals are implemented?
    Mr. Clarke: I am not responsible for Marks and Spencer, so I cannot make the instant comparison that the hon. Gentleman seeks to make. We need a non-bureaucratic and effective management system. Many of the figures bandied around about administrative costs of the National Health Service are not always what they appear because they tend to include only the staff costs of the health authorities which are, of course, just a small proportion of all the administration that goes on in hospitals and units throughout the country.
    Mr. Squire: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that many people are concerned about the continuing high cost of bureaucracy in the Health Service and that many, if not all, of the powers currently exercised by the regional health authorities could be devolved to the district authorities if not to the hospitals? If the Department of the Environment can negotiate successfully with 400 local authorities, presumably my right hon. and learned Friend's Department can manage with fewer than 200 district authorities.
    Mr. Clarke: What we want is good quality decision-making and the right choice of priorities and that needs clear lines of management responsibility and accountability. We want good, effective management involving all the people in the Health Service and no bureaucratic systems at all. My hon. Friend will have to judge our proposals when he sees them in the White Paper. I agree with his instincts that the best decision-making is
    858
    often taken at the lowest level in large organisations and in this case it should take place as near as possible to the place where the patient has to be treated.
    Mr. Blunkett: Just in case I am accused by The Guardian of reading my question, as I was last Friday, I shall put my notes down on the Bench.
    Will the Secretary of State confirm that, if the press speculation is correct, he believes that elected members at local level interfere politically with the management process? If he believes that, does he agree that that applies at national level and that if he removes elected members who are accountable at local level the first elected member who should be removed from interference with the Health Service is himself?
    Mr. Clarke: I sympathise with what the hon. Gentleman says about reporting in The Guardian. It is because we have such experiences that I do not always answer questions which begin, "If speculations in the press are to be believed". I ask the hon. Gentleman to wait until he has read the White Paper proposals and the arguments in favour of them. I should then be grateful for his contribution and comments on the arguments.
    Mr. Yeo: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the introduction of a more free internal market within the NHS would contribute, first, to a reduction in waiting lists in some areas and secondly, to keeping the costs of treatment down; and, thirdly, would enable those doctors and nurses who are particularly good at providing certain kinds of treatment to offer their skills for the benefit of a larger number of patients?
    Mr. Clarke: There is now widespread interest in the concept of internal markets inside the NHS. The Government's review team has probably taken the work on internal markets and the possibility of turning that idea into a practical reality further than most other groups.
    The point of interest in this subject is exactly as my hon. Friend says. We are seeking methods whereby money can move to those places where it will be used most effectively on behalf of the patients, so that where good quality care is being given by hospitals in response to the demands of GPs and their patients the resources will follow quickly and directly and people will have the incentive to do more.
    Mr. Gill: What assurance can my right hon. and learned Friend give the House that under the terms of the review urgent attention will be paid to the important aspect of putting managers in a position to manage without the unnecessary constraints of bureaucracy?
    Mr. Clarke: That must be an important aim in strengthening the NHS. We want everyone in the Health Service—managers, doctors, nurses and others—to be in a position to take clear, quick decisions in the interests of the patient. At the moment, as we all know, that clear, quick decision-making and choice of priority is not always made and the system is certainly capable of some improvement.
    Mr. Rowlands: If the review is meant to cover the question of contracts for consultants, will it also cover the abuse that appears to be taking place whereby those consultants are recruiting their private patients from long waiting lists, particularly in the hip section and the ear, nose and throat section?
    Mr. Clarke: Waiting lists are shorter than they used to be and we are making progress in bringing down waiting times. The waiting times initiative has already enabled 200,000 extra in-patients and 120,000 extra day cases to be treated. The key is waiting times. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government are determined to put a great deal of effort into getting waiting times down to more acceptable levels in areas and specialties where they are excessive, although in a great deal of the service and in many specialties there are no longer excessive waiting times and I am glad to say that we are making substantial progress.
    Mr. Atkinson: Will my right hon. and learned Friend's White Paper next week also include his response to the Griffiths report on community care and if not, when we can expect that response?
    Mr. Clarke: No, it will not, but we owe the House and Sir Roy Griffiths and his colleagues a response to their report. It is an important subject and I hope to come forward with the Government's conclusions in the not too distant future.
    Mr. Robin Cook: Has not the Secretary of State's White Paper now been so thoroughly leaked that it is already shot full of holes? Now that he has been good enough to give us a date for bringing forward his White Paper, will he tell us when he intends to respond to the Griffiths report which has been gathering dust for almost a year? Does his White Paper say anything about community care for the elderly? Does he recognise that if the only thing that his White Paper offers the elderly is a tax subsidy for private medical care it will be transparent that the only health problems he is worried about are those out of which someone else can make a profit?
    Mr. Clarke: It is certainly true that there has been a great deal of speculation about the White Paper and it was predictable that the hon. Gentleman should denounce each and every proposal that he thinks we shall make. At least the knee-jerk reactions of the Labour party are now out of the way. I hope that we have cleared the ground for a serious discussion when the White Paper appears on 31 January. We shall follow it up with our reactions to and our decisions on the Griffiths proposals on community care as soon as possible.

    Infant Mortality
    Mr. Couchman: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the latest available figure is for the infant mortality rate; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Roger Freeman): The latest available annual figure for the infant mortality rate in England and Wales is for 1987, and is 9·2 deaths per 1,000 live births. That is the lowest figure since records started.
    Mr. Couchman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that encouraging reply, but he will have received reports about the spate of cot deaths reported late last week. Such deaths are always traumatic for the parents. What steps is the Department taking to investigate the strange coincidence of six deaths within a matter of a few hours in a fairly narrow geographical area?
    Mr. Freeman: I agree with my hon. Friend that they are traumatic. There is no easy answer, but over the past eight years infant mortality, which includes cot deaths, has shown a significant improvement, from about 12·8 per 1,000 to 9·2 per 1,000. I assure my hon. Friend that I will pursue an explanation for the unexplained coincidence of a number of cot deaths with the health authorities in Surrey and Hampshire.
    Mr. Frank Field: Given our poor standing in the international league table for infant mortality, why are the Government content to let so many babies die unnecessarily?
    Mr. Freeman: I do not accept the charge or allegation made by the hon. Gentleman. In comparing the record of this country with that of other countries one must bear in mind that we have a higher proportion of lower birth weight babies. That in turn may be due to the fact, as my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State recently pointed out, that we have a higher incidence of teenage mothers who smoke.
    Mrs. Maureen Hicks: I welcome the reduction in the perinatal mortality rates nationally, and certainly in the west midlands, but does my hon. Friend agree that that heightens the responsibility that we must show for pregnant mothers in my constituency, where I regret to say that the figure has increased to an all-time high? May I have an assurance that the Government recognise our problems and will investigate them without further ado?
    Mr. Freeman: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. The Government certainly take this seriously. Since 1980 there has been a threefold increase in the number of intensive care cots available for such cases.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Although I welcome the movement to reduce the figures, can the Minister assure us that the policy of not operating on children with heart problems who have Down's syndrome is not endorsed by the Government? They can have such treatment in other countries.
    Mr. Freeman: The hon. Gentleman asked a detailed question, about which I shall write to him.

    AIDS
    Mr. Marlow: To ask the Secretary of State for Health to what extent AIDS treatment is made available to foreigners.
    Mr. Mellor: Whether free National Health Service hospital treatment for AIDS, or any other condition, is made available is not determined primarily by a patient's nationality but by whether the person is ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Marlow: My hon. Friend will have heard reports last year that almost half the HIV-positive patients in one London hospital came from Dublin. He will also know of allegations that in the Irish Republic AIDS patients are publicly named and forcibly segregated unless they leave. Will my hon. Friend undertake to the House that the British taxpayer is not spending taxpayers' money on an AIDS drain from the Irish Republic and other foreign countries?
    Mr. Mellor: I know of no evidence for any such AIDS drain. Of course, I shall consider any evidence—as against assertion—that my hon. Friend might have.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Given that the problem of AIDS is international and that its resolution can be found only through international co-operation, does the Minister share my concern that the major work undertaken by Dr. Jarrett at Glasgow university may well be threatened by the proposed closure of the veterinary school there? Will his Department therefore join the many people in all parts of the House and from all walks of life who are trying to dissuade the University Grants Committee from following that ridiculous course?
    Mr. Mellor: That was a rather contrived way of introducing a question which is for another Department to consider. If the hon. Lady feels that it is a matter for congratulation—as obviously she does—I add to the congratulations by commending her for her ingenuity, but I cannot add anything in my answer.
    Mr. Alexander: While it may be regrettable that some foreigners are taking advantage of the facilities in Britain, is it not the case that AIDS is a scourge and should be dealt with wherever it is found, especially if it is found in this country?
    Mr. Mellor; I am sure that that is precisely right. In fact, in accordance with international agreements, anybody who wishes to have an AIDS test while in the United Kingdom can have one. Indeed, AIDS knows no national boundaries, nor can it ever be confined within one national area or continent. We must all work together to deal with that scourge. I hope that the House has been encouraged by the compliments paid to us by Dr. Jonathan Mann of the World Health Organisation for our efforts in giving a lead in this matter.

    Staff Regrading
    Mr. leuan Wyn Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the operation of the appeals procedure set up following the regrading of hospital staff.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: These appeals are being dealt with under a long-standing general Whitley council agreement to which the nursing trades unions are a party and which they insisted should apply to the recent regrading exercise. I have asked health authority chairmen to adopt a range of measures aimed at ensuring that the appeals process works quickly and effectively.
    Mr. Jones: Will the Minister tell the House to what extent his Department will make available overtime payments or extra staff, because of the increased workload of managers, regrading officers and union stewards involved in these appeal procedures? If that is his Department's intention, will he make available extra resources to cover that extra work?
    Mr. Clarke: All the staff who, in some places, have to put in a considerable amount of work to handle these appeals are being paid accordingly, and in line with national agreements which we have with them. I accept that in some places the appeals process is putting a considerable extra burden on management and in some places, no doubt, on the union side, too. We understand
    862
    that shop stewards are finding it difficult to keep up with the number of appeals. It is a pity that in many places nurses and midwives have been encouraged to put in appeals, regardless of the merits. I believe that everyone is slightly paying the price for the fact that the system was, I dare say, deliberately overloaded in some places. I know that everyone is trying to ensure that the process is carried out and that cases of individual mistake are corrected as soon as possible.
    Mr. Neil Hamilton: Is it not the case that the vast majority of nurses and midwives are satisfied with the results of the regrading exercise and that a large number of the appeals against the decisions are politically motivated by the National Union of Public Employees and Confederation of Health Service Employees, which is using its own members—gulling and duping them and using them as their political war-horses rather than acting in their best interests by accepting what they have been given?
    Mr. Clarke: I believe that my hon. Friend's assertion is self-evidently true throughout the country. He accurately describes the position of the majority of nurses and midwives. COHSE, NUPE and the Labour party have tried to stir up discontent and have tried to make political capital out of the situation. Unfortunately, by overloading the appeals procedure in some cases, they have been getting in the way of those people who have a genuine query about their grading and wish to have it sorted out by a sensible appeals process.
    Mr. Canavan: Will the Minister make it clear to all health boards that enough additional resources will be made available to meet the results of successful appeals, and that the number of successful appeals will not be predetermined by the amount of money in the kitty?
    Mr. Clarke: The appeals are being determined in line with the guidelines which were set out when we started. They are not in any way determined by any artificial cash limit. I am satisfied that we have funded this generous nurses' and midwives' pay settlement in full. Indeed, we funded it in full using the health authority's own figures. I do not foresee any cash problems arising as a result.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for remedying the anomaly whereby fully qualified nurses when entering midwifery training were actually losing money, thus obviating the number of appeals. Will he now ensure that any charge nurse undertaking additional responsibilities—for example, moving from grade I to grade 2—will receive some salary increase at the same time?
    Mr. Clarke: We certainly were flexible on some of the points which arose in our discussions on the grading structure. One of the changes that we made was to deal with the problem of midwifery students, and I am glad that my hon. Friend is satisfied with the result.
    Nurses will steadily pursue their careers by moving to posts that carry heavier responsibilities. For the first time we have a career structure and a grading system for nurses which assure that, as a nurse acquires more skill and responsibility, money is targeted upon the post that he or she then occupies. I believe that most nurses look forward to the opportunities with which they are now presented.
    Mr. Allen McKay: Does the Minister realise that it was disastrous to undertake the regrading exercise at the present time? Is he aware that a lot of nurses are dissatisfied and will be leaving the Health Service? Can he guarantee that payment will be retrospective? As the reviews will take years rather than months, will interest payments be paid on top of the pay awarded?
    Mr. Clarke: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman thinks that it was wrong to regrade the nursing profession and to provide the career structure that I have just described. The hon. Gentleman is criticising not only myself, the Government and the management of the NHS, but all the trade unions which were party to the regrading exercise and which, at first, welcomed the career structure that it created.
    We are trying to deal with the appeals as rapidly as possible and if it turns out that any nurse was incorrectly graded when the exercise was first carried out, that post will be graded properly and any back pay due from last April will be paid to the nurse in question.

    Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital
    Mr. Dykes: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has received any further representations from relevant interested groups and individuals on the proposed closure of the royal national orthopaedic hospital's accident and emergency unit at Stanmore, Middlesex, following the Minister of State's letter to the hon. Member for Harrow, East on 22 December 1988.
    Mr. Mellor: As at 18 January 1988 we had received five further representations.
    Mr. Dykes: After the sad and regrettable decision to close the unit, especially as it is so close to the Ml, I hope that, in future, the Minister of State will not underestimate the vital importance of keeping the rest of the hospital on its present site, if at all possible.
    Mr. Mellor: Obviously, I am sorry that my hon. Friend has reservations about the closure of the accident and emergency unit. He will be aware of the pressure that we are under as a result of the report from the Royal College of Surgeons and others, to ensure that accident and emergency units throughout the country are capable of dealing with the full range of emergencies that might come to them. That means centralising on a fewer number of sites but, in fulfilling that need, I regret it if it has had the effect of damaging my hon. Friend's constituents' confidence in the service.
    I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that we are absolutely committed to the continuation of the royal national orthopaedic hospital, but whether it remains on its present site is still to be determined.

    Operating Theatres
    Mr. Cohn Shepherd: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to establish the costs of operating theatre procedures.
    Mr. Freeman: Information on average costs per operating hour is being provided by health authorities for the first time for the 1987–88 financial year and this will be
    864
    published this summer. Our preliminary view is that such costs will be lower than the £450 per hour estimated by the National Audit Office.
    Mr. Shepherd: Does my hon. Friend agree that that information is vital to enable managements to plan their operating theatre utilisation? Does he also agree that if that information was coupled with an enhanced roll-over provision for finance from one year to the next, there could be substantially better theatre planning, which would mean a reduction in waiting lists and in the costs of operations? I urge my hon. Friend to press for an improvement in the roll-over provision.
    Mr. Freeman: I can hold out no hope to my hon. Friend that we will change the percentage—the ability to carry forward up to half a per cent. of the combined revenue and capital limits. I agree that there is scope for improved planning. We need better financial and management information systems and clinicians in the Health Service need to become more involved in the management of resources, including operating theatre usage.
    Mr. Alton: When considering the costs involved in carrying out kidney transplants, will the Minister consider the allegation that, in the private sector, two Turkish men were paid £2,000 to provide their kidneys for transplant? What action is his Department taking to outlaw such procedures?
    Mr. Freeman: The Government have made it plain that commercial trade in vital organs is absolutely abhorrent and unacceptable. I have asked Bloomsbury health authority to investigate the allegations.
    Mr. Soames: My hon. Friend will have to provide information not only about costs, but waiting lists. Will he ensure that information about the excellent practices of efficient theatres is disseminated throughout the country so that those authorities that lag behind can bring themselves up to scratch?
    Mr. Freeman: Yes, we shall ensure that that is done. The waiting list initiative, which will be worth ?31 million in the next financial year, is likely to result in increased treatment for more than 100,000 in-patients.
    Mr. Rooker: When the figures are available, will the Minister ensure that there is a health warning attached to them explaining how they are affected by operating sessions being stood down and patients being telephoned on the morning that they are due to go into hospital and being told that they cannot have their operations? By how much will such incidents affect the figures that the Minister will produce?
    Mr. Freeman: About 10 per cent. of all operating theatre sessions are planned and then cancelled for a variety of reasons. The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the fact that there could be better planning by health authorities, surgeons and consultants in the use of operating theatres.
    Mr. Conway: Is my hon. Friend aware that the operating theatre costs at the eye, ear and throat hospital in Shrewsbury would be greatly increased if the pre-med and recovery areas were not situated in corridors? It is time that the regional health authority was sacked or made to act on this disgraceful matter.
    Mr. Freeman: That is a matter for the local health authority concerned. However I assure my hon. Friend that I will pursue his point.
    Mr. Galbraith: I welcome the Minister to the Dispatch Box for the first time at Health questions. Does he agree that the most important factor of an operation is not its cost but its outcome as to mortality or morbidity? In the light of the review, what are the Government's plans for collecting information on mortality and morbidity and what considerations are they giving to making that information available, and in particular to whom?
    Mr. Freeman: The hon. Gentleman must await the National Health Service review for some detailed proposals. However, it is certainly the Department's policy to collect up-to-date statistics and I shall ensure that they are more regularly available to the House.

    Hospital Waiting Lists
    Mr. Patnick: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the in-patient waiting list figures were for the Trent regional health authority in March 1988, 1987 and 1979.
    Mr. Freeman: There were 54,900 patients on the in-patient waiting list in Trent region at March 1988. That is a 5 per cent. reduction over March 1987 when the list stood at 57,700, and 25 per cent. lower than the 72,900 patients on the list at March 1979.
    Mr. Patnick: Is it not a fact that Trent regional hospital has treated more out-patients and that with extra funding even more patients will be treated? Does that not give the lie to the scare stories put about by the Opposition?
    Mr. Freeman: Between 1978 and 1986 the number of in-patients treated in the National Health Service increased by 19 per cent., and in my hon. Friend's own region the increase was even more impressive as there was a 28 per cent. increase in the rate of in-patient treatment.
    Mr. Janner: Is the Minister aware that the waiting lists in the Trent region remain disgracefully high? My constituent, Mr. George Brown, aged 82, who is tortured with pain so that he can scarcely sleep, has been told that he can see an orthopaedic surgeon in October, 10 months after his doctor recommended that he should see a surgeon with a view to treatment and surgery? Will the Minister please take steps to deal with that case and with other similar patients waiting in agony in my constituency.
    Mr. Freeman: The hon. and learned Gentleman must take the matter up with his local health authority, but am sure that he will welcome the initiatives that the Government have taken over the past few years and for the forthcoming year. There has been a waiting list initiative of £25 million per annum in the past, and £31 million is being provided next year to treat more than 100,000 in-patients more quickly than otherwise would have been possible.
    Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that the resolution of the waiting list problem in Trent and in Nottingham owes as much to the RAWP formula as it does to the special initiatives that I know
    866
    my hon. Friend has taken. Therefore can I say yes please to his special initiatives and to the continuation of the RAWP formula which will help my district and my area?
    Mr. Freeman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He will welcome the fact that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has recently announced increases in allocations to health authority regions of about 2·5 per cent. per annum in real terms for next year. These are additional resources which will go a long way to help not only with waiting lists but with improvement in patient care.

    Scientists and Technicians
    Mr. Andrew Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals he has to improve retention and recruitment of scientists and technicians in the National Health Service.
    Mr. Mellor: I understand that the management sides of the appropriate Whitley councils are investigating the nature and scale of reported problems. It is for the management and staff sides of the Whitley councils to consider what, if any, further action should be taken.
    Mr. Smith: Is that reply not hopelessly complacent in view of the acute shortage of scientists in Oxford and elsewhere in the National Health Service, the vital nature of the work that they do and the fact that they are paid 40 per cent. less on average than scientists outside the service' Is it not scandalous that even now the very management side to which the Minister refers is threatening to withdraw the miserable 5·5 per cent. pay offer that was made for the as yet unresolved negotiations which were supposed to be settled last April? What is the Minister doing through the management side to tackle this matter, which puts patient care at risk?
    Mr. Mellor: It is extraordinary that the hon. Gentleman commends the Whitley council system—the opposition on the council prevents any reform of the system—but then invites Ministers to move in and push the system aside. I am bound to point out to the hon. Gentleman that, whatever he may say about this, that, or the other problem affecting scientists in the National Health Service, the number of scientists in the service has gone up by 57 per cent. since 1979.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 24 January.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Has the Prime Minister noted the comments of her hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) who last week said that MI5, after the general election of 1979, fingered six Conservative Members of Parliament as unsuitable for office? Will the Prime Minister confirm that she received a report on each

    867
    of those Members? Will she also confirm that each of those Members has been blacklisted for ministerial appointment? Does she not believe that all those Members have a right to know what charges were made against them so that they can clear their names?
    The Prime Minister: I noted the comments of my hon. Friend. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Workington will not be surprised at my reply—indeed he could almost have dictated it as he studied his question. I follow the rules of my predecessors: I do not comment on security matters.
    Q2. Mr. Page: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 24 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Page: As my right hon. Friend is in overall charge of policy and in charge of the policy review committees, can she assure the House that the members of those committees, and particularly the Ministers, enthusiastically and regularly attend those meetings? I ask because in the latest edition of the Tribune it is said that due to lack of interest, due to lack of attendance, seven national policy committees have been cancelled by the Labour party.
    The Prime Minister rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I trust that the question was about Ministers, not about the Opposition.
    The Prime Minister: As regards my responsibilities, I confirm that my colleagues, right hon. and hon., regularly and punctually attend all committees, and are skilful, forceful and effective in their comments and in the implementation of policy following such meetings.
    Mr. Wigley: Is the Prime Minister aware that, recently, thousands of pensioners who last year received a mediocre—a small—increase, over and above their basic pension entitlement, which was due to a heating allowance or some such payment, have been told not to expect any increase in their pension from next April? How would the Prime Minister and her husband like to live on a pension of £55 a week with no increase?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman knows that all the special sums allocated to heating allowances for particular people were lumped together and distributed among those entitled to income support so that they received it regularly. That was done with the approval of the House. The hon. Gentleman also knows that the upratings for pensions in the future have been announced. Unlike the Labour party's figures, they follow precisely the RPI figure, and there was no fiddling with the RPI figure.
    Mr. Favell: Is the Prime Minister aware that many people are deeply opposed to the Griffiths proposals that town halls should devise care packages for the elderly and handicapped? What about the family, the family doctor and the district nurse?
    The Prime Minister: We shall consider precisely what to propose to the House on the Griffiths report but that will not be before the National Health Service review has been completed.
    Mr. Kinnock: Will the Prime Minister confirm that her Government take a bigger share in taxation from the incomes of the majority of families and earners than any Government in history?
    The Prime Minister: The overall burden of taxation is falling. It is true that there was a time under the previous Labour Government when the burden was less than it is now. That was because they borrowed so much—[Interruption.] Indeed, borrowing went up to 9 per cent. of GDP because they had neither the skill nor the guts to cover their expenditure by taxation. They left the debts for us to repay.
    Mr. Kinnock: Why cannot the Prime Minister give an honest answer to an honest question? Does the Prime Minister recall saying that the share of the nation's income taken by the state must be steadily reduced? Can she tell us why, under her Government, it has been increased to a higher level than under any previous Government, Conservative or Labour?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman's Government borrowing requirement rose to 9 per cent. of GDP which—in terms of today's money—meant that they were borrowing the equivalent of £40 billion a year. We are now having to tax to repay the debt that they created. They always leave debts saddled around the necks of their children.
    Sir John Stokes: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will know that I am not one of those who constantly asks for more spending of taxpayers' money. However, did she hear the recent remarks of my noble Friend Lord Blake about the dire straits of our historical records and great manuscripts that are in danger of being permanently damaged unless more funds are made available to look after them properly?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend will know that this Government set up the English Heritage foundation and gave it substantial finance to ensure that there was sufficient money available to keep those objects that are particularly valuable. There are also other Government agencies that protect and look after our heritage. I am sure that Lord Charteris will look into these matters.
    Mr. Ronnie Campbell: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 24 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Campbell: What advice does the Prime Minister have for young families and couples who face mortgage increases of £50 and £60 a month? Has she the same advice as the Chancellor, who said that people in those categories must make cuts elsewhere?
    The Prime Minister: Quite obviously, those people—particularly those who very recently purchased houses and, therefore, did so at the top end of the market—are having particular difficulty with mortgage increases. That does not alter the fact that we must put the reduction of inflation at the top of the list, and we have to do that through interest rates. Those who purchased their houses before that time, have enjoyed a considerable increase in

    869
    capital. Indeed, as the hon. Gentleman knows, often those who lend money to others to purchase houses do not do as well as those who buy the houses.
    Mr. Jack: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 24 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Jack: Will my right hon. Friend accept my congratulations for the support which she is giving to the world ozone conference? Does she agree that the destruction each year of an area equivalent to Great Britain of Brazilian rain forest highlights another major threat to the world? Will she outline to the House the measures that the Government intend to take to alleviate the problem?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend knows that the second part of the world ozone conference is being held in London on 7 March when we hope to cut the emissions of chlorofluorocarbons by 85 per cent. from what they were. We have already reached our target of cutting them by 50 per cent. We think that we should go further. The other matter which he mentioned has more to do with carbon dioxide, or the greenhouse effect. The cutting down of tropical forests on the present scale is having an adverse effect. The overseas aid Department, under my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Patten), takes into account the willingness of countries to keep their tropical forests when giving aid to them.
    Dr. Cunningham: Since when?
    The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman had been listening to what I said before—of course, he was not here—he would have known that this is not a new policy. It indicates the great significance which we attach to the keeping of tropical rain forests.
    Mr. Sean Hughes: Does the Prime Minister share the view expressed earlier by the Secretary of State for Defence that no responsible British Government should rule out the possibility of having to fight, and presumably win, a conventional war in Europe?
    The Prime Minister: I am not quite certain what my right hon. Friend said but we both hold precisely the same view—[Laughter.] That could have been better put, could it not? I am not certain whether the hon. Gentleman's report of what my right hon. Friend said is correct; indeed, I doubt it. Let me make it clear; conventional weapons, however strong, have not been enough to prevent war from starting. That is the lesson of history. Conventional weapons alone have not been enough to prevent the start of world war. We believe strongly that it is vital to have a nuclear deterrent. It is that which has kept the peace in the last 40 years.
    Mr. Andrew Mitchell: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 24 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Mitchell: Given that health care has been, is and will continue to be provided on the basis of need and not on the basis of ability to pay, does my right hon. Friend agree that the Pavlovian reaction of distress from the
    870
    Opposition Benches is completely synthetic in view of the fact that the review is designed to inject added efficiency to ensure that resources for patient care go further?
    The Prime Minister: Certainly the Health Service will continue to be available as now on the basis of those who need health care getting it at the time when they need it. One point of the review is to get better value for money from the enormous extra resources in money, nurses and doctors which are being put into the service. The National Health Service is steadily increasing its efficiency. We now treat 1 million more in-patients and 2·5 million more out-patients a year than 10 years ago. That is a considerable achievement.
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 24 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Banks: Did the Prime Minister see "Panorama" last night, which showed the Salvation Army handing out stale bread on council estates in Scotland? When will the Prime Minister come out from that bullet-proof Daimler of hers and start visiting some social security offices and council estates up and down the country to see the stale bread society that she is creating for millions of people?
    The Prime Minister: Nonsense. The hon. Gentleman is quite aware, and dislikes it intensely, that the level of spending on social security exceeds anything that was available under his Government. I must say to the hon. Gentleman that I thought his comment was a great insult to the Salvation Army.
    Mr. Wilshire: Following the inauguration of a new American President last Friday, will my right hon. Friend find the time to convey to former President Reagan the thanks of the House for his great contribution to world peace and to NATO? Will she also find the time to express to President Bush the best wishes of the House for his terrn of office?
    The Prime Minister: Immediately before he left office I expressed our great thanks, and our appreciation to President Reagan for all that he has done for sure defence and for extending freedom the world over. On the day of his inauguration, I expressed our congratulations and best wishes to President Bush, and assured him that we would continue to be a true and faithful ally in defence of freedom.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 24 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Clarke: If the economy is as strong as the Prime Minister has been saying, why do sections 1, 2, 3, 7 and 11 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 remain unimplemented, despite being given Royal Assent more than two and a half years ago?
    The Prime Minister: I had the impression that two sections had come into effect and that we were ready to implement the third when we have secured agreement from local authorities. In the meantime, may I point out that,

    871
    because the economy is strong, we have been able to spend about 90 per cent. more in real terms on the disabled than any previous Government.

    EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
    Ordered,
    That European Community Documents Nos. 4126/88 and 7396/88, relating to machine safety, be referred to a Standing Committee on European Community Documents.—[Mr. Sackville.]

Points of Order
3.32 pm
Mrs. Margaret Beckett: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to raise with you a matter on which I hope that you will be able to give me and the House some guidance, which is the way in which the rights of hon. Members who represent their constituents is being infringed.
You may recall, Mr. Speaker, that on 10 November we debated some new guidelines with regard to immigration cases. Yesterday, I had cause to use those guidelines for the first time, in the case of a father wishing to stay in this country for a brief period in order to make long-term arrangements for the care of a four-year-old child who had been battered and abandoned by her mother. The father was refused leave of entry, but has been allowed to remain here for a couple of days.
I sought to raise the father's case with the Minister, under the guidelines, which say that a stay can be allowed if an hon. Member can demonstrate that
"there are exceptional and compelling circumstances which the immigration officer has had an opportunity to consider but has not taken sufficiently into account."—[Official Report, 10 November 1988; Vol. 140, c. 520.]
I was first told that I was not allowed to raise this matter with the private office, although the guidelines say that that is almost the only sort of case that can be raised directly with the private office. I was then told that these circumstances were not exceptional and compelling because the junior civil servant who was involved in the case, and the immigration officer who first took the decision, had decided that these were not exceptional and compelling circumstances and that the case for a stop had not been made.
That is a gross infringement of the rights of hon. Members, when those who take the initial decision pronounce on whether a case can be put to the Minister for careful and sustained consideration. I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker, about what hon. Members can do about this gross removal of their rights. If such a precedent was followed in other Departments, it would mean that hon. Members had no freedom to decide what cases they raised with Ministers.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Lady has raised an individual case, which she should take up with the Department and Minister concerned. I cannot give her guidance on tactics but there are opportunities. I hope that she will seek them in order to raise the matter.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. At Question Time today, the Secretary of State for Health grouped together with question No. 3. four other questions, two of which, by strict definition, were not even related to question No. 3. Do you agree that it is annoying when so many questions are taken together at one time, because it limits the rights of other Members to ask supplementary questions on what may be an important issue? May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to consider giving an informal judgment that a maximum of two questions may be taken with another question?
Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair. It is up to the Department concerned to decide which questions should be grouped.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: It is an attack on a Tory Minister.
Mr. Speaker: Order. In some cases, when questions are grouped together, we are able to make better progress, and today we managed to deal with 14 questions in 40 minutes, which is not bad going.
Ms. Dawn Primarolo: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance in connection with the private business listed for 7 o'clock this evening, the Avon Light Rail Transit Bill. It has been drawn to my attention that a letter is circulating among Conservative Members, signed by four of them, making specific allegations about my motives for opposing the Bill—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ooh."]—which are wholly untrue—
[Interruption.] I wish Tory Members would be quiet. A nursery is better behaved than they are.
The letter makes specific allegations, which are wholly untrue, about my reason for opposing the Bill—for example, that Bristol city council, "a hard Left council—"
Mr. Speaker: Order. The matter that the hon. Lady is raising is not a point of order. There will be a debate on the matter later tonight. If she were raising a matter of order with which I could deal, I would seek to deal with it, but I am not responsible for what Conservative Members may be circulating in a letter.
Ms. Primarolo: Further to my point of order, Mr. Speaker. The letter alleges that I am merely the agent of Bristol city council in this House. I seek your guidance, and ask you to rule, on whether that is an infringement of my parliamentary rights and duties.
Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not an infringement. I suggest that the hon. Lady go into the attack when we reach the matter at 7 o'clock.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May one inquire why the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) was not present in the Committee upstairs when the subject was discussed? She could have made her point there.
Mr. Tony Banks: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo), Mr. Speaker. I was the Labour Member who received that letter. I think it was sent to me inadvertently. It was probably meant for the hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks). I inadvertently opened it and inadvertently read it—[Laughter.]—and then inadvertently passed it on—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Gentleman raising a point of order with me?
Mr. Banks: My point of order, Mr. Speaker, is that surely, at the very least, it is not courteous for hon. Members to circulate letters about another hon. Member in which a number of falsehoods appear. As a matter of courtesy, that cannot be considered good practice.
Mr. Speaker: I wish that I could be the recipient of some of these letters that circulate. I am afraid that I do not know what was in that letter, but I agree with the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) that courtesy in our dealings with each other is most important.
Mr. Edward Leigh: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We must move on.
Mr. Ian Gow: Further to the excellent point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames), Mr. Speaker. Is it not the case that, when a Minister seeks to group questions for answer, he prefaces his answer with the words "with permission"? With whose permission does a Minister group questions?
Mr. Speaker: That too is courtesy. It is a matter for the Minister concerned. I note what has been said on this subject, and I shall reflect on it.
Mr. Ian McCartney: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On the 18th of this month I chaired a meeting of the all-party parliamentary Rugby League group, which was attended by the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean). Officers of the group subsequently discovered that he had attended not as a member of the group but to take notes as a Government Whip on the business taking place. I believe this to be a gross intrusion into the works and activities of all-party groups, and the policing of those groups by the Government is totally unacceptable. It was an embarrassment both to the group officers and to our guests.
I would like you, Mr. Speaker, to give an assurance that you will speak to the Leader of the House and the Government Chief Whip to stop this unacceptable policing practice of all-party group activities.
Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for me. It may have demonstrated an interest in rugby football.

British Racing Commission
3.40 pm
Mr. Alan Meale: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish a single national commission of control for the whole of the horse and dog racing industries, with overall responsibility for the bloodstock, thoroughbred breeding and betting industries, incorporating the control of the financial arrangements, rules and aims of current bodies, their other responsibilities and where applicable, the assets of all publicly funded or publicly supported organisations concerned or connected with these sports.
I find it necessary to refer early in my speech to the horse and dog racing sectors as industries, as I believe it is central to both the Bill as proposed and my argument for such a body that recognition is given to the scale of industrial, commercial and financial involvement within these sports, which currently employ well over 100,000 people, involve billions of pounds of public and private assets, handle a current annual turnover of well over £3 billion in betting income and, last but not least, have the daily interest, support and following of millions of punters and racegoers.
I personally cannot claim the credit for arguing the need for such a body, for it has been called for from within all parts of racing for many years. Most notably, the Rothschild commission recommended in the Seventies that immediate steps be taken to establish a British Racing Authority involving all groups with interests in racing. The need for such a body is even more urgent now than it was then, as the lack of action since these recommendations has worsened the situation considerably, with dismay, disenchantment and disillusion being the order of the day among all but a select few groups and individuals in the industries.
Such dissatisfaction has been widely seen in recent times. For example, a public row has taken place between the Horserace Betting Levy Board, a body set up in 1961 by this House following the legislation of off-course betting, and the bookmakers, who cannot agree on the amount of money horse racing should receive from them—or, even worse, for dog racing, whether it should get any levy at all.
Next come the bookmakers' organisations themselves: first the National Association of Bookmakers, the body that represents primarily the small bookmaker both on and off course throughout Britain. It maintains that it is given only secondary consideration in matters of major concern to its predominantly small business members.
Then there is the Betting Office Licensees Association, set up by the big four bookmakers—Coral, William Hill, Ladbrokes and Mecca. This organisation is seen by many in the industry, rightly or wrongly, as at times receiving preferential consideration, against the long-term interests of the industry. In particular, a row continues over what many see as the unjust influence exerted by some members of this group in being allowed to continue to pocket levies from greyhound bets instead of ploughing them back into the sport itself.
There is argument within the industry as to whether a sound financial deal was reached over the Satellite Information Service agreement for the live screening of races off course, in betting shops, and there is disillusionment among owners, who not only have to meet rising costs for the training and care of their horses and

877
dogs but have to put up with extremely low prize money in most races. This is shown by the fact that, in dog racing, the average first prize is only £25, even though betting could amount to hundreds of thousands of pounds off course in betting shops, while in horse racing the vast majority of prize money is won by a tiny minority of owners, making it nearly impossible for them even to recoup their investment. Worse still, they have to pay for the privilege of providing their horse for racing, including entry, transport and veterinary costs.
The breeding industry is in dire need of support. Other nations, particularly Ireland, France, Germany and Italy, do much to help the small breeder. A British racing commission would greatly enhance the possibility of improvements in that area, particularly after 1992, with the single European market. Proof of that can be seen in the way in which Britain's main competitors in thoroughbred breeding in Europe receive distinct advantages over ours, especially on VAT rates. For example. VAT on horses in France is 5·5 per cent., in Germany, 7 per cent,. and in Italy, 9 per cent., while under annex 4F of the EEC directive, Ireland continues to enjoy complete exemption.
I welcome the work of the Horserace Betting Levy Board and the Jockey Club to enhance prize moneys in racing, but the long-term security of the British breeding industry would be better served if it were part of a larger umbrella management, which would have greater strength and be able to deal more directly with all matters, including thoroughbred breeding.
Race courses are causing great unrest within all aspects of the industry. For instance, the ownership of some horse and dog racing tracks and stadiums by bookmaking firms has caused the raising of more than one eyebrow, particularly since arrangements have been made for improvements in Bookmakers Afternoon Greyhound Services and SIS. Just as importantly, there is a growing trepidation in racing over the power of the large bookmakers, particularly Ladbrokes, which now not only owns greyhound stadiums and racecourses in Britian, but holds major portfolios of ownership of race courses abroad.
At home, the state of many of the current 59 horse racing courses have given rise to severe criticism about how the industry is allowed to be run. Many racing experts believe that it is a miracle that there has not yet been a major disaster at one of the 59 registered courses. Many course buildings are nothing more than outdated wooden mission huts, which on race days are severely overcrowded and could be a great danger to those using them.
A recent survey on seven race courses—Windsor, Wolverhampton, Salisbury, Newbury, Folkestone, Kempton Park and Ascot—gave harrowing details of the facilities available for those who work in the industry. With the exception of the Kempton and Ascot facilities, which were considered good, all were considered inadequate. For instance, Windsor was described as cold, crowded and badly designed. The women's hostel slept eight in bunks and the men's hostel was worse, sleeping 16 in bunk beds with only basic facilities. Toilets were visible from the outside, and could be clearly seen from the women's hostel.
At Wolverhampton, the women's hostel is an old detached building in a poor state of repair and decoration. It sleeps 11 with four bunk beds and three single beds with old mattresses. Bathroom facilities are appalling with only
878
one hand basin, one toilet and one shower. It had no curtains, and windows were nailed down. The accommodation was damp, with poor heating. The men's hostel consisted of a large dormitory, adjacent to the canteen, sleeping 28. It had no windows, and old ex-Army style beds with dirty mattresses which showed signs of bed wetting.
At Salisbury, the women's hostel has a public corridor, a dormitory with six single beds, one bathroom and no wardrobes or clothes-hanging facilities. The men's hostel is as bad, with eight rooms containing two or three beds and no privacy from outside. A narrow passageway to the showers is situated next to the women's accommodation.
At Newbury, the women's hostel consists of one room on the first floor adjacent to the stable manager's office. It has six beds in curtained cubicles, with no cupboards or wardrobes, and there is a crude toilet downstairs. The male hostel is worse, with 44 beds, no cupboards and a bathroom with only two showers and four hand basins.
Unless money is directly invested in those race courses, many will have to close. There is no evidence that the present racing management is responding to the needs.
The punters of the industry play little part in the decision-making process, yet they are the people who make possible the continuation of racing, whether in greyhound stadiums, race courses and betting shops or merely for viewing from the armchair at home. No real mechanism exists which guarantees their participation or, for that matter, their protection, which is surprising when one considers the fact that it is their money which enables the industry to flourish. That point was not lost on Anthony Fairbairn, chairman of the Racegoers Club, who recently said:
"It is the punter who pays the levy not the bookmaker … In addition to betting tax of £300 million he is already paying about £75 million each year in levy to the racecourses he visits."
That point was not lost on Robert Fisher of the Punters Association, who has spoken against the sell-off of off-course tote betting shops to the combined forces of the Jockey Club and the Racecourse Association Ltd. He believes that it is
"an attempt to take over public assests for a peppercorn in order to benefit vested interest."
Although hon. Members may have different opinions from those that I have previously promoted, no one can dispute that the representation of punters' views can and should be part of the legitimate decision-making process of management.
Those who work in these industries should be represented in the management structure. Currently, many thousands of people work as jockeys, stable staff, transporter drivers, betting shop and totalisator staff, starting stall attendants, kennel staff, catering staff and others without whom the industries would not be able to operate, who have representation only on the advisory body—the Horseracing Advisory Council—whose work. I greatly commend. Its structure, in part, mirrors a model on which could be built the type of body that I feel is necessary.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I warn the hon. Gentleman that he has now had 10 minutes. Will he please bring his remarks to a close?
Mr. Meale: I so move.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Alan Meale, Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie, Mr. Dennis Turner, Mr. Jimmy Hood, Mr. George J. Buckley, Mr. William McKelvey, Mr. Ian McCartney, Mr. John McAllion, Mr. Pat Wall, Mrs. Llin Golding, Mr. Max Madden and Mr. Harry Barnes.

British Racing Commission
  BRITISH RACING COMMISSION
  Mr. Alan Meale accordingly presented a Bill to establish a single national commission of control for the whole of the horse and dog racing industries, with overall responsibility for the bloodstock, thoroughbred breeding and betting industries, incorporating the control of the financial arrangements, rules and aims of current bodies, their other responsibilities and where applicable, the assets of all publicly funded or publicly supported organisations concerned or connected with these sports. And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 17 February and to be printed. [Bill 47.]
Opposition Day
[2ND ALLOTTED DAY] [FIRST PART]
Opposition Day

  Food (Consumer Protection)
  Mr. Speaker: I must announce to the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  3.52 pm
  Dr. David Clark: I beg to move,
  That this House condemns the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, for its failure properly to protect consumers.
  I must begin by saying how sorry we are that the Minister has been taken ill and is unable to be with us today. I know that I speak for the whole House when I wish him a speedy and full recovery and look forward to seeing him back at the Dispatch Box. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
  The Labour party's decision to debate this vital issue was not taken lightly. It reflects our growing concern about the Government's failure to protect consumers—an opinion increasingly, and correctly, held by the general public. It is not an attempt to attack the farmers who produce our food, because there is an identity of interest between farmers and consumers. We believe that our debate will be helpful to farmers because public confidence in the wholesomeness, purity and safety of our food has been severely shaken.
  It has been necessary for us to force this debate today because, by its failure to ensure the quality of food in Britain, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has undermined that public confidence. The Ministry has failed to recognise that, in an age of fast-changing food technology and increasing use of convenience food, the threat of food contamination is increasing. I remind the House that food poisoning has increased massively, from the 14,000 cases that were notified in 1982 to 40,000 cases in 1988. That is a threefold increase in seven years and, of course, the figures reported are only the tip of the iceberg.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Gentleman consider seriously the point that there has been a demand to get rid of additives and preservatives, but that the younger generation of housewives have been accustomed to preservatives and are not used to the old-fashioned methods of preparing food that were used by their mothers and grandmothers, when preservatives were not available?
  Dr. Clark: The hon. Lady has made her point clearly and has reminded us all of the need for food hygiene. Hygiene in the kitchen is only a small part of that, because we really need a hygiene programme for the whole nation, starting at the point of—I was going to say production—but at the preproduction stage and going right through every chain of food production. Although I accept the hon. Lady's point, I do not agree with her specific argument.
  The Ministry has increasingly listened to the producers' side. I thought that the Minister gave the game away last week when, in a written answer to myself, he acknowledged that in 1988 he had met the National

  881
  Farmers Union of England and Wales on 37 occasions and the National Consumer Council only twice. That proves part of my case.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Richard Ryder): I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way because I have with me a list of all Labour's Supply debates going back to 1979, and not a single one directly relates to food and the consumer. Is that omission by the Labour party the result of its satisfaction or its neglect of the issue?
  Dr. Clark: I am somewhat surprised and perplexed by the Minister's intervention. Far from hitting the middle stump, I suspect that he bowled a wide. He knows the truth of our point that last year the Minister met the NFU 37 times but the National Consumer Council—the Government's own statutory body—only twice.
  Mr. Paul Marland rose—
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin rose—
  Dr. Clark: I am happy to give way, but if I do so, my speech, which I intend to be short, will be longer, and that may mean that some hon. Members who wish to speak will not be able to do so. I have already given way twice, and if I do so again, some hon. Members may not be able to speak.
  Mr. Ryder rose—
  Dr. Clark: I happily give way to the Minister.
  Mr. Ryder: The hon. Gentleman has failed to answer my question and because he has failed to do so, I shall give him the answer. It was contained in an article in Tribune magazine on 11 November 1988, in which the hon. Gentleman stated that food is
  "a huge field we have neglected".
  Dr. Clark: As the debate unfolds, and I start developing our strategy, the Minister and the House will see that, far from us coming new to this subject, we have been planning and developing it for some considerable time. I shall explain that in a moment.
  Our case is not only that the Government have ignored the consumer, but, worse than that, when the Government appoint members to their own statutory advisory committees, such as the Food Advisory Committee, the premier committee, they go out of their way deliberately to exclude the consumer—[Laughter.] The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland) may laugh, but I repeat that, of the 15 members on that premier food committee, only one represents the consumer. We maintain—
  Mr. Ryder rose—
  Dr. Clark: I am sorry, but we have certain rules, and the Minister will perhaps have two occasions later today to deploy his case. He had better deal with his points then.
  Mr. Jeff Rooker: My hon. Friend knows that it will not go unnoticed outside the House that so far he has raised issues of safety, the consumer, food poisoning and health, but that all we have had on two occasions so far—there has been a third attempt—are petty party political points from the Minister.
  Dr. Clark: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. When he hears the case developed, he will see why the Minister is keen for us to obscure the debate, not on the basis of real facts, but of cheap party points.
  Mr. David Curry: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Clark: I have tried to give way to both sides, and have done so fairly.
  I agree with the National Consumer Council that this situation is not good enough. I agree with it when it says:
  "It is essential that the consumer interest is effectively represented when national food policy is made."
  I wish to turn from this structural weakness in the public's voice to the operational aspect of the Ministry. Perhaps I could turn back to 1986 and Chernobyl because, in the aftermath of Chernobyl, the Government had a specific and obvious duty to protect the public. However, their response has been found wanting by all who have examined it. From first learning of the high levels of radioactivity in sheep, it took the Government seven weeks to impose restrictions under the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985. While the Government dillied and dallied, sheep from areas of high radioactivity went to slaughter. According to the Government's own Meat and Livestock Commission, there were 50,000 such sheep in Cumbria alone. When we include Scotland and Wales, the total figure is likely to be about 100,000.
  It is little wonder that the Select Committee on Agriculture concluded:
  "It must therefore be highly probable"
  that sheep above the safety level entered the food chain. That is the case on the figures produced by the Government's own statutory body, the Meat and Livestock Commission.
  Let me turn from sheep to milk. Under pressure from the drug producers, such as Monsanto and Eli Lilly, the Government have been a soft touch. From secret documents we now know that the drug manufacturers singled out Britain as the key to the European market for bovine somatotropin, the milk-producing hormone, because they considered that there was likely to be the least political opposition here and because we have the most lax licensing system. The result is that the Government have allowed the drug companies to run trials with BST being injected into cows on 15 farms around the country. The location of those farms has been one of the most guarded secrets of the Ministry. I must pay credit and tribute at this stage to a fine piece of journalism in that most excellent newspaper, the Shields Gazette and Shipping Telegraph, which uncovered one of the farms in Cockle Park in Northumberland.
  What is more, not only have those farms been kept secret, but the milk has been allowed to go directly into the milk supply. Many consumers are unwittingly drinking milk produced with BST on those experimental projects. The British public have been used as guinea pigs, and that simply is not good enough.
  Let me turn now to more recent times, to the publicity surrounding salmonella and eggs. The Select Committee is currently trying to get to the truth of the issue, but we are not helped by the refusal of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) to give evidence to that Committee. The country has the right to know on what basis she, as the Minister of the Crown, made her infamous remark on 3 December 1988. Was there any substantiation

  883
  in the files of the Department of Health, or has the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food done a deal to conceal the evidence? We have a right and a need to know the answer.
  Mr. Ralph Howell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Clark: I must get on. I am trying to be as quick as I can.
  The House, the medical profession and the general public know that there is a problem with salmonella, but the Government have obscured the extent of the problem.
  Mr. Howell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Clark: No. I have given way generously to hon. Members on both sides of the House, and we are short of time.
  Mr. Frank Cook: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As a member of the Select Committee of Procedure, I must say to you that we are conducting an inquiry into standards of behaviour in this Chamber. One of the difficult points for the Committee to determine is whether standards of behaviour are responsible or irresponsible, disciplined or indisciplined. I ask you to take note of the fact that my hon. Friend has today been speaking for about 12½i minutes, that there have been seven interventions by Conservative Members and that the interruptions have been disciplined by the Whips on the second Bench and led by the Minister from the Dispatch Box. I ask you to take note of this so that the Select Committee can record it in its proceedings.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): The hon. Gentleman's point of order gives me an opportunity to tell the House that many hon. Members wish to speak and that the debate is very short.
  Dr. Clark: Even last week, the Minister was forced to acknowledge in the House that the measures that he had just announced were not new. If there was nothing new, the question must now be why the powers now judged essential for the protection of public health were not used earlier. It remains a mystery to us why the Minister refuses to prosecute the 21 protein processing plants that were found to be contaminated with salmonella in 1987, or the 17 which were found to be similarly contaminated last year. Will he confirm that some of the 21 plants found to be contaminated in 1987 were subsequently found to be so again in 1988? Why does he refuse to name the two flocks of hens identified by the communicable disease centre as a source of repeated epidemics? Will he now take the opportunity to clear the air and tell the House the names of the offending farms? As the general public, we have the right to know the answer in both those cases.
  Hard on the heels of salmonella we have the listeria issue. It is clear that, following television and media disclosures, we have a major problem with listeria. Not only has the dedicated Professor Lacey of Leeds university produced evidence—[Interruption.] I thought that Conservative Members might challenge that, so I have also consulted other sources. For example, environmental health officers in Bristol found listeria in three out of 31 cooked chicken products and in three out of five raw chicken products examined. Further evidence to support
  884
  the arguments of Professor Lacey comes more recently from Leeds, where the local authority found that seven out of 12 samples taken were contaminated with listeria, and from Peterborough, where six out of 17 fell into that category.
  The Minister knows that that is the truth of the situation. Why does he ignore all the evidence that listeria can multiply in temperatures as low as 4 deg C? Why will the Government not heed the evidence and insist that adequate storage temperatures be maintained for the type of product most readily contaminated with listeria, and that the maximum shelf life be specified?
  Mr. Marland: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Clark: I must get on.
  I could give many other examples, but time does not allow me to do so. It is clear that the Government are guilty of neglecting consumer safety; indeed, they are often the direct cause of that neglect. As hon. Members know, our system of public health protection rests largely on inspections and checks, often by environmental health officers, yet, as a result of pressure on local authorities, there is a shortage of environmental health officers. That problem is exacerbated by the cutting of training places, resulting in approximately 430 vacancies last year. The number of food inspections is down by 15 per cent. Even the number of man years of people employed by the Ministry in visiting and advising abattoirs on hygiene and welfare standards has dropped from 53 in 1983 to 45 in 1987. That is the extent of the Government's commitment to these matters.
  The Government have also just announced a massive 30 per cent. cut in the research and development of food and agriculture. How can they justify such a slashing of the R and D budget, which is vital to protect public health in Britain? A glaring example of the folly of these cuts is to be found in salmonella prevention techniques. At the food research institute in Bristol, funding has been withdrawn from a programme aimed at finding a method of preventing salmonella in poultry. A mere £300,000 is needed to complete the work. I ask the Minister even at this late hour to reinstate the three workers who have been given their redundancy notices. How can he find £19 million at the drop of a hat to reimburse the egg producers, but not find £300,000 for this vital research?
  It is widely believed that two out of three institutes of food research will be closed, and it looks as if Bristol will he a casualty. Much valuable work is done there on food safety and quality, and the animal welfare aspects of meat production. Interestingly enough, one of the other projects under threat is a process for reducing contamination of meat by bacteria, including listeria. Can it really be in the consumers' interests that the Government should stop that work, particularly at a time when we are facing an epidemic of food poisoning and when there is growing public concern about the wholesomeness and quality of our food?
  The eagerness of the present Administration to listen to industry is clearly illustrated by an examination of the regulations governing animal processing plants. The Labour Government proposed a public licensing system for animal food protein processing plants, which would have clearly maintained certain laid-down hygiene

  885
  standards. However, when the Conservative Government came to office, they changed the whole tenor of the regulations and allowed the industry
  "to determine how best to produce a high quality product".
  The chairman of the United Kingdom Renderers Association, John Field, blew the gaff when 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."
  I do not need to expand on that.
  The Government have repeatedly boasted of their policy to reduce public expenditure, to sweep away regulations and controls and to cut the number of public servants, whom they regard as unproductive and having no place in the Prime Minister's brave new Britain. The blatant irresponsibility of such an approach is seen most vividly in food safety, where its results have been literally deadly. Many of our citizens have died as a result of the Government's failure to protect our food adequately.
  The Government have deliberately reversed the policies developed over centuries and abrogated their responsibility to protect the consumer. We call upon them today to reverse their deadly policy; until they do that, they stand condemned of failing to protect the British people.
  4.13 pm
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Richard Ryder): I must at once apologise for the absence of my right hon. Friend the Minister, who had been greatly looking forward to the debate. Unfortunately, as the House knows, he was taken ill last night while negotiating for Britain in Brussels. He is making a swift recovery and will be back at work here very soon. I am sure the whole House will join me in wishing him well, and I thank the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) for his kind opening remarks.
  The shells, if that is what they were, fired by the hon. Member for South Shields missed their mark. Under my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) and my right hon. Friend the present Minister, the Ministry has changed dramatically in recent years. The general allegations made against it are not only way out of date but grossly misleading. To claim that Britain's entire food industry, from the field to the table, is in disarray, and that the entire population must go in fear of almost every item of food on the shelves is a travesty of the truth.
  Britain's food industry is not a failure; it is an outstanding success story. Its productivity, its export performance and its range of goods are evidence of that; so is our retail sector, which is envied throughout the world. The industry employs more than 3 million people throughout the country. Does anyone really believe that if the industry and the Government had not paid attention to safety and quality, such achievements would have been possible?
  The Labour party is out of touch with the views of consumers and taxpayers, and it admitted as much in the Tribune article of 11 November to which I have already referred. Opposition Members have shown a lack of understanding of, and interest in, the food chain. Since 1979 they have not selected a single Supply day subject directly related to food and consumers. That omission is due either to their satisfaction with our policies or to their neglect of the issue.
  886
  Consumers under this Government have much more variety of food on supermarket shelves, better value for money than in the 1970s and improved diet and standard of nutrition. The free market fostered by this Government is working in the interests of all consumers, who are getting a better deal from the food and agriculture industry than ever before. The far-reaching reforms of the common agricultural policy initiated in Brussels during the past few years, which are of direct benefit to consumers, are largely due to the pressure from Britain. For many years it has been a lone battle. It has been the firm voices of this Government and of the past two Conservative Ministers which have spoken up on behalf of consumers in Brussels. My right hon. Friend has raised the interests of consumers and the need to allow market forces to play a greater role in food and farming—
  Dr. Lewis Moonie: Will the Minister explain how the common agricultural policy works in favour of market forces?
  Mr. Ryder: I shall tell the hon. Gentleman precisely what we have done. Since the February Council of last year and the decisions that were taken largely as a result of British Government pressure, we have saved consumers hundreds of millions of pounds. I only wish that other European Ministers were as conscious of consumers as is my right hon. Friend—and as he will continue to be when he gets back.
  Mr. Curry: Does my hon. Friend recall that, a long time ago when there was a Labour Minister for Agnculture, Fisheries and Food, there was a series of astronomical average farm price rises in Brussels, which was agreed by a Labour Minister? It was necessitated by high levels of inflation, above all in the United Kingdom, which meant that neither producers nor consumers benefited.
  Mr. Ryder: My hon. Friend is correct. I shall leave references to the Labour party's record on prices and consumers in the 1970s to my able and talented Friend the Parliamentary Secretary who will wind up the debate later.
  My right hon. Friend's first speech of the year in Oxford was a hard-hitting message to the food and farming industry, which emphasised the need for farmers to respond to the market place and satisfy the demand of consumers. That is a message that he has given all the time he has been in the Ministry.
  He also reinforced his views on food safety in the same speech:
  "Certainly, as far as my own department is concerned, we have for a long time put considerable effort into ensuring that food is as safe as it can possibly be and I can assure you that this will continue to be a high priority area of the Ministry's work."
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Will the Minister advise the House of the preparations which the Ministry has undertaken to recognise the implications of the European hygiene standards which will be implemented by 1992? They will include, for example, the full-time employment of veterinary surgeons within abattoirs. Will he look at the implications of that not just for veterinary medicine but for all other aspects of food hygiene?
  Mr. Ryder: The hon. Lady is right. This matter is being discussed within the Commission, as she may know. It is something to which we shall be returning.

  887
  Those people who suggest that my right hon. Friend is in the hands of farmers should have read recent press statements. A recent article in a farming magazine stated:
  "What a pity that the people who have recently accused the Minister of Agriculture of being in the NFU's pocket weren't present at the Oxford Farming Conference. I have never heard a Minister spell out a tougher message than Mr. MacGregor did amid the Dreaming Spires."
  My right hon. Friend is in nobody's pocket—neither farmers, food manufacturers or retailers. He has struck a careful balance between the interests of consumers, the need to protect our countryside, the need of farmers and food businesses to make profit and the concerns of taxpayers over how their money is spent. The Government believe that consumers and taxpayers are the major beneficiaries of the reform of the CAP instigated by this Government.
  Action taken by the Government in Brussels has reduced the surpluses—the mountains are vanishing because of decisions taken at our instigation.
  Mr. Teddy Taylor: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Ryder: I must apologise to my hon. Friend, but I shall not give way.
  Our action has reduced the burden on taxpayers—the cost of the CAP is now under control. The reform of the CAP has kept the rises in food prices below the rate of inflation—in contrast to the Labour party when it was in power. It has brought greater realism to the CAP, allowing a greater role for market forces and this provided a stable basis on which the food and agriculture industry can prosper in the 1990s.
  Consumers, thanks to the success of this Government's economic policies, have an improving standard of living and can buy food of better quality than ever before. The prosperity which this Government have brought to the United Kingdom economy is, more than anything, responsible for the improved living standards of the vast majority of the population. That has been achieved without weakening the surveillance of the food industry. Indeed, the food law standards, to which I shall be referring later, are increasing and consumers are better protected than ever before.
  Consumers have a much wider choice on the supermarket shelves than ever before. In response to the market policies of this Government, the food industry has shown great ingenuity as it satisfies consumer demand. New products and foods are now available. [Interruption.]
  Consumers are better off, with rising real incomes and lower inflation. Unlike the 1970s, when Labour was in office and prices were out of control, consumers are benefiting from low food price inflation and, as their real incomes rise, they are able to spend a lower proportion of their incomes on basic foods and more on other things. Economic prosperity has given them the freedom to choose.
  From a sedentary position, hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench have been asking about food surveillance, and safety, and I shall deal with it now.
  Consumers are better protected than ever before by Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food scientists. We employ more food scientists now than were employed
  888
  under the Labour Government. The hon. Member for South Shields appeared to imply that the number of food scientists that we are employing is lower.
  Dr. David Clark: I did not.
  Mr. Ryder: If the hon. Gentleman did not imply that, I shall, of course, withdraw it. However, we employ more food scientists now than did the Labour Government. They are better equipped than they have ever been, with more sophisticated techniques. They are making sure that the food we eat is as safe as possible, and they are admired and respected throughout the world.
  Consumers, as well as producers, have benefited from the emphasis which we have placed on animal health. Major efforts have been put into protecting animal health in the United Kingdom. The Ministry has raised the health status of livestock, so that overseas markets, which are closed to other countries, are open to our producers.
  This Government have always believed in the right of consumers to good-quality, nourishing food at affordable prices. Food law's essential purpose is to achieve consumer protection in areas of fraud, misleading labelling and food safety.
  The Food Acts were consolidated by this Conservative Government in 1984 and followed major Conservative Food Acts of 1938 and 1955. They made it an offence to render any food for sale injurious to health or to sell—or offer for sale—food unfit for human consumption. The Government announced in October 1987–13 to 14 months ago—but only after consulting consumer organisations, that we would be further updating food legislation. Preparations for the Bill are well advanced. I have met the Consumers Association and the National Consumer Council, and our officials meet consumer organisations regularly or whenever they are asked to do so. Our door is always open to the Consumers Association and the National Consumer Council.
  There are countless examples when we have responded positively to consumer representations. We insisted on rejecting the use of clouding agents in soft drinks. We pressed ahead with our nutrition labelling, and we are introducing alcohol strength labelling in the face of industry opposition.
  Among issues being discussed with consumers are provisions for the proper evaluation and control of technological developments with food and food packaging materials which could pose hazards for consumers. The Food Bill that we are preparing to bring before Parliament will be the biggest since 1938, and we began the preparation of that Bill in October 1987.
  Those hon. Members sitting on the Opposition Front Bench have been rightly muttering that we must devote ourselves during the debate not only to food safety but to food surveillance. It is food surveillance to which I now turn.
  There are 10 working parties covering all aspects of food safety that fall within our area of responsibility. Working parties cover additives, nutrients and chemical contaminants in the diet. Their work, carried out by scientists and academics of the highest calibre, is objective and up-to-date. Evidence is assessed on contaminants, residues and naturally occurring toxins. The evidence is published with expert comment on each of the subjects

  889
  dealt with by the working parties. Recent reports include those on colours in food, nitrates and plasticisers and more are in the pipeline.
  Mr. John Home-Robertson: What about Chernobyl?
  Mr. Ryder: For the benefit of the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home-Robertson), in order to overcome any doubts I have some of the reports with me. Here are some of them. The survey of mycotoxins in the United Kingdom—that report was published and the Government acted upon it; a survey of lead in food—we published it and the Government acted on it; the surveillance of food contamination in the United Kingdom—the report was published and the Government acted on it.
  Mr. Eric Martlew: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Ryder: No, I shall not give way.
  There is full public consultation before Ministers make new regulations. Reports of the Government's advisory committees are, as the hon. Member for South Shields knows, published and comments invited on them from consumer bodies. At the core of our work for consumers is the Food Advisory Committee to which the hon. Member for South Shields alluded. That is a vital body, respected all over Europe, which includes eminent scientists and academics, as well as consumer representatives.
  Dr. David Clark: There is only one.
  Mr. Ryder: The hon. Gentleman also said that in his speech, but let me put him right. I have a list of the people who sit on that committee and I shall read out the names of the five people who are either representatives of consumers or consumer enforcement bodies. They are Dr. Margaret Ashwell, Mr. Tony Harrison, Mr. Roger Manley, Miss Patricia Mann and Mrs. Anne Stamper. They are all representatives of consumer bodies or consumer enforcement authorities and there are five of them, not one.
  Dr. David Clark: Would the Minister also like to advise the House by which other bodies those people are paid? I understand that Dr. Margaret Ashwell is now employed by an industry-funded body. All the other people apart from one, have links with the food industry.
  Mr. Ryder: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for enabling me to point out precisely where those Committee members work. Dr. Margaret Ashwell is an independent consultant on food nutrition, Mr. Tony Harrison is chief scientific adviser, public analyst and official agricultural analyst to Avon county council, Mr. Roger Manley is director of trading standards for Cheshire county council, Miss Patrica Mann is head of external affairs for J. Walter Thompson and Mrs. Anne Stamper—in deference to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) I will not describe her as a "chairman"—is the chair of education for the National Federation of Women's Institutes and a lecturer in biology at Lewes technical college. No one can tell me that those five people, men and women of the highest calibre, do not represent the interests of the consumer on the food advisory committee.
  I will take this opportunity to explain some of the work undertaken by the committee on behalf of consumers. Its
  890
  advice on additives is based on the following criteria—that they are of demonstrable need, are not prejudicial to health, do not affect nutritive value, are used only minimally and are properly labelled. Therefore I yield to no one, least of all the hon. Member for South Shields, in my belief that the advisory committee, chaired by the vice-chancellor of Reading university, protects consumers as its number one priority.
  I am glad to report that the United Kingdom concept of need, as outlined and pursued by the food advisory committee, has been adopted by the European Community Commission and now forms part of EC as well as our legislation. All the reports of the Government's advisory committees, including the food advisory committee, are published.
  I know that pesticides are a matter of concern to hon. Members on both sides of the House. My Department is one of six Government Departments that must approve any new pesticides before they can be sold. Ministers are advised by the independent Advisory Committee on Pesticides before any approval, review or revocation of a pesticidal substance. The approval system is backed up by an intensive system of monitoring residues by the working party on pesticide residues at a cost of nearly £1 million per annum to the taxpayer.
  At the other end of the food chain, food labelling law is designed to assist consumers to make an informed choice at the time of purchase. Food labels must detail the name or description of the food, an ingredients list, date of minimum durability—
  Mr. Martlew: This is boring.
  Mr. Ryder: It may be boring to the hon. Gentleman, but it is certainly not boring to consumers.
  Mr. Martlew: rose—
  Mr. Ryder: No I will not give way.
  The label must also detail the name and address of the responsible packer or seller. In addition, and where appropriate, details of storage instruction, instructions for use and place of origin must be given. Food labelling, which is a matter of great concern to consumers, is kept under regular review by my Department. We have issued a booklet entitled "Look at the Label". Half a million copies have been distributed and another edition will be published shortly.
  Sticking closely to the question of consumer information, which is part of the motion before the House today, it is generally recognised that food hygiene is of paramount importance in reducing food poisoning risks. The Government are about to launch a food hygiene education programme aimed at consumers. Of course, additives and processing techniques should not be used to conceal inadequate hygiene, and food manufacturers must comply with good manufacturing practices; otherwise they face the sanction of the law.
  Mr. Ron Davies: Under what law?
  Mr. Ryder: They can be sanctioned under the Food Act 1984.
  It is nearly 10 years since we took office and, during that time, we have initiated at least 20 specific debates on the Floor of the House and in Committee that have directly affected food and the consumer. I am not counting among that number the regular agriculture, fisheries and food

  891
  debates. The subjects of those 20 debates have ranged from misleading labelling to pesticide residues. How does our figure of 20 debates compare with Opposition-instigated debates about food and consumers? I have already pointed out that, since 1979, no Supply day has been given up by the Opposition to discuss those matters. What audacity the Opposition have to appropriate consumerism as their own creed.
  There can only be two reasons for the Opposition's neglect of food and consumers—either their satisfaction with our policies of the last decade or their lack of interest in the subject. [Interruption.] Opposition spokesmen may protest, but is it contentment or lack of interest? I am a fair-minded fellow and I offer them the benefit of the doubt. I ascribe the Opposition's silence to contentment and their protests to street theatre.
  The truth is that while the Labour party dabbles with the rhetoric of opposition, the Government grapple with the problems, secure the solutions and, as I have explained, act on them.
  4.37 pm
  Mr. Gordon Oakes: First, I join my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) and the Parliamentary Secretary in wishing a speedy recovery to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. He is suffering from a nasty illness and we wish him well and a speedy return to the House. Having listened to a speech of utter complacency from the Parliamentary Secretary, the sooner the Minister comes back to the House the better.
  I shall first deal with the Parliamentary Secretary's allegation that the Opposition have taken too little interest in food. I agree with him. I do not believe that we have taken nearly enough interest in this matter, but I remind him that we are not the Government. He said that during the past 10 years we have not instigated any Supply day debate on food. That may be true, but we have instigated one today because there is a great deal of public concern—it has increased since Christmas—about food handling. Any Opposition will use their Supply days to bring public concern to the attention of the House. That is why my hon. Friend tabled today's motion. I am afraid, however, that public concern will not be assuaged by the complacent speech by the Parliamentary Secretary.
  If proof were needed that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is so producer-oriented that it cannot adequately look after consumers, surely the Christmas pantomime about eggs put the matter beyond doubt. Let us reflect on what happened at Christmas and what the Ministry did only a few weeks ago. The hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) did her job. I did not give her notice that I would refer to her, but I shall say nothing disparaging about her. In fact, I thought that she would be present and I am astonished that she is not in her place during a debate dealing directly with the matters that led to her resignation as a Minister.
  As a Minister for health the hon. Lady warned the public about a potential health hazard. That warning had already been given to hospitals. As a result of what the hon. Lady said, there was sheer panic in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The Government threw £19 million at egg producers as compensation for loss of business. They did not link that money with research into
  892
  salmonella, improving premises or making the flocks free of salmonella; they simply compensated the industry for loss of orders.
  The Ministry is producer-oriented. It is unconcerned with consumers and quite desperately concerned not to offend Government supporters in the egg-producing industry. The only person to emerge with any credit was the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South, who was mocked by the media and jeered at and scorned by Conservative Members—and, I am ashamed to say, by some Opposition Members—for doing her job. It is a pity that she was forced to resign for doing the very job that the Government appointed her to do.
  The Minister keeps promising us that there will be a massive Food Act. The last basic Food Act was in 1955. The regulations under which most inspections take place were made in 1970. I am an honorary vice-president of the Institution of Environmental Health Officers. That institution has been pressing the Government for food regulations and for a food Act for more than five years. When the Minister was talking about the various institutions and consumer organisations with which his Department had been in contact, I noticed that he did not mention the front line—the environmental health officers who have to implement the legislation. When the Minister talked about how much research had been done and how many papers had been produced, it was as if, in the face of a crime wave, the Home Secretary were saying how many academics were studying criminology. We do not need academics, we need people in the front line forcing a modern Act and modern regulations.
  Let us look back to 1970 when the regulations came into force. Microwave ovens were unknown, except possibly by NASA in America. In 1970 the whole principle of microwave ovens was unknown. Now they are commonplace. Microwave ovens can be dangerous because sometimes they merely reheat food and do not kill germs within that food. In 1970 there was not such an enormous number of freezer shops. Now, in every high street there are freezer shops and there are freezer stores in every supermarket. That was not so in 1970 when the regulations were made.
  There has also been a massive increase in the number of take-away food outlets since 1970. In 1970, who would have dreamt of going to Marks and Spencer for a pack of sandwiches or a salad? I say nothing about the standards of Marks and Spencer which are probably the highest in the world, but the other side of the coin is that the local garage on the street corner may sell sandwiches which are being handled by someone with no knowledge whatsoever of food and more than likely the sandwiches have been in the window in the broiling sun before being sold and consumed.
  The people who have to deal with those circumstances and police those regulations are the environmental health officers, so we should consider their numbers and recruitment. There is an acute shortage of environmental health officers. Out of nearly 6,000 officers in the United Kingdom there is a shortage of some 430. That is a 4…5 per cent. shortage throughout the country, and here in London—where we read only last week that the rat population makes it almost the rat capital of the world—there is a shortage of nearly 9 per cent.
  The Government have done nothing to alleviate that problem. They have been a hindrance squeezing local authorities until the pips squeak so that they have difficulty

  893
  in paying for more public health inspectors and environmental health inspectors who are desperately needed at present. They have even closed the course at Aston and Bristol polytechnics, thereby reducing the number of recruits by 60 per year. In that profession, there is 100 per cent. certainty of employment once students have completed and passed the course, but the Government have reduced the number of students on those courses.
  My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields said that the number of cases of food poisoning now stands at some 40,000. In 1982 the figure was about 14,000 or 15,000. That increase is in direct proportion to the shortage of public health inspectors. If one looks at the graph the parallel is clear.
  Mr. Michael Shersby: Is the right hon. Gentleman talking about the number of reported cases of food poisoning or the number of actual cases? Does he agree that, because of greater public awareness of the problems of food poisoning, perhaps more cases have been reported than previously?
  Mr. Oakes: I do not think that is so. I am talking about the number of reported cases, but I do not think that it is a question of people not reporting cases. I am not certain, but I think that when someone goes to a doctor for treatment for food poisoning, the doctor is under a duty to report that case to the public health inspectors. However, I am quite certain that the incidence of food poisoning in this country has increased, and the public is well aware of that increase.
  There is an acute need to do something about that, not to set up more academic bodies to consider various matters, but to produce legislation that is modern and up-to-date and that takes into account modern technology and the state of the market at present, and as it is likely to be in future. The Minister should direct his attention to that instead of paying…19 million to compensate egg producers because of a remark by one of his ministerial colleagues.
  In the light of that, is the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the correct Department to administer food? It has held that responsibility for a long time, but I repeat that it is a producer-oriented Department. The institution to which I referred wants a separate Ministry for Food. I do not agree with that; I do not think that the subject merits a separate Ministry with all the panoply of a Department of State.
  Should the responsibility for food go to the Department of Health? At first sight there is a case for that, especially as the Department of Health is no longer linked to the Department of Social Security. Diet and food, and food standards, involve health and preventive health, so it is important that the Department of Health looks after food rather than the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Should the responsibility go to the Department of the Environment which looks after local authorities who employ the trading standards officers and the environmental health inspectors?
  Mr. Marland: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Oakes: In a moment.
  I am not sure about the Department of the Environment, because of its deplorable record on water authorities in the past few months. It also tends to be
  894
  producer-oriented rather than consumer-oriented. [Laughter.] The hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sir H. Miller) laughs, but the record of the Department of the Environment is deplorable, for example, in what it is allowing water authorities to do at present. It will get worse when the water industry is privatised.
  Mr. Marland: Does the hon. Gentleman think that we should also have a separate Department for looking after transport users, other than the Department of Transport? Possibly he could also outline to us what he would do with the users of energy. Would he have them looked after by the Department of Energy or would he like to have another Department for users of energy as well, to carry his theory to its logical conclusion?
  Mr. Oakes: So often when one gives way one does so just when one is about to answer the question put by the hon. Member to whom one gives way. I do not think that the Department of the Environment would be suitable. To give MAFF its due, it is not the only producer-oriented Department—and this is the hon. Gentleman's point. I was a Minister at the Department of Energy which was dominated by three boards—gas, coal and electricity—not by consumers. The civil servants all knew people in the industry, there was a sort of incestuous relationship going on all the time and the consumer was forgotten. That does happen with Departments of State.
  No, my solution is that we try a Department of Consumer Affairs again. We need to have it as a complete and separate Department of State. In 1974 the Labour Government made a very bungled and half-hearted attempt to set one up, but it failed because it had iao powers. Other Departments were very reluctant to hand over their powers to it, even though they did not want to do the work themselves. What I have in mind is a Department with a Cabinet Minister at the head, with a permanent secretary and fully staffed by civil servants who have the power to deal with all the different Ministries. It should have the responsibility for enforcing food regulations; it should deal with transport complaints; it should deal with energy consumers and telephone bills; and all the statutory bodies would be answerable to it.
  The Government should look closely at this idea of a separate Department of consumer affairs. I can think of many of my hon. Friends who would make excellent Cabinet Ministers in charge of such a Department, but on the Government Benches I know of no one with the enthusiasm and determination to do such a job—except possibly the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South.
  4.52 pm
  Mr. Michael Shersby: I associate myself with the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary and the right hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes) concerning my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. We hope that he will soon be back with us to debate these matters.
  I wish first to declare an interest. I am an adviser to two sections of the food industry and worked in that industry for more than 20 years—my interests are declared in the Register of Members' Interests—and I hope that I shall be able to deploy some of my experience of the food industry to effect this afternoon. I would like to record my very high opinion of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food over a long period of time for the way in which it has

  895
  protected consumers. I have always regarded MAFF, as it is known to everyone in the industry, as one of the best Departments of State. It is well run and well staffed, and its staff know what they are doing on agricultural, food and fisheries policy.
  I therefore completely reject the terms of the Opposition motion. I simply do not believe that there is any good evidence—nor has any been adduced this afternoon.—to condemn MAFF, in the terms of the motion, for its failure to protect the consumer. I will demonstrate to the House why I believe this to be so.
  MAFF is responsible for food and safety surveillance. The provisions of the various Food Acts require that all food should be safe and that consumers should not be misled. For example, the Acts' general provisions make it an offence either to use any substance during the preparation of food so as to render it injurious to health or to sell food which is not of the nature, substance or quality demanded by the consumer. Food and Health Ministers are jointly responsible for deciding what substances are allowed in the nation's food and rely on the independent advice of distinguished experts, notably those who serve on the Food Advisory Committee and on the Committee on the Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment, known affectionately as "COT".
  All these committees are independent of Government, and I am very sorry that the right hon. Member for Halton attempted this afternoon to insinuate that in some way the membership of these committees was not adequate to protect the consumers, or, alternatively, that those people who serve on the committees who represent the consumers had some outside interest which would prevent them from exercising their independence. I know full well, as does the whole food industry, that that simply is not true. The committees are of the highest possible standard. Their members are independent. Their decisions are recognised throughout the industry as capable of being fully respected, and such decisions have always been acted on promptly. So let us get out of the way once and for all any suggestion that the committees are not independent or that their members are somehow biased.
  Dr. David Clark: Could I just quote "Food Policy and the Consumer", produced by the National Consumer Council? On page 19 it says:
  "The Food Advisory Committee has itself no independent powers. It can only respond to specific instructions from Ministers"
  Those are the words of the Government's own National Consumer Council.
  Mr. Shersby: What it does not say is that the advice given by the various committees is not independent. It is independent, and it is the duty of my right hon. Friend and his ministerial colleagues to refer to the Food Advisory Committee matters of importance that affect the food industry, the consumer and the whole food chain.
  Sir Richard Body: The first name on the list of members is that of Dr. Albury. I well remember being asked about a year ago to be a presenter on a television documentary programme, and she was one of those that I had to interview. Before I did so, I discovered that she had telephoned the Ministry of Agriculture to find out what she ought to say. Then, after
  896
  asking her a few questions, I discovered that she earned her living by contracting for food manufacturers. For those two reasons, she did not seem very independent.
  Mr. Shersby: My hon. Friend makes that point; doubtless my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will reply to it later. It is quite right and proper for members of a committee of that kind to know the Ministry's view as well as their own. But there has been an attempt, not by the right hon. Member for Halton but by those outside the House who have written books from time to time, to imply that, because the proceedings of those committees are confidential, they are in some way biased. I hope that the House will accept today that that is not the case.
  I would like to quote briefly a couple of examples of consumer protection. One of the problems concerning MAFF and consumers is that of bovine spongiform encephalopathy:MAFF has acted promptly to deal with this new cattle disease. In April last year the Government set up an expert working party to examine all aspects of the disease, including its implications for human health and, although the working party found no evidence of risks to human beings, it recommended that affected cattle and their milk be destroyed—another example of quick action taken by MAFF.
  A major research programme has examined practical ways of reducing pesticide input into the environment, something of vital concern to consumers. Another matter which I know about from personal experience is the question of wrapping and packaging materials. Here again, as a result of a report of a working party on vinyl chloride, the level of vinyl chloride monomer transferred to food from PVC packaging materials has decreased substantially. That is very important. I can also tell the House that, following consultation with MAFF, manufacturers have reformulated their products to reduce the levels of placticiser used in PVC and so keep the potential intake to a minimum. That is an important matter, which has been raised by consumer organisations and reported in the press and on radio and television. We see that MAFF is taking action.
  The Minister referred to the review of the Food Act 1984. I know from personal experience that that review has been in preparation for several years and has required the most enormous amount of work by his Department and considerable consultation with consumers and the food industry.
  We look forward to 1992 and what will happen over food safety. Britain's food standards are generally higher than those in any other European Community country. As a result, we are able to export large quantities of food, not only to other European countries but throughout the world.
  An important matter in this context is food labelling and additives. MAFF has been at the forefront of the drive to ensure that food is labelled properly and that accurate information is provided to the consumer. As long ago as 1980, it issued about a million copies of a free booklet called "Look at the Label" which was designed to encourage consumers to look at labels to find out about the contents of what they were buying. All those changes give the lie to the suggestion that MAFF keeps the consumer in ignorance and protects the producer from change.
  The United Kingdom has a restrictive view on the use of food additives. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister

  897
  and his colleagues approve an additive only if they are satisfied that it is necessary and safe. Some additives are necessary, and many of them are safe. The point made by the right hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes) was important. Food poisoning has been on the increase—at least, the number of reported cases of food poisoning—and that is a matter of great concern to consumers, the Ministry and the food industry.
  In this country, as in any other civilised country, we must try to achieve a balance between the use of additives and preservatives, and having foods with no additives or preservatives. We all know that, if one tries to produce jam without its major constituent, preservative, it will go mouldy. Bread and many other products can easily go mouldy. The object of using additives and preservatives is to prevent that happening and to ensure that the consumer enjoys the advantage of having safe food at his or her disposal.
  This afternoon we have discussed food intolerance in relation to additives. There is an excellent example of research, funded by the Ministry, into the study of the prevalence of food intolerance to food additives. MAFF is conducting that work, assisted by the initiative of the Food and Drink Federation, which takes a keen interest in that matter.
  This afternoon's debate is a result of public concern over food safety. That concern has arisen because of the problem of salmonella and, more recently in the past few days, the problem of listeriosis monocytogenes.
  There has been much debate in the House about salmonella and the infestation of chicken flocks and eggs, which I shall not expand on this afternoon. However, I shall speak about listeria monocytogenes. It is not new, but has been with us for more than 20 years. It is important to recognise that, since 1986, only four cases of listeria that is attributable to food consumption have been reported. That figure comes from a report from the public health laboratory. There are other ways in which listeria can infect a human body, but I am talking about those cases which are specifically attributable to food consumption. It is important to bear than in mind.
  Mr. David Hinchliffe: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that one reason why the figure is so low is that listeriosis is not a notifiable disease?
  Mr. Shersby: I am not sure whether that is the reason. I am sure that the public health laboratory monitors those cases of food infection extremely carefully. Notification may assist in dealing with other cases. The other day, I heard an obstetrician talking about this problem and about the number of cases that he had encountered. It may be that notification will be a valuable way of drawing attention to that aspect of the problem.
  As a result of the recent outbreaks of salmonella and listeria, there has been some pressure for the transfer of the responsibility for food safety to the Department of Health. It is argued that MAFF cannot protect the consumer while at the same time acting as the sponsoring Ministry for the food industry and farmers. Is that true? MAFF argues that transferring the responsibility would break the chain of responsibility for the production and safety of food from the farm to the consumer. Some consumer organisations and health pressure groups argue that, as the Department
  898
  of Health is responsible for the provision of health care, it should be responsible for food safety. There is, perhaps, some right on both sides.
  While MAFF is responsible for everything from the short tail docking of sheep to changes in controls on pesticides, it is not responsible for regulations governing the manufacture and storage of cook-chill foods. I draw the Minister's attention to a strange sequence of events. Last week, I tabled three parliamentary questions to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. They dealt with regulations about good practice in the manufacture of cook-chill foods, regulations governing the temperature at which such foods are stored, with any plans that he might have to ensure that instructions about refrigeration and storage on containers of cook-chill products were sufficiently clear.
  To my intense surprise, all three questions were transferred to the Department of Health. Those were priority written questions because I wanted the answers for this afternoon's debate. However, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health said that he would reply as soon as possible. That can only beg the question as to whether his Ministry has responsibility for food safety standards in food manufacture. I say that MAFF has that responsibility because it is responsible for the Food Act and is the food manufacturing industry's sponsoring Ministry.
  According to the current list of ministerial responsibilities which was issued by the Cabinet Office last September, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Ryder) is responsible for food policy, food standards and food science, yet important questions concerning food standards are transferred by his Department—by his parliamentary branch—to the Secretary of State for Health. Why? I hope that when he winds up tonight, my hon. Friend will tell us.
  It is important that the post of the Minister responsible for food is clearly defined and carries sufficient weight and seniority within the Ministry. Food is one of three major areas of responsibility within MAFF. With due respect to the three Parliamentary Secretaries—my noble Friend the Baroness Trumpington and my hon. Friends the Members for Calder Valley (Mr. Thompson) and for Mid-Norfolk—their responsibilities cover a wide range of topics.
  Let us take food safety as an example. My noble Friend is responsible for cereals, sugars, oils, fats, potatoes, processed fruits and vegetables, tropical foods, horticulture, plant health, plant varieties, seeds and pesticides, all of which have an important bearing on food safety. My hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley deals with meat, milk and poultry products, and animal health and welfare. His responsibilities also include eggs, chickens and milk, to which is linked cheese made from pasteurised or non-pasteurised milk. Of course, that all relates to the current concern about, for example, listeria.
  Then we have the third Parliamentary Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk, who deals with food policy, food standards and, most important, food science. But my hon. Friend also has to deal with alcoholic drinks and the countryside. In effect we have three Ministers of Food; all of them do a first-class job and are much admired for it. But we have no Minister of State in MAFF. Why? In the light of the events of recent weeks, should there not be one senior Minister in overall charge of food policy, food standards and food science? We cannot reasonably expect my right hon. Friend the

  899
  Minister of Agriculture who has overall responsibility for the Department, including agricultural support policy, the European Community, price fixing and all the rest of it, to have the necessary hands-on, day-to-day responsibility for dealing with all these other important but less dramatic matters.
  In comparison with the structure of MAFF, in the Department of Health there is a Minister of State who is designated Minister of State for Health, and who is responsible for preventive health care, including drugs, alcohol abuse, and so on. Neither the Secretary of State for Health nor the Minister of State for Health is responsible for food policy or food manufacturing standards. Yet it is to them that my questions on these matters have been referred.
  One of the best answers to the problems that we face today is to improve our presentation and to have a senior Minister of State for food, responsible for food policy, food standards and food science. Such a Minister might have the benefit of an agency which could look after those interests and advise him. When my hon. Friend next talks to his right hon. Friend about these matters, he should ask him to consider the way in which the responsibilities are divided and to consider whether a Parliamentary Secretary be promoted.
  Perhaps I may remind my hon. Friend of the words of one of his distinguished predecessors, Lord Woolton. When Lord Wootton spoke, everyone knew that the Minister of Food had spoken. His word went throughout the length and breadth of the land. All of us appreciated what he had to say; he was a truly great man. From the way my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk handled the debate this afternoon, there is a fair chance that he may follow in Lord Woolton's footsteps.
  Let us improve our presentation so that the understandable concern of consumers can be assuaged. We should have a Minister of Food who is responsible for food safety and who will be able to ensure, as the Minister of Agriculture has done for many years, that the standards of food production are as high as possible.
  5.13 pm
  Mr. Charles Kennedy: May I first associate my colleagues in the Social and Liberal Democrats with the good wishes expressed to the right hon. Gentleman, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food? We share the hope expressed in the House that his current indisposition will soon be behind him and that he is well on the way to full recovery so that he may return to the Dispatch Box to discuss agriculture matters with us.
  The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) referred to the structure of food policing policy, if I may call it that. Although I agree with the sentiments behind the Labour decision to call for the debate today, I cannot fully endorse, and certainly will not support in the Lobby, the blanket condemnation in the Opposition motion. At the same time, the Minister's account of the state of the art was rather too complacent and self-congratulatory. If someone were not aware of the background over the past few months, his epitaph on the Minister's speech might be, "Problem? What problem?" We had a self-assured performance, which one would expect from the Minister,
  900
  but it was just a little complacent on the details of policy and its implementation. On that basis I will not support the Government's amendment.
  To go back to first principles, running through the debate and some of the criticisms which the Labour and Conservative parties exchanged on the matter is a false dichotomy. At times we overlook the fact that, while farmers are producers, they have a strong vested interest in the highest standards which consumers want because they themselves are consumers. If farmers cannot contribute to the United Kingdom food chain in a way which reassures and gives the public the strongest confidence in the products which they are invited to purchase, the farmers will suffer in immediate financial terms and also because their households and families will be open to exactly the same dangers which we wish to see averted for consumers in general. There is a false dichotomy in suggesting that the two sectors are irreconcilable and cannot recognise shared interests.
  Mr. Ron Davies: May I assure the hon. Gentleman that that was precisely the point that my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) made at the beginning of his speech? He made it clear that there was a community of interest between food producers and consumers.
  Mr. Kennedy: I accept that the hon. Gentleman made that point. I simply underscore the point in commenting on it.
  Equally, if we are in favour, as I think both Government and Opposition are, of effective consumerism, that must surely mean the public having as much information as possible to make rational, sensible and well-informed choices. That is why Britain, although lagging behind North America in consumerism, as in so many other things, is moving radically in the same way in putting much greater emphasis on labelling, on the detailing of additives used food and so on. That is sensible. It is hardly surprising and it is a trend which is broadly welcomed.
  The last principle, which again must never be overlooked, is that since the second world war it has been the role of the Minister of Agriculture and a fundamentally important objective for any Government to secure a position in United Kingdom agriculture which does not result in food shortages for the consumer. That policy has been pursued successfully for over 40 years. Even though we have had a legitimate concern about the problems of the past few months, we should never lose sight of the public disturbance which would result if we ever had to go back to the food shortages or the rationing of 40 years ago. Those are the shared principles upon which any policy should be based.
  In regard to surpluses, one need not look to many sectors, if any, of United Kingdom domestic production for any surpluses which are accumulating within the European Community. We took steps to reduce our share of the over-production of milk within the Community.
  The Minister referred to the speech by his right hon. Friend in Oxford recently. I worry slightly about us becoming more Thatcherite, as is suggested in some quarters, in our attitude to agriculture. When the Minister of Agriculture was speaking in Oxford, he told farmers that they should no longer see themselves as food producers but, to quote his phrase, as "landscape

  901
  entrepreneurs". His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales would probably endorse that, but I do not believe that it is quite what the Minister had in mind. Landscape entrepreneurial activity is all very well, but another farmer who was at that gathering, Mr. Oliver Walston, from East Anglia—he will not be unknown to the Ministry—has commented that free trade— [Interruption.] I no longer answer for the Social Democrats, but for the Social and Liberal Democrats. I am answerable for the official but not the provisional wing.
  If I may quote the poor man, who should not be dragged into that family concern, he told the conference that free trade would leave
  "not a single Scottish crofter, the Lake District a wilderness, and the hillsides of Wales without a sheep or cow."
  I hope therefore that the Ministry, and the Government in general will bear in mind those very important points when considering the broad policy towards the changing nature of agriculture in Britain.
  As the hon. Member for Uxbridge has suggested, there is something of an in-built institutional conflict in MAFF, between the support of agricultural interests, of farmers and food, and its policing role to ensure public safety in food standards.
  Equally, if one considers the Department of Health, I would have been interested to hear a Health Minister respond to the debate because it would have shown the degree of consistency or co-ordination within the Government. Although the Department of Health must act where there is any potential threat to the consumer, I understand that with regard to food production, the Department of Health must first persuade MAFF of any potential or actual threat.
  There is therefore a case in the longer term for looking at the anomalies that that position creates, although in the short term I want to speak in support of MAFF. Indeed, if the Government are reviewing the position, as Whitehall rumours suggest they are, as reported in the press, there might be considerable merit in moving towards an American-style Food and Drugs Administration. In other words, there would be a Government-funded, yet independent, watchdog organisation. That is not a million miles removed from what the hon. Member for Uxbridge was alluding to earlier.
  In the shorter term, with difficulties with salmonella and listeria, which have dominated the headlines, and the Select Committee on Agriculture's inquiry into these events, the clear message coming through is that the ?32 million cut back in MAFF over five years and the effect of that on its research and development, coupled with the scientific importance of that research and development, cannot be seen in isolation from the difficulties that have been encountered recently. The hon. Gentleman correctly detailed some of the scientific reductions which have taken place, and are planned in the future. Surely they can only reduce the ability of the Department to carry out the very statutory obligations that it is supposed to uphold.
  We await with interest the Department's proposed Food Bill, which is due in the next year or so. It is also worth looking at the provisions of the Food and Drugs Act 1955 and the Food and Drugs (Milk) Act 1970, to which the Minister referred in his speech. Let us hope that the Bill being drawn up in the Department will seek to deal with some of the omissions. For example, many foods are excluded from any refrigeration requirements, including butter and cheese, uncooked bacon and ham, cakes and
  902
  pastries. The temperature levels for refrigerating foods are too high. While the Government recommend that at home people should keep pre-cooked meals at a temperature of less than 5 deg centrigrade, the regulations set the level at 10 deg centigrade. Environmental health officers think that that is too high.
  Any food that is expected to be sold within four hours of a shop opening for business does not have to be kept in a refrigerator. A shopkeeper needs to claim only that the item is expected to be sold within that time to avoid the refrigeration requirements.
  There are no specific regulations about staff training or good practice, to which the right hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes) referred in his speech. Given the proliferation of available outlets for fast foods, and modern food technology and the different types of food that are available to the consumer, that omission must be dealt with.
  Under the Food Act 1984, there is no statutory obligation, only an implied one, for environmental health officers to inspect all the food processing, retailing and eating places in their areas. In a positive spirit, I hope that when the Government review this state of affairs, these considerations will be central to the concerns that they seek to address, as well as the omissions that they seek to redress.
  Mr. Michael Jack: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. The thrust of his argument so far suggests that only Ministries have the ability to impose standards. Does he agree that retailers and supermarkets in this country, with their tight specifications and emphasis on hygiene—addressing the very points that he has raised about correct display of foods—are making a major contribution to the correct handling of food in this country?
  Mr. Kennedy: I would not deny that at all. But if I may contrast that with the City of London, which is another area at times seen to be close to the hearts—not the pockets—of the Conservative party, the case for self-regulation is not persuasive or convincing.
  Although I am not casting aspersions on the retail trade in this country—its standards are among the highest anywhere in the world—it is always important, indeed imperative, for consumers to have at least the backstop of legislative enforcement. So I favour both the carrot and the stick, if the hon. Gentleman wishes to view it in that way.
  Equally, with regard to environmental health, I emphasise the points made earlier about cutbacks to local authorities. At the week-end, Mr. Ainslie Bazely, the head of environmental health services in the London borough of Southwark was quoted in The Observer as pointing out the great problems that are being encountered. I do not believe that the position in Southwark is essentially different from what is happening around the country in terms of the shortage of people to fill environmental health positions. The number of vacancies for local authority environmental health officers has risen steadily from 135 in 1981 to 430 last year, out of a total of 6,000, which I assume to be for England and Wales. That vacancy level represents a 4…5 per cent. shortage outside London and a 9 per cent. shortage in London. That, too, must be an area to address if we are to overcome some of the difficulties that have been encountered in recent times.

  903
  In passing, I am grateful to the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) for bringing to my attention at the start of the debate the need to give greater emphasis within our veterinary schools to the training of vets in food hygiene. The Riley report, which is being actively considered, concerns the rationalisation of provision of veterinary training centres and is liable to lead to a reduction of about 20 clinical teaching posts. Certainly, in a Scottish context, as the hon. Lady is anxious to have on the record, any move towards a single student centre or centre of excellence is bound to lead to the dismemberment of the Glasgow veterinary college school as it exists.
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the majority of hon. Members who represent Scottish constituencies are concerned about the implications of the Riley report. The Secretary of State for Scotland today described it as a questionable report and said he would be discussing its contents with the principal of Glasgow university and other interested parties. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that MAFF has a responsibility to make recommendations to the University Grants Committee on food hygiene and training prior to the closing date of 31 March for submissions in response to the Riley report, particularly in the light of European legislation on food hygiene?
  Mr. Kennedy: I agree with the hon. Lady and I hope that the Minister, when replying to the debate, will say whether MAFF intends to have input along those lines so that the issue is before the UGC when considering the possible rationalisation proposals. Judging from the public comments of the Secretary of State to which the hon. Lady referred, I am sure that the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland will want to be part of that process.
  In the shorter term, we shall have to await the report of the Select Committee to judge recent events, particularly in regard to salmonella and listeria. I echo the disappointment that others have expressed—I never thought that I would be saying this in this Chamber—that we shall not hear the former junior Minister, the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie), speak in this debate and that she is not likely to give evidence before the Select Committee.
  It is uncharacteristic of her to remain silent on these matters. It is also somewhat shameful in a parliamentary sense, given the public importance that has been attached to the issue. After all, her comments in December led to great public attention being given to the subject, and then there was the parliamentary follow-up and scrutiny.
  We must strengthen existing institutions in MAFF. We should not blind ourselves to possible institutional changes in the longer term, by which I mean not just action in the United Kingdom but action in concert with our European colleagues.
  We find the blanket nature of the condemnation in the Labour motion such that we could not support it in the Lobby tonight. Nor do we feel, short as we are of the details of the Bill which the Government will be bringing forward and the Select Committee's report, and taking account of the tone, tenor and substance of the Minister's speech, that we could support the Government in the Lobby.
  5.33 pm
  Sir Richard Body: In the belief that the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) was his party's official spokesman on agriculture, I was anxious to hear his views. But I am afraid that his speech left me in a state of fog. I only wish that he could speak as clearly and succinctly as the Parliamentary Secretary, whom I congratulate on an admirable speech.
  I can only think of one argument in favour of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food as it is constituted and that is the Minister himself, and the sooner he is fit and back at work the better pleased I shall be.
  The root of the trouble, to parody the words of Dean Acheson, is that the Department has lost its role of 40 years and has yet to find another. For over four decades it has had one paramount aim—to induce farmers to increase their output, then to increase it again and then yet again. That objective has overridden probably every other consideration, and the results have been magnificent.
  Our cows now produce twice as much milk as they did when I went as a pupil on a dairy farm years ago. As for arable farming, the fields that I know best now yield four times more wheat that they did 40 years ago. These are amazing figures, and MAFF's leadership deserves to be congratulated on that technical achievement, as do the farmers who have been goaded into participating in the campaign. That success has been due to four factors. They are the use of nitrates, pesticides, antibiotics and hormones.
  Mr. Michael Lord: Does my hon. Friend agree that a crucial factor is simply breeding?
  Sir Richard Body: Breeding what? We are now breeding wheat which can take up more nitrates. If we did not have the necessary understanding of nitrates, we would not be breeding some of the varieties of wheat that we are now using. In terms of livestock, we are breeding pigs and poultry which can respond to antibiotics in their fattening. So I regard breeding as subordinate to the four factors that I listed.
  Unfortunately, the Ministry, so obsessed with this demand to increase output, has turned a blind eye to some of the hazards of those factors. This heralds a great danger and will make it that much more difficult for MAFF to discharge its other functions in future.
  We have doubled time and again the use of nitrates, despite the serious evidence produced by the World Heath Organisation, despite experiments in the United States that have shown that 36 species of animals have died of cancer when given more than a certain level of nitrates, and despite the legislation that is now emerging from the European Community about the dangerous levels of nitrates in much of our water supply.
  The same applies to the use of pesticides. Again, MAFF has turned a blind eye to much of what has gone on in the past, for many of the pesticides that we use on our farms today were approved years ago, when the standards of testing were abysmal compared with what they are today. Indeed, I doubt whether many of those pesticides would have been approved—this is not simply my view but that of scientists and toxicologists, who are better informed than—if they were resubmitted for testing today. And everything is covered with an appalling cloak of secrecy so

  905
  that the farmer, let alone the consumer, is not permitted to know the toxicological dangers of the pesticides being used.
  In the livestock sector, the Ministry has been warned time and again by doctors of the dangers of using antibiotics as a growth stimulant as well as a precaution against the spread of disease on intensive farms. Even the Minister's advisers have warned that we cannot go on using them because the time will come when they will cease to be effective. Doctors have said that the use of some antibiotics is having an adverse effect on patients who, though ill, are unable to respond to antibiotic treatment.
  I think that the Ministry's record on hormones is, I regret to say, abysmal and I am not sure that it is very much better at the moment. I am very disturbed, and I hope that the whole House will be disturbed at the way Monsanto Chemicals and other drug companies seem quite confident that hormones will be allowed in this country for the purpose of getting our cows to produce between 20 and 40 per cent. more milk. Some in the medical profession say that the hormones may not affect 99 out of 100 of us, perhaps not even 999 out of a thousand of us, but there will still be perhaps one out of a thousand whom these hormones will affect. They are disappointed that the Ministry of Agriculture is being so secretive about the tests being carried out and have expressed concern that the relationship between the drug companies and some of the Ministry officials has gone further than it really should, and I hope the Ministry understands this concern.
  I believe that the Ministry is now in difficulties and I am not talking about the ministerial team; I am talking about those further down in the pyramid who have the very important task of making sure that our food is produced decently and well and is fit for all of us to eat. Having argued for so long, as they have that those four aids were necessary, and not only necessary but perfectly safe and that everyone could just forget about it because everyone in Whitehall knew best—that has been their attitude over and over again when people have questioned them—I do not believe that they can satisfactorily swallow their words and go along with the anxieties that are known in other parts of the world and are known to some extent in this country about those four aids which we in the farming community have had to use.
  That is why I think that there has to be a major change and why I hope that MAFF will be slimmed down and that some of its functions relating to food, particularly the safety and hygiene of food, will be transferred to the Department of Health, where they belong.
  5.43 pm
  Dr. Lewis Moonie (Kirkcaldy): I associate myself with the remarks about the Minister's absence. I sincerely hope he will be back with us quickly. While I was charitably hoping last night that the Minister's attack had not been serious, I was uncharitably hoping it might have been due to something he had eaten; but that does not appear to be the case.
  I am a little surprised at the tone of injured innocence on the Government Benches today, with the notable exception of the last speaker, and the over-defensiveness of the response to this motion. I think they protest too much. We are questioning not the independence but the effectiveness of the bodies that they set up to monitor food.
  906
  We are questioning not the fact that the Ministry has not tried, but the fact that it has failed, and these are two totally different things.
  If I had wanted to get a cheap laugh today I would have stood here and read out the amendment from the Order Paper. I notice they are described as
  "the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, Food and Consumers."
  That is a risible remark for you. Quite frankly, the amendment is laughable. It
  "commends the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on its achievements on behalf of consumers in the fields of food safety, food surveillance and consumer information which means they have wide variety of choice of wholesome foods at reasonable prices; commends its comprehensive response to the emergence of health risks"
  and so on.
  Protecting the consumer? What of the tens of thousands who have suffered from food poisoning in the last year, or the many who have died? We have heard nothing from the Government side today about them. What way is that to protect the consumer? It is of small comfort to the people who have suffered as the result of the policies of this Government and their failure to act effectively.
  Wholesome food? Are we referring to chickens perhaps, to eggs, to the burgers made from unmentionable slurries that are poured down people's throats, to the cotton-wool bread that they are forced to eat, to the salt and sugar laden convenience foods? "It is nothing to do with the Government," they cry. That is the level of intelligence of Conservative Back Benchers: "It is everybody's fault but ours."
  The only hygiene, the only handwashing, that is going on is Pontius Pilate washing his hands of the whole issue on the Government Front Bench.[Interruption.] We treat the Government's claims with the contempt they deserve, as a notable misstatement of reality, worthy of a party led by someone who boasts of having cut her commercial teeth on learning how to inject air into whipped cream to make it appear to go further. That is the level of commitment to food from this Government.
  Sadly, much of our modern diet is harmful to us, and it does the Government no credit that they have failed to admit it, particularly in the Minister's disgracefully complacent contribution to this debate.
  Mr. Christopher Gill: Will the hon. Member give way?
  Dr. Moonie: No, I will not.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Arrogant fellow!
  Dr. Moonie: This is a serious debate. I do not think the hon. Members who have been trying to intervene raise its tone very well.
  Let us consider first of all bacterial and viral contamination of food. The salmonella in chicken and eggs has been well described recently. They have been known to me, as a worker in preventive medicine, for well over 10 years, and nothing has been done about it over that period. Listeriosis likewise has been known for a long time to be a potential contaminant. Campylobacter infection in milk, sadly, is still prevalent. There are many other examples I could give, but I had better pass on.
  Let us extend the analogy. Look at the controversy over aluminium so recently aired; the hormones in meat; the use of antibiotics, so eloquently referred to by the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body)

  907
  particularly in view of the fact that he is a farmer; the artificial flavourings which are still used; tasteless, mass-produced, factory-farmed beasts, pigs, calves, or for that matter, salmon; the dangers to consumers from the cook-chill process which are only now being fully realised; the equal dangers from many of the fast foods, some of which I know have very high standards of hygiene, but many of which sadly do not. There has been a case in the press recently, but the list is endless.
  Let us not forget that an ill-balanced diet also contributes to illness in this country, a diet far too high in fat and salt, lacking in fibre and over-dependent on refined carbohydrate.
  Mr. Gill: Will the hon. Member give way?
  Dr. Moonie: This is a major contributory factor to our disgraceful position as the country with the highest death rate in the world from heart disease. Well-documented changes to that diet have been recommended over the years, but sadly no action has been taken in the light of them. None of this need be, if we had a Government who acted effectively on the information which they have had for years because, after all, there should be only two principles guiding our actions: first, that we should eat a healthy and well-balanced diet; secondly, that our food should be free from harmful contaminants of any kind.
  Sadly, none of the Deprtments responsible for this are up to the job. MAFF, or MAFFC, as we ought to call it now, is the farmer's friend and is not going to put the interests of consumers first. The Department of Health has failed to accept responsibility, with the notable exception of the sadly departed hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie), because it is much given to exhortation rather than effective action.
  I was reminded, when the Minister mentioned the education programme that he and his colleagues were going to bring in, of the old story of a former director of Action on Smoking and Health, who at a major meeting on the dangers of smoking listened to speaker after speaker extolling the virtues of health education. It was only after the meeting finished that he discovered that they were all from the tobcco industry.
  Let me conclude by mentioning the Department of the Environment. No, I shall pass on. We have had enough jokes.
  Let me briefly outline a few of the actions that we could and should be taking, all of which would be cost-effective and have beneficial results. First, we should seriously consider removing responsibility for the quality of food from a Department that has shown itself unfit for the job and create an effective alternative—a Ministry of Consumer Affairs, which could handle a far wider range of issues than hitherto, or a non-elected body with some statutory powers. We should at least consider that.
  Secondly, we should accept, and say that we accept, sensible proposals on nutrition that have been made over the past three years, and produce plans, particularly to reduce the amount of fat in the national diet.
  Thirdly, we should consider restoring the office of medical officer of health for every district, as recommended last year by the Acheson report, which would strengthen the medical officer's role in the control of infection and the environmental health officer's function.
  908
  They should be backed up in the courts. I accept that many Acts exist which, if properly implemented, would improve the quality of the food we eat, but repeated fines of £10 or so mean that people repeatedly contravene the law. That is not the way to improve matters.
  Fourthly, we should remove Crown immunity from hospitals and from this place so that they too can be subjected to the same rigorous standards as commercial food outlets. I see no reason why that should not be the case. It would show that we paid more than lip service to the idea of improved food hygiene.
  Fifthly, we should act ruthlessly to close down any producers who are shown to have sold a contaminated product until such time as they prove that their premises are free from infection and likely to remain so because of changes in practice.
  Sixthly, we should restore the level of research and development, particularly in areas related to food hygiene, which, sadly, have been cut. The Government claim that new market research should be funded by the industry, but if we wait for that, we may have to wait a long time. We also need to take some action on clear labelling. I accept that food is labelled, but to the average person it is by no means clear what they are eating. A much simpler code would be far more effective. We should also urgently consider the role of irradiation to prevent the infection of meat.
  Ms. Mildred Gordon: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Dr. Moonie: No; I have not given way to Conservative Members, so I shall not give way to my hon. Friends.
  During the second world war, the people of Britain ate a healthy, well-balanced diet. That was apparent during the war and after in the number of deaths from heart disease. There is no doubt that we can achieve the same again. The Government have failed to protect the health and well being of our people. They have tried to do so, but they have failed. I hope that the new legislation will be effective.
  5.53 pm
  Mr. Michael Morris: The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) called for a healthy and balanced diet. One or two of my hon. Friends might observe that he is an ample example of consumer resistance to the best efforts of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
  I must declare an interest as an adviser to a trade association and to certain companies which appear in the Register of Members' Interests.
  The motion on today's Order Paper is pretty round in its condemnation of the Ministry of Agriculture. I recall what was happening 10 years ago in the Chamber. Probably only one third of my hon. Friends here today were present 10 years ago when we were in the middle of the winter of discontent. The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) was not right when he said that we had had 40 years of adequate food supplies in Britain. Ten years ago we had statements in the Chamber from the Labour Government on the shortages of sugar, salt, margarine, rice, coffee and lamb. It is pretty arrogant for the Labour party to suggest today that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is failing properly to protect consumers.

  909
  If the Ministry had failed, one yardstick of its failure might be its regular appearance before the Public Accounts Committee, on which I have sat for 10 years. We are used to seeing the Ministry of Defence, the Department of Health and the Department of Transport, but it is rare for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to come before that Committee for having failed to meet the objectives laid down; that should be placed on the record.
  I am going to Northampton market on Saturday 18 February. If anybody thinks that Northamptonshire's farmers, he they pig, beef or cereal farmers, will greet with open arms the suggestion that the Ministry of Agriculture is firmly in their pockets, they are wildly wrong. I expect to be given a rough time. I shall enjoy that, but the last thing that any of my farmers believe is that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is in their pockets.
  During the summer recess, I took the opportunity to go to the veterinary school at Weybridge. I was thoroughly reassured by the work being done in those laboratories and anyone who has a worry about what is being done in the veterinary world should visit Weybridge. I wonder how many hon. Members have ever done so. They might reasonably spend some time doing that.
  I doubt whether any hon. Member who visits large manufacturing companies in the food processing industry either at the weekend or during the recess will find any that are not up to the highest standards, whether in terms of sampling or checking raw materials coming into Britain, or in the processing, testing, packaging or sampling of the products. The way in which the Ministry of Agriculture works with those companies is a safeguard for the consumer.
  With the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, I helped to set up the parliamentary Food and Health Forum so that we should have an opportunity to hear from interested outside bodies and colleagues their views on food and health matters. Bodies such as the London Food Commission may be highly critical of the Government, but anyone who does some research into that organisation will know that it is highly critical of western democracies and anything to do with the corporate state, or anything else. But the vast majority of organisations that are associate members of the Food and Health Forum recognise that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has played a major role in communicating with the consumer. They want more, but that is understandable.
  Ms. Gordon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Morris: No, I shall not give way. Mr. Deputy Speaker has appealed to us to be brief.
  My hon. Friend the Minister outlined some of the Ministry's work. There is no doubt that the Food Advisory Committee is a major source of information and research in Britain. Last year, in a review of the use of colour in food, that committee recommended daily allowances based on the most stringent scientific evidence. It is not just Britain that follows those standards; they are likely to be followed throughout Europe and elsewhere. That is a measure of how the rest of the world recognises the Ministry's work as a reference manual.
  Adverse comment has been made about the Ministry's inability to communicate with the consumer. My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) referred to the publication "Look at the Label" which was issued not last year or 18 months ago but 10 years ago, when the
  910
  Ministry of Agriculture issued well over 1 million copies. I invite hon. Members, after the debate, to buy some packaged food and to look at what is on the label. There is an ingredients list, which is especially important for those who may have a particular susceptibility to an element in the product. The dates of minimum durability and the name and address of the supplier are also displayed. Would that we could find that in other parts of the world, particularly in some of the continental countries, and that the Department of Health was as strict on generic medicines and parallel imports as MAFF is on food products.
  Mr. Ron Davies: I would not normally interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but as he is proclaiming MAFF's readiness to open the books, can he explain MAFF's reluctance to inform the public of the source of eggs that have been infected with salmonella?
  Mr. Morris: As the hon. Gentleman has put his question from the Dispatch Box, it must be a question for the Minister to answer later.
  If there is a problem, my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge put his finger on it in the three questions that he asked. He said that certain responsibilities had been transferred to the Department of Health. There are, unfortunately, some grey areas. I believe that the Department of Health should be involved only in those food products that make medical claims and that all other food products should be firmly in the province of MAA]F. The Department of Health is the sponsoring Ministry to the pharmaceutical industry and controls it through the Committee on Safety of Medicines. If it can do both, I see no reason why MAFF cannot do two jobs. If there is to be change, it should be done in that way, so that hon. Members and consumers know that any matter to do with food is firmly in MAFF's court.
  In relation to Europe, as we approach 1992, MAFF is doing a good job in interpreting the needs of British consumers in Europe especially in preserving and ensuring British freedoms in relation, for example to beer arid methods of distribution and in opposing nonsensical ideas such as those in the oils and fats tax. MAFF does a good job and should have our support.
  6.3 pm
  Mr. David Hinchliffe: I shall confine my remarks to one matter, part of which, I accept at the outset, is not entirely the Minister's responsibility. However, we have established, so far, that there are many overlaps between the responsibilities of the Department of Health and MAFF.
  I want to consider cook-chill and listeria for one reason. I became personally involved in the issue as a result of the unfortunate tragedy at Stanley Royd hospital in 1984, n which 19 people died and several others became seriously ill in a salmonellor outbreak. Shortly after that, I became a member of Wakefield health authority which, with no support from me, moved towards a cook-chill system to replace the kitchen at Stanley Royd hospital. At that time, I met Professor Richard Lacey, the microbiologist advising the Wakefield health authority, who was strongly opposed to cook—chill. He is known-and in many instances loved—by many Conservative Members. He has received a great deal of abuse from various sources and has been criticised and treated in a disgraceful way because of

  911
  his views— to which he has stuck—about listeria and
  cook-chill, but it has been proved, over a number of years, that he is completely right. The Wakefield system is being used as a pilot system for the whole of the Yorkshire region and is seen as a means of enabling the wholesale privatisation of catering in the NHS.
  There was deep concern about the dispute over cook-chill in Wakefield, so an expert group was established by the regional health authority. It studiously avoided involving people who were known to be critical of the cook-chill system. I noticed that Arthur Pinegar, a principal microbiologist at the public health laboratory service, was involved in the expert group, and was doing private work on cook-chill for certain interests outside the NHS and the public health laboratory service. That has been confirmed in answers to parliamentary questions that I have tabled.
  I was even more concerned by the subsequent inquiry into the management of Wakefield health authority, which recommended the removal of Sir Jack Smart as chairman and suggested that his replacement should have no contact with the health authority or involvement with the issues that resulted in the various problems. His replacement, appointed by the Government, was Brian Hayward, who had been the vice-chair of Yorkshire regional health authority and had chaired the expert group that studied the introduction of cook-chill. His appointment was the clearest evidence yet that the Government's desire to see cook-chill up and running in Wakefield was a prelude to its introduction elsewhere in Yorkshire and subsequently in other parts of the country. It is interesting that Mr. Hayward has chaired two meetings so far, but has refused to accept anyone raising the issue of the cook-chill system, which is being introduced in the health authority in the next few weeks.
  What has happened in Yorkshire has shown clearly the extent of the political scandal that surrounds cook-chill and that powerful business interests—which we see represented in this debate—are overriding serious concerns about public health. There has been a scandalous Government cover-up on the real incidence of listeriosis. Over the past few years, there has been a huge increase in food poisoning which has coincided with the recent trend towards less traditional forms of food preservation, such as chilling.
  If one considers the evidence from abroad, one discovers that 200 people died in France in 1986 as a result of listeriosis. In the same year, 200 people died in the United States as a result of listeriosis. It is interesting that, officially, there have been no deaths from listeriosis in this country. I received a parliamentary answer recently which said that in 1987–88, a total of 546 listeriosis cases were reported to the public health laboratory service, but only three had causes that were known to be related to food. The causes of the other 543 cases were not known. That raises serious questions about the reason behind the incidence of listeriosis.
  One of the major problems, as I said in an intervention earlier, is that listeriosis is not a notifiable disease in the United Kingdom, so we do not know the true incidence of it. However, we have a good deal of recent evidence. My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) went through some of the evidence. He mentioned the
  912
  "This Week" programme and the Bristol survey. I must mention that it has been proved that the death of a baby in Leeds fairly recently was directly related to the consumption of cook-chill food bought from a supermarket. The Leeds environmental health service found that seven of 12 samples from different retail outlets contained listeriosis. There was also a survey in Peterborough and yesterday, there was evidence from the public health laboratory service that listeriosis can lie dormant for five days if stored at 7…5 deg C. and then reproduction erupts. That is a worrying problem facing the Government.
  Professor Lacy has stated that he believes that 150 to 200 people die every year in this country directly as a result of listeria. The questions that he has raised are not being answered by the various Departments that are concerned with the problem. I want to ask several serious questions and I expect detailed answers to them in the Minister's winding-up speech.
  First, in view of all the evidence, to which I and other hon. Members have referred, why have the Government not issued a warning about the consumption of cook-chill food especially by, for example, pregnant women and other vulnerable consumers? Secondly, why are the Government continuing to push the use of cook-chill food in hospitals—as they are in Wakefield and Yorkshire—when the risks from listeria to vulnerable groups such as pregnant women and the elderly are so obvious?
  Thirdly—and most important in view of the evidence that we now have—why have the Government not acted on the fact that most if not all supermarkets are contravening the Department of Health guidelines on cook-chill food, both in terms of length of storage and temperature? I also want to know—this is a clear question that should have been answered in written answers—what is the real reason why the new Government guidelines on cook-chill that we have been expecting for months have not yet appeared? I was told that they would be ready last August. Since then I have been told several times that they are not ready, but I have never been told why.
  I have spoken only briefly and would have liked to speak at much greater length but I know that many of my hon. Friends want to take part in the debate. I hope that, having waited so long, they will be able to do so and I shall conclude with a number of serious points.
  The Government face a huge dilemma over listeria. If the Government tighten standards on, for example, the maximum three-day detention period for cook-chill food, the catering industry, which has huge contracts and investments worth billions of pounds, will face disaster. If the Government tighten up as they should, that will have an incredible impact on the industry, which is so well represented by Conservative Members today—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Apologise."] Well, a number of Conservative Members have declared an interest in the catering industry, which is what usually happens from the Tory Benches in such debates. They are directly concerned with and paid by food companies. That point is crucial to our understanding of the Government's position on this issue.
  The Government are in deep difficulty in dealing with the retail trade over cook-chill and listeria. They are also in difficulties with their policy on privatising NHS catering. Cook-chill is essential to the wholesale privatisation of catering in the National Health Service. If the Government do nothing and there is a serious listeriosis outbreak, there will rightly be a huge public

  913
  outcry about the fact that the knowledge and the evidence were there, but the Government did absolutely nothing. The Government have, understandably from their point of view, chosen the latter course.
  The Government are looking after certain friends of the Conservative party in the food industry, and that is no surprise to my hon. Friends. The Government are looking after friends such as Ranks Hovis McDougall plc, which gave £40,000 to the Tory party last year and is directly involved in cook-chill. The Government are looking after friends such as United Biscuits which gave £100,000 to the Conservative party last year and is involved in cook-chill. Indeed, it recently opened a cook-chill division in south Humberside and is ideally placed to move into private catering contracts in the Yorkshire regional health authority area and in health authorities such as my own in Wakefield. The Government are looking after the interests of those such as George Weston Holdings, which includes Associated British Foods, which donated £150,000 to Tory party funds last year.
  Those are the real interests that Conservative Members represent and that is why the Government are in such difficulty on this issue. They dare not move because of those huge interests and the investments that are made directly to the Conservative party by companies that are tied up with cook-chill—
  Mr. Lord rose—
  Mr. Hinchliffe: No, I am about to conclude. Through loyalty to my hon. Friends who have queued up all afternoon and who may not get called, I cannot give way. The Minister will have a chance to respond to those points.
  I repeat that there has been a scandalous Government cover-up of the real threat from listeria. The evidence is clearly before our eyes. The cover-up is necessary to protect the interests of the friends of the Conservative party at the expense of the safety of the consumer.
  6.13 pm
  Mr. Richard Alexander: The House will have been saddened to hear most of the remarks of the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe). He has devalued his own argument and soured what up to now has been a constructive debate.
  In the past few weeks we have seen a build-up of hysteria about our food—whipped up by commentators with an eye to a headline, nurtured by the media, which like nothing more than a good scare story, and stirred up not least by the Opposition who are trying to claim that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food cannot be a Food Minister at the same time as being an Agriculture Minister.
  In our lifetimes, we have all been used to scaremongering by so-called experts. When I was younger, we were told that children should not eat baked beans. Now we are told that they contain high protein and that children should have more of them. Sugar used to be described as bad for us, but no longer. Milk, eggs and cheese have all had their detractors—and equally their champions—from time to time.
  Salmonella enteritidis was the scare story of last month and we all know what happened to the egg industry for a while as a result—
  Mr. Martlew: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Alexander: No, I am developing my argument.
  I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on his intervention in the middle of that hysteria as it put a floor on the egg market and did much to prevent a scare from becoming a catastrophe.
  Mr. Martlew: I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way. Does he agree that it is a shame and a crime that the victims of the salmonella outbreaks, the people who have suffered and who on rare occasions have died, have not been compensated at all, while the farmers, who were partly responsible, have been compensated in full?
  Mr. Alexander: That is a different argument, but the amount of compensation that was provisionally arranged had had only a small take-up by the farmers.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) mentioned a tragic episode at a Wakefield hospital. I must advise him that following that incident the Government immediately took action under the National Health Service (Amendment) Act 1949 to remove Crown immunity from the hospital kitchens. That issue was raised earlier by another Labour Member who advocated the removal of something that has already been removed.
  Mr. Alexander: My hon. Friend makes a valid point.
  This month we have a new villain, listeria. It has been lovingly seized on by the media and carefully nurtured by consumer programmes. It is frightening the life out of vulnerable people who are worried about what they may or may not eat and who until last week had probably never even heard of it. I wonder how many hon. Members, excluding the experts sitting in the Chamber today, had heard of listeria before we broke up for the Christmas recess—not many, I bet.
  Ms. Gordon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Alexander: No, I have already given way many times.
  These scares need to be put into perspective. Two hundred million eggs are consumed every week. Do we see people dropping like flies in old folks' homes? Are they carted out of hospital because they have contracted that mysterious disease? Do people approach us in the street, telling us tales of the people whom they know who have been suffering from salmonella and asking what the Government are going to do about it? We did have the unfortunate death of a schoolboy last week, but to the best of my knowledge even that case has not been proved to be salmonella enteritidis caused by eating an egg. About 200 million eggs have been consumed each week during the past four, five or six weeks and there is no evidence of the scare stories that we heard a few weeks ago coming true.
  Sometimes I think that the nation loses its sense of perspective. We could put the issue into greater perspective by remembering that about 200 people die on our roads each month and that hundreds of thousands of people are maimed on our roads every year. We do not have many debates about that, and Opposition motions such as the one that we are discussing are not tabled about that situation.
  The answer to the salmonella scare, to the listeria hysteria, is known to everyone who was brought up by

  915
  sensible mothers in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s, before the new food processes, the new types of food or the microwave oven came on the scene.
  Ms. Gordon rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Alexander: The answer is clear: we should cook our food properly, boil our eggs for at least two minutes, roast frozen chicken properly and never reheat cooked meat that has been allowed to go cold. If we must use microwave ovens, we should make sure that we know how to use them and that they properly grill and roast what we put in them. Most of us learned all that at our mother's knee. We never ate raw eggs, chicken that was not properly roasted or twice-cooked food, yet my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture is pilloried because new techniques have made people more careless, especially when they do not fully understand those techniques.
  It has been suggested that it would be wise to split the Minister of Agriculture's responsibilities and that he cannot ride two horses that are running in opposite directions. I do not mind if the responsibilities are split, but, on his behalf, I resent the slurs that have been spread, suggesting that he is incapable of looking after the consumer and the producer. Certainly, many of my farming constituents in Nottinghamshire would take great issue with many of the claims that my right hon. Friend is the farmers' pocket. Equally, the consumer groups would find it difficult to recognise some of the farmers' complaints that he is too much under the thumb of consumer pressure groups. He is riding both horses in the same direction very well indeed.
  The food process is a continuous one. It is for growing, producing and marketing food. There need be no conflict in those stages and, even if there were a change, the same civil servants would be doing the same job but in two different offices. The change would be much more cosmetic than real. Many other countries have a Minister for agriculture and food. A Transport Minister can deal with roads and safety. A Secretary of State for industry can deal with manufacturing and encouraging production and still deal with consumer safety and protection.
  There is, therefore, no great need for change. There is no need to worry that my right hon. Friend cannot protect the consumer. His recent measures in respect of salmonella and listeria have shown that. There is no need for some of the fear that has recently blown up in the minds of many consumers. We do a disservice to the public and to those who work in the farming and service industries if we try to pretend otherwise.
  6.23 pm
  Mr. Martyn Jones: I am glad that the hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander) has spoken out against cook-chill. He said that we should never eat meat that has been cooked, allowed to cool and cooked again. We have heard a great deal about salmonella in this debate and it is fair to say that I am probably the only Member of this House who has isolated the organism or seen it under a microscope. Judging by some of the comments that have been made, I suggest that few hon. Members would know it if they tripped over a bucket of it.
  916
  I should like to tell my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) refuses to appear before the Select Committee because she was pontificating on a subject that she knew little or nothing about. It is said that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing and, in this case, it was certainly dangerous for egg producers in this country. Instead of putting the blame correctly where it lay—no pun intended—which is at the door of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, she put it at the door of the egg producers. All the real evidence shows that poultry have had a salmonella problem for years, not necessarily phage type 4, but many of the 1,500 species of salmonella that are rife in this country. If she had said that most poultry production was infected with salmonella of one sort or another, she might have had the backing of the evidence and she would have served the nation's health.
  The evidence of any special attribute of salmonella enteritidis phage type 4, which makes it much more dangerous in respect of eggs, is extremely tenuous. For some time, transovarian infection of eggs has been shown to occur in septicaemic conditions with all sorts of species of salmonella. The growth of overt cases of salmonella and, incidentally, other types of poisoning—clostridia], staphylococcal and streptococcal—suggests to me that the problem is not one of any "super-bug", but one of food handling. If the rise of chilled and "fast" foods is coupled with the complacency of the Ministry about primary production, we have a recipe for disaster.
  The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food can certainly do something about primary production and it is certain that it is not performing its functions as well as possible. It is probably true that, if a simple, accurate test had been available, we would have had no problem now so far as salmonella is concerned, as other tests have rid the industry of other forms of specific salmonella infection, such as salmonella pullorum and gallinarum during the period 1940–55.
  I have dwelt on the subject of salmonella, but there are other grave areas of doubt that need sorting out for the good of the consumer and the producer. They include bovine somatotropin in milk and antibiotics in meat. The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby), who is no longer in his place, referred to the case of bovine spongiform encephalopathy as a triumph for the Ministry. However, the Ministry compensated farmers only for 50 per cent. of the value of the animals affected which can hardly be considered as an inducement to report such cases.
  The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was a Ministry with a purpose for the consumer when production was necessary for adequate nutrition. Now, with the advent of increasing technology in preservation and production, different criteria are needed for the good of the consumer and, indeed, to protect the producer from the unnecessary ups and downs caused by scares. The vast majority of farmers wish to have real guidance and want only to produce good wholesome food.
  The Department of Health should have a clear responsibility to ensure that food is wholesome at the point of use and that enforcement of any necessary measures, if they are required in the area of primary production, should be mandatory on what is, in effect, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food production.
  6.27 pm
  Mr. Michael Lord: I am conscious that the clock is against us and I shall be as brief as I can. I know that this is an Opposition day, but I welcome the debate to highlight what I see as many of the great successes of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food over the years, which the Minister spelled out very well at the beginning of our debate. I should have thought that there was no doubt about its success until very recent days. The Ministry has existed for 34 years, since its amalgamation, and has done an extremely good job. Everyone has been satisfied with it. The Opposition have had opportunities to bring this subject forward for debate before, if they had wanted to do so, but they have not done SO.
  The Ministry's achievements are numerous. We all know about the eradication of disease that it has organised, such as tuberculosis in the early days and the great improvements in cultivating and breeding plants and animals. There is increased consumer orientation in the way products such as eggs and meat have been tailored towards the needs of the housewife and the detailed labelling of products has increasingly become a feature of our food, as other hon. Members have commented. We have the highest food safety standards in Europe and, if anyone visited one of my chicken processing factory in Suffolk, he would see what care is taken and would be greatly reassured, in view of much of the talk that has been bandied around today.
  The national diet is now much healthier. We have heard this evening of people having to eat cotton wool bread—having it stuffed down their throats. I do not see why. All the evidence is that people are looking carefully at their diets and eating more sensibly. They are eating more wholemeal bread, and so on. MAFF greatly encourages that trend.
  The achievement has been largely due to MAFF—we have a huge choice of excellent food, properly labelled and reasonably priced. That is a great success story, not only for MAFF and for farming, but for the food industry. It has been a great combined effort. It is true that recently we have had more problems with salmonella and listeria. I do not underrate them, but firm action has been taken and the matters are now in hand. MAFF was right to take steps to underpin the egg industry before Christmas; they have had the desired result. It was also right to re-emphasise the need that some of my hon. Friends have mentioned to cook food properly. That is crucial. The Minister has also tightened controls on egg production and is pressing forward with research into all these problems which was already in hand.
  Like my hon. Friends, I deplore the hysteria and ill-informed comment inside and outside the House. The hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones) underlined that point and I agree with him, although I do not have his depth of knowledge. Words such as "epidemic" can be all too easily bandied about and have done great harm—
  Mr. Martlew: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Lord: I cannot possibly give way: this is a race against the clock.
  918
  Such words do great harm. People comment on the differences between free-range and battery hens without understanding those differences, not knowing that free-range eggs have little advantage over battery eggs.
  How eggs are cooked is important. Such cases of poisoning as have occurred have been in the larger catering establishments in which more care needs to be taken. There have not been so many in domestic circumstances, in which eggs can be more carefully cooked in the traditional way.
  The House will be interested to know that the people of Suffolk have been sensible. A recent poll in one of our newspapers showed that 1010 per cent. of the people interviewed and asked about their reaction to the egg story said that they had not changed their egg-eating habits—and people in Suffolk live to grand old ages.
  MAFF is not alone in its responsibilities. My hon. Friends have explained how other Departments are involved. Local authorities, supermarkets, retailers and consumer bodies all have responsibilities. As we have also been told, independent consumer committees which are able to scrutinise what is going on continually keep an eye on these matters. No one pretends that there are no difficulties. Modern farming methods, mass catering and modern production techniques mean that there are, but I believe that no Department is better qualified or experienced to keep an eye on these matters than MAFF. Nothing is shabbier than an Opposition looking for a scapegoat: MAFF should not be that scapegoat.
  6.33 pm
  Mr. Ron Davies: There is only one thing shabbier, and that is the spectacle of an hon. Member making an agreement with the Opposition to limit his speech and then breaking it. The House will understand if the Minister's opportunity to reply is shortened by the couple of minutes that were deliberately taken up by the hon. Member for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord).
  Hon. Members on both sides of the House have expressed concern about the health of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I am sure the House will unanimously ask the Parliamentary Secretary to convey to him our best wishes and hopes that he will make a speedy return to the House.
  The Minister's absence has presented the Parliamentary Secretary with something of a unique opportunity-two chances to speak in one debate. That is indeed a rare opportunity, but judging from his earlier performance he will manage to avoid having greatness thrust upon him by a comfortable margin.
  What was particularly noticeable about the Parliamentary Secretary's speech was not what he included in his defence of his Department's handling of public health issues, but what he omitted from it. My hon. Friends this evening have asked the Government to account for the handling of the following problems: contaminated lamb resulting from Chernobyl, listeria, salmonella, campylobacter, BST and BSE, pesticide residues, nitrate pollution of water supplies, the quality of food imports, meat inspection, hormone growth promoters and tenderisers, irradiation, research and development, animal welfare and antibiotics, veterinary services, the environmental health service and the problems of 1992.
  Ms. Gordon: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Davies: In a moment.
  We heard nothing about the Government's record on any of those issues. I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms. Gordon) has been in the Chamber all day and is anxious to intervene, so I shall make an exception in her case.
  Ms. Gordon: Does my hon. Friend agree that all the issues he has just listed—the dangers of bacteria, hormones, radiation, pesticides and the pollution of water—are of serious concern to the women of this country, who are trying to provide their families with a healthy diet on a limited budget? Is it not most unfortunate that no woman has been included in the list of speakers to present the point of view of housewives?
  Mr. Davies: It would be inappropriate for me to criticise the selection of speakers, and I assure my hon. Friend that the subjects she has raised do not concern women exclusively. They are of concern to every man, woman and child in the country—although I accept her point that the problems of eking out a meagre budget fall more heavily on women.
  The Minister mentioned the speech of his right hon. Friend at the Oxford conference, from which I too want to quote. He said:
  "People are—quite rightly—taking more interest than ever before in what they eat and drink. They now take for granted the wide variety of products in our shops. They demand quality and they expect that all their food will be nutritious and safe. It is up to the industry to ensure that these expectations are met".
  I agree with those aspirations, but not necessarily with the Minister's conclusion that it is entirely up to the industry to ensure that expectations are met. It is our contention that the Ministry has a responsibility, as well as the industry. If there is a single issue that divides us it is our claim that the responsibility for the enforcement of standards rests with the Ministry, and that it cannot be abdicated in favour of the industry.
  The Minister made his speech on 4 January, so it is fair to say that we can take it as representing the up-to-date thinking of the Ministry. The Minister's demands were for variety and quality, and for nutritious and safe food. We believe that those demands are not being met. The most important reason why the Opposition asked for this subject to be debated on this Opposition day is the simple fact that the demands articulated by the Minister are not being met by his Department.
  The most obvious and topical area in which the Ministry is failing the consumer is exemplified by the recent crisis of confidence in the egg industry. It is also a fine example of the interdependent interests of producers and consumers, for without the trust of the latter the producers have no market in which to trade their goods.
  The Ministry's failures during this fiasco were manifold. The incident can be traced back to the change in attitude, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) pointed out, to public health and consumer welfare that was heralded by the arrival of the Conservatives in office in 1979. They changed the rules. There was at that time a serious attempt to tackle the problem of salmonella in poultry by agreeing standards with the protein processing industry that would ensure, as far as possible, that animal feed was not a vector for the spread of infection.
  We have already heard the comments of the chairman of the Renderers Association, who said that standards had
  920
  changed. I refer to the comment by the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body), who entertained us all with his comments in today's debate:
  "Health concerns were overruled in drafting the rules".
  If there is a problem with salmonella, it dates back to the change of attitude that went hand in hand with the change of Government in 1979.
  In 1986 and 87, 38 out of 218 tests for salmonella in feed processing plants proved positive, but there was not one prosecution. No action was taken by the Ministry. The Parliamentary Secretary, the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Ryder), described himself as brilliant, and said that his winding up would be brilliant. We thought for a moment that he was reading the Minister's speech inadvertently. In a written reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) on 14 December, the Parliamentary Secretary said:
  "On re-inspection, all samples of products from these contaminated plants were found to be clear of salmonella contamination and so no prosecutions were brought."
  According to a written answer that I received yesterday from the other Parliamentary Secretary, the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Mr. Thompson)—who is not here—in 19 cases the plants tested were still infected when examined a second time. Unbelievably, in that same written answer, the Parliamentary Secretary said that in six instances the plants were still contaminated when inspected a third time. Is it not a question, therefore, of a cosy arrangement between MAFF and the renderers? MAFF visits plants and says, "There is a bit of a problem here; you must tidy up there; a hit of new equipment is needed there; then everything will be okay, because we will come back in a month's time and give you a certificate."
  It was found on the third inspection that 50 per cent. of the plants which were defective on the second inspection were producing contaminated food which was going into the food chain and causing 40,000 British citizens to be affected by salmonella contamination. There was not one prosecution because of the cosy relationship between MAFF and the renderers. Which of the Parliamentary Secretaries are we to believe?
  It is not as if that has been the only problem in the last couple of weeks, because we have heard of the problem of listeria. I welcomed the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), who spoke with great knowledge and experience because of the tragic circumstances in his constituency. In spite of the inadequate monitoring of the levels of infection, which exemplify the Government's attitude, what little surveillance has been carried out has revealed the extent of the problem for several years. According to the public health laboratory's communicable health report, the risk has been known for the past eight years. That information has been available, and it is distressing that it has not been acted on by the Ministry. Those matters worry us greatly.
  We have had a series of press releases and written answers from MAFF and from the Department of Health, which tell us unequivocally only one thing—because of cuts, interdepartmental rivalry and neglect, those two great Departments of State can speak with no more authority on the extent of listeria than they did on salmonella. Meanwhile, increasingly, we read of deaths, such as those reported in yeaterday's Independent, which are unequivocally associated with listeriosis.
  We have heard about other problems, such as cook-chill foods. Most recently, on 21 December, the

  921
  Minister was forced to come to the Dispatch Box to answer the complaints about contaminated food supplies in Mid-Cornwall Meat Packers in the constituency of the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor). I give the hon. Gentleman full credit for his private notice question.
  The Ministry was notified in September 1988 that supplies of meat were arriving at Mid-Cornwall Meat Packers, which were contaminated with faecal matter and which were in an advanced state of decomposition. The Ministry was notified of that in September, but the first notification by the Ministry to the air and sea port health authorities was in mid-December after the hon. Member for Truro had raised that matter. During that three months, 30 consignments went through the port of Fishguard alone, each consignment consisting of 20 tonnes of beef from the Republic of Ireland, possibly contaminated—certainly much of that for Cornwall was contaminated.
  That meat was entering the food chain in this country, and not one warning or notice was given to either the port health authorities or to the scores of authorities whose environmental health officers are desperately trying to ensure adequate and wholesome supplies of food for the people of this country. We owe the environmental health officers a debt of gratitude.
  Mr. Matthew Taylor rose—
  Mr. Davies: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman, but my time has been taken up. I ask him to make the briefest of interventions.
  Mr. Taylor: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will share my concern that, even since this matter was raised, the Government in this country or the Irish authorities have apparently not been able to establish how this happened and therefore can offer no reassurance that it is not continuing.
  Mr. Davies: That is precisely my point. There is a problem in Ireland. We do not know whether it is because of illegal slaughtering, a black market deal in veterinary seals or a deliberate misuse of the precedures, but the fact is that the system allows contaminated meat to come into this country. At the port of entry, only 5 per cent. of that meat is inspected. Ninety-five per cent. of the supplies are then available to meat packers and to processors without further inspection. The Ministry did not see fit to issue one warning until the matter had been raised in the House.
  Environmental health officers have unprecedented demands upon them due to the burgeoning food processing and preparation industries. There are now 300 fewer such posts than there were in 1983. The latest figures show that, of the 5,500 posts available, there are nearly 500 vacancies—that is, up 135 from 1981. The Government's squeezes on local government spending are to blame. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, however, as the sponsor of the Food Acts, must bear the responsibility for failing to insist that those Acts are fully implemented. It beggars belief that, at a time when public concern is at fever pitch—apparently with ample reason from what we have heard tonight—the Government can be so cavalier in their attitude to the consumer that they are cutting back on the very research that has hitherto been the backbone of the fight against such public health hazards.
  922
  The Government's attitude to chemical contamination is no better. Before the introduction of maximum residue levels in food regulations, The Food Magazine commented on a survey of British food by stating:
  "43 per cent. of fruit and vegetables analysed have detectable pesticide residues. And out of a total of 426 chemicals cleared for use on Britain's farms, 166 are known or suspected of causing reactions or of links with cancer".
  At the current rates of testing approved by the Ministry, it will take 50 years for all the commercially available chemicals to be tested. Until then, we cannot be confident that our domestically produced food has acceptable levels of residues.
  It is not only the food we eat, but the water we drink. Millions of our citizens are now in receipt of water supplies containing unacceptable levels of nitrates. Even the Secretary of State for the Environment—who is not especially noted for his sensitivity in these matters—has noticed the problem. As part of his privatisation package, he is proposing to fleece the consumer to put right the problems caused by the historical neglect by MAFF.
  The motion is tabled in the name of the Opposition. We know, however, that our concerns are shared by many right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. The hon. Members for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body), for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) and for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) have in their own ways expressed their vote of no confidence in the Ministry by calling for it to be stripped of its food responsibilities. We believe that, however well intentioned they are, their target is the wrong one. It is not the structure of the Government which is to blame, but their policies and their doctrinaire commitment to cuts, and especially deregulation. That is why we invite those who oppose the Government to join us in the Lobby.
  6.48 pm
  Mr. Ryder: With the leave of the House, I should like to respond to the debate. It is all too easy at the end of such debates for Ministers to describe them as excellent. I believe, however, that this time we have enjoyed an excellent debate with well-informed contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Newark (Mr. Alexander), for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby), for Northampton South (Mr. Morris), for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body) and for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord), among others. On the Labour side, I especially enjoyed and listened carefully to the speeches of the hon. Members for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) and for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones).
  Opposition Front Bench spokesmen asked about the protein processing order. I should like to reply to that point and several others in the short time remaining to me. If sampling of a plant's products reveals salmonella contamination, a notice is served requiring compliance with the bacteriological standard within a time limit. Failure to comply, without lawful authority or excuse, constitutes an offence. In 1987 most operators were able to comply within the time limit and their products proved clear of salmonella on resampling. In the few cases where resampling still revealed contamination it was not considered to be a deliberate failure and, therefore, it was not appropriate to bring prosecutions. In only one case was continuing failure to comply revealed on a second resampling. Even in that case the subsequent tests indicated that a salmonella-free product had been achieved.

  923
  The hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) asked about restrictions on farms suspected of infection with salmonella. The decision to impose restrictions has depended and will continue to depend on an assessment of the importance of each case and on an overall assessment of the risks from each strain of salmonella.
  The hon. Gentleman was also anxious to know whether we had—I use his words—cut the research project in Bristol. The Goverment's financial support for the research work undertaken will not be lost. As my right hon. Friend the Minister has said, that support will be diverted to other important microbiological research. The redeployment of the staff is also being considered by their employers—in this case the Agricultural and Food Research Council.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge was anxious to know why three questions that he had put down to our Ministry had been transferred to the Department of Health. I promised to look into that matter, but the prime responsibility for microbiological surveillance, including listeria, rests with the Department of Health. That is why that Department will be responsible for answering his questions.
  The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) asked about veterinary training. That matter rests primarily with the Department of Education and Science and the University Grants Committee. I shall pass the hon. Gentleman's comments on to my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friends in the DES.
  The right hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes) attacked the Ministry for devoting resources to compensation instead of tackling the problems. As my right hon. Friend the Minister has pointed out on several occasions, however, not least in a lengthy written reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Central last week. We have arranged a series of measures to deal with the problem and many have already been introduced. My right hon. Friend said that this amounts to one of the most comprehensive programmes to combat salmonella anywhere in the world.
  Listeria was mentioned by the hon. Member for South Shields and other hon. Members, and it is important to appreciate that my Department, together with the Department of Health and representatives of the industry, is considering current food processing, distribution, retailing and labelling to ensure the safety of the food supply. Appropriate research is being carried out where information is lacking and codes of practice are being developed in conjunction with the industry. The Ministry is funding research projects to investigate improved methods of detecting the bacteria and how processing factors and storage conditions affect the growth and survival of this particular strain of listeria which is causing so much concern.
  The motion concerns the Government's handling of food and its effect on consumers. Today I pointed out twice that this is the first time that the Opposition have selected a Supply day to debate this issue since we came into Government in 1979. To claim that the Government are not concerned about consumers is as fatuous as claiming that the conductor is interested only in his orchestra and not the audience. The Government have always taken their responsibilities to consumers and
  924
  taxpayers far more seriously than has the Labour party. Since the Government took office 10 years ago food prices have increased on average at 5·6 per cent. per annum. That is nearly 2 per cent. a year less than the rate of inflation. Therefore, consumers have benefited under the Government. Prices are now 17 per cent. lower in real terms than they were when we took office in May 1979.
  What about the Labour Government's record between 1974 and 1979? My hon. Friends will remember that, during the 1970s, food prices were supposed to be controlled by the ill-fated Department of Prices and Consumer Protection. That was such a misnomer that it even defied the Trade Descriptions Act 1968.
  The Government have a responsibility for the entire food chain and that responsibility has been exercised with particular emphasis on the joint interests of the taxpayer and the consumer. What a contrast that is with the Labour Government's record when the well-being of consumers was eroded by disruptions to the food chain caused by strikes and that Government's inefficiency.
  We have allowed for the operation of the market and, therefore, we have created the environment in which the food industry has become one of the most successful sectors of the economy—it accounts for no less than 10 per cent. of the gross national product and employs more than 3 million people. Under the Labour Government, consumers faced price rises almost every day and consumer choice was impeded by ineffective, muddled and restrictive economic policies. Under Labour, consumers were faced with food shortages and lack of choice. Now consumers have better choice and better quality food than ever before. I am happy to defend the record of the Government against the Labour record today or any day the Opposition choose.
  During the 1980s we have taken a consistent line. We have fought hard in Brussels to control the excesses of the CAP and that is exactly what my right hon. Friend was doing last night when he was taken ill. We have reduced prices, surpluses and the waste of taxpayers' money. We have increased expenditure on food safety and, consequently, given a better deal to consumers.
  Several hon. Members, including the Opposition spokesmen, have alleged that the Government have cut research and development projects on food safety, but nothing could be further from the truth. I happen to have with me, for the sake of convenience, a computer list of all such R and D projects funded by my Department during the past two years. If I had brought the computer list for the past 10 years I would have been unable to carry it, yet the Opposition claims that we have cut such R and D work.
  Since the 1970s, the quality and variety of the food available has changed. The Labour party tried to dictate the composition of food through detailed food law. That discredited and outmoded approach acted as a disincentive to innovation, and the failure of the United Kingdom dairy industry to market low-fat milk earlier than it did was, in part, due to Labour-inspired rules about the fat content of milk.
  The Opposition's allegations today have plummeted to the depths of matchless distortion. By attacking the Government, the Opposition have cast aspersions on the scores and scores of vets and other experts whose advice is acted on by the Ministry; that includes scores and scores of doctors and academics. Those scientists, doctors and vets are men and women of the highest probity and their

  925
  skills and devotion to duty are beyond doubt. They are admired in Britain and respected and envied in Europe. They help to ensure the safety of our food and they will resent and reject, as I do, the accusations levelled against them by the Opposition.
  Today the Opposition have behaved like rabbits and, as students of Beatrix Potter will know, rabbits that stray into Mr. McGregor's garden generally end up in Mrs. McGregor's pot. I ask the House to reject the Labour party motion and to pass our own.
  Mr. Ron Davies rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has spoken once. Mr. Flynn.
  6.58 pm
  Mr. Paul Flynn: The Parliamentary Secretary's speech was a disgraceful response to what he described as a fine debate. It is a shame that the Government cannot do better to answer the deep-seated concerns that have been expressed throughout the country about the purity of food except by resorting, once again, to cheap electioneering and debating points about what happened in the past 10 years.
  Do the Government not understand how seriously disturbed the whole nation is by the many cases of food contamination? We have seen a display from the Minister who waved about a long list of computer—
  Mr. Don Dixon 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 206, Noes 313.

  Division No. 46]

  [7 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Anderson, Donald

  Clay, Bob

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Clelland, David

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Cohen, Harry

  Ashton, Joe

  Coleman, Donald

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Corbett, Robin

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Barron, Kevin

  Cousins, Jim

  Battle, John

  Cox, Tom

  Beckett, Margaret

  Cryer, Bob

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Cummings, John

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

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Darling, Alistair

  Blair, Tony

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Blunkett, David

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Boateng, Paul

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

  Boyes, Roland

  Dewar, Donald

  Bradley, Keith

  Dixon, Don

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Dobson, Frank

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Doran, Frank

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Douglas, Dick

  Buchan, Norman

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Buckley, George J.

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Caborn, Richard

  Eadie, Alexander

  Callaghan, Jim

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Fatchett, Derek

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Canavan, Dennis

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

  Cartwright, John

  Flannery, Martin

  926

  Flynn, Paul

  Meacher, Michael

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Meale, Alan

  Foster, Derek

  Michael, Alun

  Foulkes, George

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Fraser, John

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Galbraith, Sam

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Galloway, George

  Morley, Elliott

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  George, Bruce

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Mullin. Chris

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Murphy, Paul

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Nellist, Dave

  Gordon, Mildred

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Gould, Bryan

  O'Brien, William

  Graham, Thomas

  O'Neill, Martin

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Parry, Robert

  Grocott, Bruce

  Patchett, Terry

  Hardy, Peter

  Pike, Peter L.

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Haynes, Frank

  Prescott, John

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Henderson, Doug

  Radice, Giles

  Hinchliffe, David

  Randall, Stuart

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Redmond, Martin

  Holland, Stuart

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Home Robertson, John

  Reid, Dr John

  Hood, Jimmy

  Richardson, Jo

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Ftoberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Ftobertson, George

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Ftobinson, Geoffrey

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Flogers, Allan

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Flooker, Jeff

  Illsley, Eric

  Fioss, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Ingram, Adam

  Flowlands, Ted

  Janner, Greville

  Fluddock, Joan

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Lambie, David

  Short, Clare

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Skinner, Dennis

  Leighton, Ron

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

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

  Lewis, Terry

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

  Litherland, Robert

  Snape, Peter

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Soley, Clive

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Spearing, Nigel

  Loyden, Eddie

  Stott, Roger

  McAllion, John

  Strang, Gavin

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Straw, Jack

  McCartney, Ian

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Turner, Dennis

  McFall, John

  Vaz, Keith

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Walley, Joan

  McKelvey, William

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  McLeish, Henry

  Wareing, Robert N.

  McNamara, Kevin

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  McTaggart, Bob

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  McWilliam, John

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Madden, Max

  Wilson, Brian

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Winnick, David

  Marek, Dr John

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Worthington, Tony

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Martlew, Eric

  Mr. Ken Easthara and

  Maxton, John

  Mr. Frank Cook.

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Amos, Alan

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Arbuthnot, James

  Alexander, Richard

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Alton, David

  Ashby, David

  Amess, David

  Aspinwall, Jack

  927

  Atkins, Robert

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Atkinson, David

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Baldry, Tony

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Batiste, Spencer

  Forman, Nigel

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Beggs, Roy

  Forth, Eric

  Beith, A. J.

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Bellingham, Henry

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Bendall, Vivian

  Franks, Cecil

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Freeman, Roger

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  French, Douglas

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Fry, Peter

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Gale, Roger

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Gardiner, George

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Boswell, Tim

  Gill, Christopher

  Bottomley, Peter

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Bowis, John

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Gorst, John

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Gow, Ian

  Brazier, Julian

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Bright, Graham

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

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

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Gregory, Conal

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Ground, Patrick

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Burns, Simon

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Burt, Alistair

  Hannam, John

  Butcher, John

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

  Butler, Chris

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Butterfill, John

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Hayes, Jerry

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hayward, Robert

  Carttiss, Michael

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Cash, William

  Heddle, John

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Chope, Christopher

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Churchill, Mr

  Hill, James

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Hind, Kenneth

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Colvin, Michael

  Holt, Richard

  Conway, Derek

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Howard, Michael

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

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

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Cran, James

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Critchley, Julian

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Curry, David

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

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

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Day, Stephen

  Irvine, Michael

  Devlin, Tim

  Irving, Charles

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Jack, Michael

  Dicks, Terry

  Jackson, Robert

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Janman, Tim

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Jessel, Toby

  Dover, Den

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Dunn, Bob

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Durant, Tony

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Dykes, Hugh

  Kennedy, Charles

  Eggar, Tim

  Key, Robert

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Kilfedder, James

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Evennett, David

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Fallon, Michael

  Knapman, Roger

  Favell, Tony

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Fearn, Ronald

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  928

  Knowles, Michael

  Rathbone, Tim

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Redwood, John

  Lang, Ian

  Renton, Tim

  Latham, Michael

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Riddick, Graham

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Lightbown, David

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Lilley, Peter

  Rost, Peter

  Livsey, Richard

  Rowe, Andrew

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Ryder, Richard

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Lord, Michael

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Scott, Nicholas

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Shelton, Sir William (Streatham)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Madel, David

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Matins, Humfrey

  Shersby, Michael

  Mans, Keith

  Sims, Roger

  Maples, John

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Marland, Paul

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Marlow, Tony

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Speller, Tony

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Mills, Iain

  Steen, Anthony

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Stern, Michael

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Stevens, Lewis

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Moate, Roger

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Stokes, Sir John

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Sumberg, David

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Summerson, Hugo

  Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Mudd, David

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Needham, Richard

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Thorne, Neil

  Neubert, Michael

  Thurnham, Peter

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Tredinnick, David

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Trippier, David

  Norris, Steve

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Page, Richard

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Paice, James

  Wallace, James

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Waller, Gary

  Patnick, Irvine

  Wheeler, John

  Patten, Chris (Bath)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Patten, John (Oxford W)

  Wilkinson, John

  Pawsey, James

  Wood, Timothy

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Woodcock, Mike

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Yeo, Tim

  Portillo, Michael

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Price, Sir David

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Raffan, Keith

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle and

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Mr. David Maclean.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30. (Questions on amendments):—
  The House proceeded to a Division:—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I understand that the House has a problem with its time devices and that the order to lock the doors may have been called prematurely. In the light of that, I propose to allow the doors to be reopened and to remain open for one minute.
  The House having divided: Ayes 280, Noes 211.

  Division No. 47]

  [7.13 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Day, Stephen

  Alexander, Richard

  Devlin, Tim

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Dicks, Terry

  Amess, David

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Amos, Alan

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Arbuthnot, James

  Dover, Den

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Dunn, Bob

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Durant, Tony

  Ashby, David

  Dykes, Hugh

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Eggar, Tim

  Atkins, Robert

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Atkinson, David

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Baker, Rt Hon K (Mole Valley)

  Evennett, David

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Baldry, Tony

  Fallon, Michael

  Batiste, Spencer

  Favell, Tony

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Bellingham, Henry

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Bitfen, Rt Hon John

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Forman, Nigel

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Forth, Eric

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Boswell, Tim

  Franks, Cecil

  Bottomley, Peter

  Freeman, Roger

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  French, Douglas

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Fry, Peter

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Gale, Roger

  Bowis, John

  Gardiner, George

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Gill, Christopher

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Brazier, Julian

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Bright, Graham

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

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

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Gorst, John

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Gow, Ian

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Burns, Simon

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Burt, Alistair

  Gregory, Conal

  Butcher, John

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Butler, Chris

  Ground, Patrick

  Butterfill, John

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Cash, William

  Hannam, John

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

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

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Chope, Christopher

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Churchill, Mr

  Hayes, Jerry

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Hayward, Robert

  Colvin, Michael

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Conway, Derek

  Heddle, John

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Cran, James

  Hill, James

  Critchley, Julian

  Hind, Kenneth

  Curry, David

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

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

  Holt, Richard

  930

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Howard, Michael

  Page, Richard

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

  Paice, James

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Patten, Chris (Bath)

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Patten, John (Oxford W)

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Pawsey, James

  Hunter, Andrew

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Irvine, Michael

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Irving, Charles

  Portillo, Michael

  Jack, Michael

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Jackson, Robert

  Price, Sir David

  Janman, Tim

  Raffan, Keith

  Jessel, Toby

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Redwood, John

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Renton, Tim

  Key, Robert

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Kilfedder, James

  Riddick, Graham

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Knapman, Roger

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Rost, Peter

  Knowles, Michael

  Rowe, Andrew

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Ryder, Richard

  Lang, Ian

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Latham, Michael

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Shelton, Sir William (Streatham)

  Lightbown, David

  Lilley, Peter

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Lord, Michael

  Sims, Roger

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Sioames, Hon Nicholas

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Speller, Tony

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Sipicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Madel, David

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Malins, Humfrey

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Mans, Keith

  Stern, Michael

  Maples, John

  Stevens, Lewis

  Marland, Paul

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Marlow, Tony

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Sumberg, David

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Summerson, Hugo

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Thurnham, Peter

  Mills, Iain

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Tredinnick, David

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Trippier, David

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Moate, Roger

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Wheeler, John

  Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Moss, Malcolm

  Wilkinson, John

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Wood, Timothy

  Needham, Richard

  Woodcock, Mike

  Nelson, Anthony

  Yeo, Tim

  Neubert, Michael

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle and

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Mr. David Maclean.

  Norris, Steve

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Anderson, Donald

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Alton, David

  Armstrong, Hilary

  931

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Ashton, Joe

  Fatchett, Derek

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Fearn, Ronald

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Flannery, Martin

  Barron, Kevin

  Flynn, Paul

  Battle, John

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Beckett, Margaret

  Foster, Derek

  Beith, A. J.

  Foulkes, George

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Fraser, John

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

  Fyfe, Maria

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Galbraith, Sam

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Galloway, George

  Blair, Tony

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Blunkett, David

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Boateng, Paul

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Boyes, Roland

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Bradley, Keith

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Gordon, Mildred

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Gould, Bryan

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Graham, Thomas

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Buchan, Norman

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Buckley, George J.

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Caborn, Richard

  Grocott, Bruce

  Callaghan, Jim

  Hardy, Peter

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Haynes, Frank

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Canavan, Dennis

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Cartwright, John

  Henderson, Doug

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Clay, Bob

  Holland, Stuart

  Clelland, David

  Home Robertson, John

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Hood, Jimmy

  Cohen, Harry

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Coleman, Oonald

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Corbett, Robin

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Illsley, Eric

  Cox, Tom

  Ingram, Adam

  Cryer, Bob

  Janner, Greville

  Cummings, John

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Darling, Alistair

  Kennedy, Charles

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Kirkwood, Archy

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

  Lambie, David

  Dewar, Donald

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Dixon, Don

  Leighton, Ron

  Dobson, Frank

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Doran, Frank

  Lewis, Terry

  Douglas, Dick

  Litherland, Robert

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Livsey, Richard

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Eadie, Alexander

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  932

  Loyden, Eddie

  Radice, Giles

  McAllion, John

  Randall, Stuart

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Redmond, Martin

  McCartney, Ian

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Reid, Dr John

  McFall, John

  Richardson, Jo

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  McKelvey, William

  Robertson, George

  McLeish, Henry

  Rogers, Allan

  McNamara, Kevin

  Rooker, Jeff

  McWilliam, John

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Madden, Max

  Rowlands, Ted

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Marek, Dr John

  Sheerman, Barry

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Short, Clare

  Martlew, Eric

  Skinner, Dennis

  Maxton, John

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Meacher, Michael

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

  Meale, Alan

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

  Michael, Alun

  Snape, Peter

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Soley, Clive

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Stott, Roger

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Strang, Gavin

  Morley, Elliott

  Straw, Jack

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Vaz, Keith

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Wallace, James

  Mullin, Chris

  Walley, Joan

  Murphy, Paul

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Nellist, Dave

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  O'Brien, William

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Wilson, Brian

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Winnick, David

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Parry, Robert

  Worthington, Tony

  Patchett, Terry

  Wray, Jimmy

  Pike, Peter L.

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Prescott, John

  Mr. Ken Eastham and

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Mr. Robert N. Warring.

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Mr. Deputy Speaker forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House commends the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on its achievements on behalf of consumers in the fields of food safety, food surveillance, and consumer information which means that they have wide variety and choice of wholesome foods at reasonable prices; commends its comprehensive response to the emergence of health risks; and commends its constant concern for consumers' interest in European Community negotiations.

Orders of the Day

  City of London (Spitafields Market) Bill
  Order for Third Reading read.
  7.25 pm
  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  The Second Reading of the Bill took place on 12 May 1988. The Bill spent an extremely long time in Committee and there was not time before the Session ended, to proceed with the Third Reading, even in the spill-over. However, as hon. Members will recall, there was a revival motion and we now have the Third Reading.
  It is right that I should briefly point out the ways in which the Bill before us differs from that of May 1988. On that occasion, the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) opposed the Bill because his constituents in Stratford market were unhappy. They are now satisfied and he has withdrawn his opposition, as has his local authority.
  The hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) voted for the Second Reading of the Bill because he was content. I express it that way to show that there is cross-party support for the Bill.
  The right hon. Member for Bethnall Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) is fighting, as I hope I would, a stout-hearted battle as a constituency Member. I respect him for that because the prime job of all hon. Members is to represent their constituencies. The hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms. Gordon) is taking exactly the same line.
  As a result of hearings in the Opposed Private Bill Committee, three major changes appear in the Bill that seeks its Third Reading tonight. First, the annual payments for the training schemes have been increased from £50,000 a year to £150,000 a year. Secondly, the payment to the local community trust has been increased from £2·5 million to £5 million. Thirdly, the corporation of the City of London has undertaken to maintain the open spaces at Elder gardens in perpetuity, if the developers' interests cease.
  I should like to make it clear that on the revival motion, the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney made two incorrect assertions which need to be corrected. He said:
  "the Committee could not respond to the petitioners' central point, which was that the Bill should not be proceeded with. The Committee could not respond to that request, because the House had already given the Bill a Second Reading."
  That is incorrect because a Committee on a local Bill can disallow that Bill, notwithstanding the fact that it has received a Second Reading, particularly if the Committee finds the preamble not proved. The Committee was not so constrained. The right hon. Gentleman also said:
  "Almost any substantial market site has such problems".—[Official Report, 1 December 1988; Vol. 142, c. 929–30.]
  He was referring to traffic congestion but that is incorrect because Spitalfields has no fixed boundaries and is crossed by a number of public highways. The new site at Temple Mills will be fully enclosed, with one main entrance only. Market traffic will therefore come off the general highway network.
  In column 931 the right hon. Gentleman raised the issue of possible changes in the plan. All that I can say is that
  934
  none have come forward. If they did, they would have to be submitted to the normal planning processes. That has nothing to do with this Bill.
  The hon. Member for Bow and Poplar in column 932 raised the important issue—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. This is not an appropriate occasion to have an inquest on an earlier debate. It is outside the scope of a proper debate on Third Reading.
  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: I was demonstrating what is in the Bill in relation to what was said earlier, which I thought might be acceptable. The Elder gardens issue has been clarified by Tower Hamlets. It has given an undertaking to keep a substantial portion as open space.
  I do not want to detain the House long because the principles were decided on Second Reading. The Committee made sensible alterations and the House agreed that the matter should come forward in this way. Therefore, I hope that the House will give the Bill a Third Reading. If necessary, with the leave of the House, I shall seek to reply to any new points that may emerge.
  7.31 pm
  Mr. Peter Shore: I agree that on 12 May when we debated the Second Reading I, along with others, opposed the propositions in the Bill for two main reasons. First, the planning case for transferring the horticultural market in Spitalfields to a new location at Temple Mills in the borough of Waltham Forest had not been made. Secondly, the planned redevelopment of the market site was against the wishes and interests of the great bulk of the residents in the Spitalfields area.
  The real case for the Bill—this was not the case argued in the House at the time—is the alternative and lucrative use to which the site of the present Spitalfields market is to be put. The City of London corporation is to receive a capital sum of about £60 million, a new market worth about £35 million and revenues from the old market site of £2·5 million a year—a substantial financial package. Spitalfields development group will be the other great gainer, carrying out a profitable, mainly office, development costing some £500 million.
  We are now nine months away from the Second Reading debate. Having read the record of the 11 meetings of the Committee, presided over by the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst), I find no reason to change my original judgment and I shall vote against the Third Reading.
  Before proceeding, I wish to place on record my thanks to the Committee. Committee members showed patience and care in their treatment of petitioners and witnesses who appeared before them. I also thank the petitioners who argued their case before the Committee with skill and persistence.
  There have been developments and changes since we last debated the matter. Like the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg), I should like to refer to them. First, the Committee considered closely the section 52 agreement between Spitalfields development group, the City corporation and the London borough of Tower Hamlets. The Committee found that agreement inadequate in several respects and sought enhanced undertakings from the promoters.

  935
  The main agreed items, as the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate has told us, were, first, that, Spitalfields Redevelopment Group gave a stronger and more permanent commitment to maintaining Elder gardens and Horner square so long as the City corporation maintained its lease on the old market site. Secondly, the amount set aside for the community trust which will assist a number of organisations in Spitalfields was raised from £2·5 million to £5 million, a welcome increase. Thirdly, finance for the training schemes to be run by THATT was increased from £50,000 to £150,000 per annum. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newham North-East (Mr. Leighton) pointed out in an intervention on Second Reading, £50,000 would have financed the training of only 10 or 12 young people a year. Now we have training finance for 30 to 36 people.
  The fourth change was improved compensation for the Market garage at Spital square, which was to be displaced. Outside the section 52 agreement a further change was designed to make more permanent and certain guarantees for the maintenance of the only open space in the area which is Allen gardens. This guarantee hinges on the ongoing policies of Tower Hamlets council. As the Committee accepted, unfortunately a local authority cannot fetter its discretion in advance, so no absolutely binding undertakings can be given. Nevertheless the council gave verbal undertakings from which it would be difficult for it to withdraw.
  Another change that I must report to the House is a reduction in the number of petitioners. The intention of the Transport and General Workers Union to withdraw its petition was announced to the House on 12 May in the concluding remarks of the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate. In evidence to the Committee the union made it plain that its anxieties about disturbance costs and possible redundancies of employees in the market had been satisfied by a payment of £300,000 to the union. During the Committee stage Stratford market traders, who had originally felt that they would be disadvantaged by the move to Temple Mills, withdrew their petition in return for compensation totalling £1·8 million to be divided among the 25 or 30 traders.
  The Committee stage also cast considerable light on how the market tenants association now representing the existing Spitalfields market traders came to accept the move to Temple Mills. It was a considerable change. I told the House on Second Reading of the Greater London council's study of east end London markets in 1985. The GLC questionnaire found that of about 100 market tenants involved, 59 felt that there were real advantages at the site at Spitalfields and 69 had no immediate plans to relocate their business. I said that that did not indicate any great desire among market traders to move and that their consent to do so two years later was probably due to a feeling of resignation in face of the strong pressures from the corporation of London and Spitalfields Development Group. The evidence on day five, 21 June 1988, gives a detailed account of what took place. No doubt many arguments were found to be persuasive, but pride of place must be given to the Spitalfields Redevelopment Group whose offer of £7·5 million in compensation, was, I suspect, conclusive.
  936
  It is clear that a number of interests were squared during the Committee stage. It would be churlish not to recognise the helpful role of the Committee in securing changes in the section 52 agreement. But these changes are, after all, only marginal. The local interests of employees and employers directly involved in the Spitalfields market and the interests of other market traders in Stratford have been taken care of and compensation paid. That is something.
  The two major objections that I put on 12 May remain unaffected. First, the case for relocating Spitalfields market, and in particular for resiting it at Temple Mills, has not been made. I pointed out on Second Reading that the City of London in its very frank report, "The Future of Spitalfields", acknowledged on 22 October 1987 that there was
  "no overriding reason to relocate the market".
  Acknowledging certain problems with the present site, the report concluded:
  "despite these factors, the market is relatively successful and it has to be said that not all the problems are insurmountable: e.g. with the co-operation of the local authority (Tower Hamlets) and the Metropolitan Police much could be done to alleviate rubbish dumping and traffic congestion respectively. More space could he found in the area for vehicle parking and the corporation could consider taking control of the surrounding streets in order to regulate the whole trading area."
  As I also pointed out, no planning study of London's existing markets and their future location has been undertaken. Indeed, there is no body or organisation now in existence that can plan on an all-London basis.
  Furthermore, there has been no authoritative study of the Temple Mills site. Mr. Thomerson, one of the long-standing tenants of Spitalfields market and a petitioner against the Bill, argued strongly that the facilities provided by the new market were already out of date and that the traffic problems would be just as serious in Temple Mills as they are in Spitalfields. Mr. Thomerson is sufficiently disturbed by the prospects that he has already presented a further petition in readiness for the Committee stage, should the Bill reach the other place.
  The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, which is responsible for markets and whose Minister is not present tonight—I welcome the presence of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment—has adopted a neutral posture towards the Bill and has expressed no view about the desirability of change. Indeed, in a reply of 6 June to Mr. Thomerson, who wrote to the Minister, a MAFF official said:
  "We feel that the issues raised on the horticultural side are commercial ones which are best dealt with by those involved commercially. We are very much aware that there is opposition from several different quarters and we are concerned that a petitioner such as yourself should avail himself of the opportunity to present petitions to the Bill in Committee. It is here that detailed consideration can best be given to the point you raised."
  With all respect to the Committee, it is not equipped to consider whether the Spitalfields market should be best located in Temple Mills. In his new petition, Mr. Thomerson gives a detailed critique of the desired layout of Temple Mills, concluding that,
  "without considerable attention to these items, the new proposed market of Spitalfields is less suitable than its existing premises, in consequence of which the Preamble to the Bill and the reason for the proposed alteration of the site becomes untrue."
  As the House will recall, the preamble to the Bill begins:

  937
  "The age and condition of Spitalfields market is such that the market fails to meet modern market needs and practices."
  Mr. Thomerson's petition goes on:
  "Without some improvement in local access and egress roads, many of which are local residential one-way systems, congestion in the area will become intolerable, certainly until such times as the M11 is extended to the area and could seriously detract from any success if the proposed new market by causing the local traffic problem to be no better than at the existing site therefore defeating the objective of an improved traffic situation".
  So much for the planning case for the proposed transfer. But the heart of the objection remains the proposed redevelopment of the vacated Spitafields site with a substantial new office development. I have no prejuduce against office developments, but to devote the greater part of the 11-acre Spitalfields market site to the provision of a further 885,000 sq ft of offices, in a borough which has already provided scores of acres and millions of square feet to office buildings in its dockland area, is a flagrant misuse of scarce building land. It becomes all the more blatant when that is put alongside the fact that Tower Hamlets has the worst housing problem in London, and Spitalfield ward is the most deprived ward, not only in housing but in every other respect, in the whole of Britain.
  The ward is also the centre of the Bangladeshi community in Tower Hamlets where, for employment purposes, low-cost workshops are the main need of the community. The impact of a massive new office development will be to drive up all land, factory and housing prices in the area, and rents for commercial and industrial premises. Since the Committee has completed its deliberations, it has been announced that there is to be a complete redesign of the redevelopment proposals for Spitalfields market, so that it will include the City's first major shopping centre, incorporating new developments of some 250,000 to 300,000 sq ft. How this additional building is to be fitted into the Spitalfields market site, and how it will square with the proposed new shopping centre in the Whitechapel road I do not know.
  Of course, office development is the most lucrative form of land use in London today, but while we must cater for our office needs, it is entirely wrong, particularly in hard-pressed inner city areas, to give them an overriding priority over housing and other community needs. Offices do not regenerate inner city areas; they simply create islands of self-contained activity and prosperity in otherwise rundown areas. I believe that the main focus of inner city regeneration should be meeting the needs of the people in the areas concerned.
  The Government's view, by contrast, is that the needs of local residents should be secondary. Believing as they do in the trickle-down theory, their primary aim is to bring into inner city areas islands of office development and high-priced accommodation. That may change the physical aspect, and the social composition of the area immediately concerned, but it does little or nothing to solve the problems of the wider area in which redevelopment has taken place.
  For all these reasons, I shall certainly vote against the Third Reading. I invite my right hon. and hon. Friends and perhaps some more open-minded Conservative Members to join me.
  7.46 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. David Trippier): It may be helpful if I intervene briefly to give an indication of the Government's view of the Bill.
  The Government have considered the content of the Bill and have no objection in principle to the proposals in it. Neither the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, which has the responsibility for wholesale markets, as the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) said, nor my Department has any outstanding points on the Bill. In the usual, conventional way, the Government are taking a neutral stance on the Bill.
  It is, of course, for the promoters to persuade Parliament that the powers they are seeking are justified. It may be helpful to the House if I say just a few words about the planning issues relating to the development of the existing Spitalfields site. The planning application submitted by the Spitalfields Redevelopment Group to redevelop the site of the existing market was approved by a policy sub-committee of Tower Hamlets council on 7 September 1987. The application was not referred to the Secretary of State for the Environment because the council did not consider that it constituted a departure from the development plan. My Department did not receive any representations asking that the application be called in far public inquiry.
  Once planning permission has been granted, the Secretary of State has no further locus. I understand that local people will derive some £20 million-worth of benefits from an agreement that was reached between the developer, the City of London corporation and Tower Hamlets council. In the circumstances, I hope that the Bill will be allowed to proceed.
  Mr. Shore: The Minister says that no representations have been made about calling in the application, but I and other people in Tower hamlets wrote, and received a not unusual reply fom the Secretary of State saying that it was not an appropriate matter for his intervention, and that it should be decided locally.
  7.48 pm
  Ms. Mildred Gordon: No evidence has been produced since Second Reading to show that there is anything wrong with this market that it is not fairly simple to put right. One thousand people are employed in this flourishing market, which is developing new areas of wholesale food sales, so the market is expanding.
  There are 32 flats above the market and 50 people live there in low-cost dwellings. It will be very hard to find housing for them, as the housing waiting list in Tower Hamlets has 20,000 people on it, and there are many homeless people.
  Several groups who have petitioned against the market, as my right hon. Friend says, have been given sweeteners enabling them to withdraw their petitions, but for the ordinary residents of Spitalfields, the contrary is true. There is no benefit whatsoever and if the market is demolished they will lose a source of ethnic food of the kind that they need, and they will have to travel a long way to buy their supplies.
  The development that will take its place will produce very great disadvantages. There is nothing in the Committee stage of the Bill to show any guarantees for the

  939
  protection of local industries, which employ local people. Local industries, such as the leather and garment manufacturers, will be put at risk. Increased land and property prices will result in local tenants suffering, as is clear from other areas where similar developments have occurred.
  Open space is at threat. I welcome the verbal undertaking by Tower Hamlets that a substantial portion of Allen Gardens will be retained, but who will decide what is "substantial"—in an area where there is need for at least double the amount of open space that exists at present? Losing some of it is regrettable. Even now, a number of pocket handkerchief-sized parks and gardens in Tower Hamlets, previously designated as public open spaces—which are extremely important in an area in which 85 per cent. of the population lives in apartments—are under threat and in the process of being offered to developers.
  Their disappearance would turn the whole area into the type of concrete jungle that exists in New York. Flat-dwellers will have nowhere to walk the dog or take their children to play or find a spot in which to sit in the sun and get a breath of fresh air when they have an hour or two to spare. Any loss of parkland and open space is extremely serious in this part of the world.
  The future of this multicultural, multiracial community depends on the Bill being defeated. Three Georgian cottages were listed in the area. Two of them were demolished last year. This arouses fears that the special dwellings that were occupied by the Huguenots, houses with large windows designed to let in the light so the silk weavers could work, the mulberry trees and all the traditional and historic ambience of the area will be destroyed if the development goes ahead.
  The real reason for doing away with the market is to make room for this development, which will be mostly office space. There will also be shops and a shopping centre which will compete with other shopping centres in the area and which the local community does not need. Clearly, the Bill will provide an opportunity for a lot of profit to be made, and to hell with the local community.
  Although I oppose the Bill, I would support proposals which put Government money into the area. I accept that much improvement could be made, but that improvement must involve the local workshops and the provision of affordable dwellings and training for local people, so upgrading the area and improving the health of the people and their living conditions. The Bill will do none of that. It will blight the local community.
  7.53 pm
  Mr. Ron Leighton: We are tonight dealing with the important issue of the redevelopment of a large part of the east end of London, an area in which some of us live and represent in the House. This should have been dealt with by way of a proper public inquiry and not by the private Bill procedure. Indeed, it is an abuse of that procedure. This is happening too frequently and we must register our protest about it.
  On Second Reading, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) said, I referred to the pitiful sum of £50,000 that was being
  940
  earmarked for training. At least that has been trebled. It will be spread over a five-year period, with an extra £500,000 being made available. It would be churlish of me not to welcome that additional money, even though it is still not enough.
  I want to consider the community gain—the "public gain" as it is called in the United States—which should be obtained from this type of development. It is clear that the gain to the community in the area is not enough. I chaired a Select Committee which went to America to examine developments of this kind there, the home of free enterprise and capitalism. I shall compare the practice there with the way in which this development is planned for in the east end of London.
  The market will go and something will be put in its place. Who will benefit from that? Megabucks—hundreds of millions, if not billions, of pounds—will be made out of this development. How much of that will go to the local residential community of about 8,000 people? Many others live in the surrounding neighbourhood. A proper public inquiry should have examined the impact on the area. There has been no proper examination of all the issues involved.
  Across the border is Canary wharf, which is now a mini-Manhattan. It is a £3 billion to £4 billion project. But again, there was no proper inquiry. The same is happening at Spitalfields.
  The fact that Spitalfields is a market acts as a depressant on the price of land. With this development, the value of the land will rocket. Across the border is Wapping, where land is now worth £20 million an acre—simply because this development is property-market-led.
  Land let for workshops fetches about £3 a square foot. Land let as offices in London fetches about £50 a square foot. That is the sort of money about which we are speaking. Land used for industrial purposes is worth between £3,000 and £4,000 an acre. In this area, the land will fetch perhaps £20 million an acre if it is devoted to offices and luxury housing, as it surely will.
  That results in small businesses being squeezed out. Indeed, we will tonight decide whether the small people, the small businesses, shall be squeezed out by rising land values. Because small businesses are on leases, their properties will go to the developers. That will eliminate the local community.
  Many of them are Bangladeshis. Prince Charles recently visited the area and met the Bangladeshis in their small workshops. All of those workshops will be priced out of the market and they will have to go. But where will they go? The development will house banks, finance houses and insurance companies. The City of London will expand and incorporate the area.
  Does anybody imagine that the Bangladeshis will get jobs in the banks and insurance houses? It is nonsense to suggest that they will. And considering the pitiful sums being made available for training, it is nonsense to suggest that local people will be trained to take up jobs in finance houses.
  I question the theory that just any development is good. Some seem to think that local people benefit automatically from it. That is not so. It has not happened in, say, docklands, where the local population has certainly not benefited. Indeed, local people have lost out. There has been a growth of employment in the docklands area, but

  941
  it has not gone to the local population. In fact, the number of unemployed in that area is higher now than before the UDC was set up. The reason for that is—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will not go into reasons for that. We are discussing the City of London (Spitalfields Market) Bill; I hope that the hon. Gentleman will confine his remarks to that.
  Mr. Leighton: What I am trying to explain is what will happen if we pass this Bill; an economic process will be set in train where land values are forced up, traditional industries and traditional occupations employing local people will be forced out. New sorts of firms and industries, all office-based, and service industries will come in which will bring in their own labour, and this will cause unemployment in the Spitalfields area. I am suggesting that if we pass this Bill tonight, instead of the residential community benefiting, it will suffer.
  I would like to quote, if I may, a witness, Dr. Robin Hambleton. He is a senior research fellow at the school of advanced urban studies in Bristol and he was asked about the idea that any sort of development is bound to benefit the local people. He was asked:
  "Does regeneration inevitably improve prospects for the local residents?"
  He said:
  "Thanks to the major research initiative involving studies of several British cities carried out by the Economic and Social Research Council in recent years we know that a general rise in local economic activity does not necessarily result in a 'trickle down' of employment benefit to disadvantaged groups".
  He referred to American research and concluded:
  "The key finding is that disadvantaged residents have great difficulty benefiting from economic regeneration. Indeed, low and moderate income people tend not to benefit."
  That is the result of impartial research, and this is what is going to happen in Spitalfields. Planning permission will be given without any prior inquiry to this new development, and it will push up land values, or perhaps I should say land prices. What I am asking tonight is, who will benefit from that? Certainly the developers will benefit; certainly the financiers, many of whom will come from North America and Japan, will benefit. In other words, people from outside, and often people from outside this country, will benefit, but not the residential community; they will be squeezed out. The local community will be destroyed and will be worse off. I think that that is fundamentally wrong.
  I would like to mention very briefly to the House the result of what the Select Committee saw when it looked at this sort of development in the United States.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not think that I can allow the hon. Gentleman to do that. That would lead us into a discussion of a much broader nature than that which is the subject of the Bill before the House. The hon. Gentleman must confine his remarks to the Third Reading of the City of London (Spitalfields Market) Bill rather than to urban regeneration or job creation in the United States.
  Mr. Leighton: I defer to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as ever. It is just a fact that we are dealing with the urban regeneration of this part of east London. We spent a great deal of taxpayers' money trying to find out about these things; how does one share the benefit? The hon. Member, the Chairman of the Agriculture Committee, who is
  942
  present, might wonder how we share our knowledge with the House when we have an occasion like this if it is not in order. If it is not in order, I will not persist.
  I shall just say this about the firm which is developing Canary wharf—Olympia York. We visited its project in New York, which is the same as its project at Canary wharf and it is paying a community gain of $1 billion to New York City—and I am glad the Minister is paying attention to this. He might like to look at The New York Times of December 27—I will only give one sentence of this—which said:
  "Battery Park City plans to contribute $1 billion to develop housing in New York City."
  The same is true in Boston, where we found—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We will have Baltimore, Hong Kong and everywhere else if we are not careful. If the hon. Gentleman pursues this line, I will have to allow others to put a contrary view. I think we must get back to Spitalfields.
  Mr. Leighton: I stand rebuked, and extremely humbled and crestfallen. I must not persist in that line of argument, and I shall not. I will just say that we are so backward in this country that when this development takes place a fair proportion does not go to the local people, as in virtually every other country that I have visited and studied and I do hope that I will find an occasion when it will be legitimate and in order to give the benefit of this experience to the House. That is why, unless I am convinced of the community gain, I will vote against this Bill.
  We are changing the nature of this area, and we are giving the benefits to financiers from outside this country, let alone outside this area, and to the developers, and we are not giving fair do's and an equitable distribution of the benefits to the people who live in that area, many of whom were born there. They are getting the rough end of the stick all the time. Their area is going to be developed; they will be spectators standing on the sidelines, watching the fruits of this development go to others. It is not good enough. This should be dealt with by proper planning procedures, not by an abuse of the private Bill procedure. This is not how we should do our business, and therefore, unless I am convinced by the hon. Member, I shall vote against thus Bill tonight.
  8.8 pm
  Mr. Martin Redmond: I seek clarification, because if this Bill is to receive its Third Reading this evening, I would like to ask the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) some questions in relation to the Bill. Contrary to what he has said—and I listened very, very, carefully—there have only been some minor financial concessions but the Bill itself has not been altered, and the report by the Committee indicates that all the clauses contained within the Bill have been allowed. That obviously causes great concern.
  The first point which has been referred to by hon. Members from this side of the House concerns the age and condition of Spitalfields market. I suggest that perhaps the promoters of the Bill should not have rushed in to demolish and transfer this market, but should have sought to develop the site. They should spend some of the millions of pounds in which the area is apparently awash and that the financial people in the City will make from the Bill if it is allowed its Third Reading.

  943
  I say that the present market should stay on this site. One can look around the City of London and see many famous landmarks disappearing because the money market is building monstrosities which are neither beautiful to look at nor pleasing on the feet as one walks the concrete corridors within them.
  You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, come from a town which has a famous market, the Doncaster market, which Doncaster council has spent a considerable sum of money upgrading to ensure that the market town meets the requirements of the people who live there. The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) referred to the financial benefits to some residents from the Bill. A hell of a lot more money could have been obtained for them. If the people who are to be affected were to gain the most financially, I could support the Bill, but the local people will not benefit as much as those who make a killing from the redevelopment.
  If old age and poor condition are the criteria for demolition, the churches should be looking for safeguards. Many churches in London are old and require money. Are we to demolish those and allow high rise flats and offices to take their place for the lads who are making a killing in the City's money markets? Certainly the poor people will not be able to afford the accommodation that will rise from the ashes if the Bill goes through.
  We should consider the character of the City of London. If the market is demolished, no matter what replaces it, some of the City's character and flavour will disappear. Character and flavour are important ingredients in London's finances. People who live and work in London depend upon tourists, and an old place full of character and charm will attract tourists a damn sight more than a modern clean market.
  Even at this late stage, the promoters should consider spending the money that they intend to spend on the promotion of offices and high-rent accommodation on improving the poor quality facilities about which the Bill talks.
  Doncaster, as you know Mr. Deputy Speaker, has an excellent market. We would hate to think that that market was to be shifted to Bolton. Doncaster would lose its character as a market town. One could draw a similar conclusion from the Bill. If Spitalfields market moves four miles as the crow flies, it will lose some of its charm.
  I had a look at the map in the Private Bill Office because I was interested to see where the new site would be. The map did not show exactly where the old site was in relation to the new site, but looking at the new site I was filled with apprehension. The Bill contains none of the safeguards that I would want to see if the Bill related to my area.
  On one side there are some marshalling yards. We all know that railways attract children. Mams and dads take their children to the market. It is suggested that there will be only one entrance to the proposed site compared with the many roads leading into the present market. If, as the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate would have us believe, the market is crowded on market day, there will be children. Will an adequate fence be maintained to ensure that those children do not wander onto those marshalling yards with the resulting problems and even fatalities?
  944
  What financial provisions are there to compensate any child or adult who is injured as a result of the proposed market being so close to the marshalling yards?
  On another side of the proposed site is the river, which also means danger. How many deaths will occur if there is not adequate finance for a fence to protect children from the river? Given my anxiety about that, which I hope the hon. Gentleman shares, why is there no provision in the Bill for adequate fencing of the market's perimeter?
  The single entrance into the market is also a matter for anxiety. Will there be adequate car parking? I see nothing in the Bill about the provision of such a car park. Will cars be parked on the roads in the immediate vicinity? Again, we come back to the dangers of the marshalling yards and the river. There is nothing in the Bill about the number of cars that will have to be provided for if the new site takes off in the way that is expected.
  Such matters will not affect the Bill's promoters. Having moved the site and passed the market to another council, their obligation is finished. They will then proceed to build the office blocks and the high rent or high price flats. Is that in line with the thinking of a certain gentleman who lives down the road, who has passed a number of comments on the way in which architects are spoiling the character of London?
  I thought that the Minister might have expressed some anxiety about the lack of details in the Bill about what will happen to the new site. The gentleman down the road is obviously concerned, as I know the Minister is. However, he made no reference to that in his short contribution at the Dispatch Box.
  The demolition of two Georgian cottages has been referred to. Not all Labour Members are philistines. We welcome the old charm and love that the craftsmen of old gave us, which is obviously part of our heritage that we should be seeking to protect. The Prime Minister herself talks about protecting our heritage and I look forward to hearing her oppose the Bill.
  Clause 5 says:
  "accommodation within the new site will so far as reasonably practicable".
  Who decides what is practicable? Is it the owners of the site? If so, they will say, obviously, that it is reasonably practical, that they have met the terms of the Bill and that, therefore, it can go to the other place. Anyone who disagrees is left to make a decision about whether to go to the courts, which will decide whether the owners are correct in making that assumption. However, how many owners or tenants of market stalls can afford to take on the local authority or the people with big business interests? They do not have the money to take people to court, given the high costs of taking a case through the legal system. The Bill should have provided that if a dispute occurred, the method of taking it to arbitration was one that was fair for both sides. That would have cost far less than seeking redress through the courts of the land, as the Bill provides.
  Other hon. Members have referred to compensation. Far more compensation could have been offered by the promoters of the Bill. Although one talks of millions of pounds of compensation, the people who live in the area will suffer the monstrosities that seem to be the norm. The promoters of the Bill received some bumf from the parliamentary agents this morning that made everything about the Third Reading of the Bill appear rosy. There are many other points in it, but I do not wish to delay the House too long.

  945
  If Conservative Members are interested in contributing to the debate, perhaps they will catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and tell us why they think that the Bill is good for Spitalfields. I have heard no arguments from Conservative Members about why the Bill should proceed, so I hope that the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate will answer some of the points that we have raised. I do not know what benefits will go to the area of the present market other than to the people who will make a financial killing if the Bill receives a Third Reading.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 168, Noes 53.

  Division No. 48]

  [8.23 pm

  AYES

  Arbuthnot, James

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Ashby, David

  Forman, Nigel

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Forth, Eric

  Atkins, Robert

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Atkinson, David

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Franks, Cecil

  Batiste, Spencer

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Bendall, Vivian

  Gill, Christopher

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Boswell, Tim

  Gorst, John

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Gow, Ian

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Bright, Graham

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

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

  Gregory, Conal

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Grist, Ian

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Butler, Chris

  Hannam, John

  Butterfill, John

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Harris, David

  Cartwright, John

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Cash, William

  Hayward, Robert

  Chapman, Sydney

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Churchill, Mr

  Heddle, John

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Hill, James

  Cohen, Harry

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Conway, Derek

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Hunter, Andrew

  Couchman, James

  Irvine, Michael

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

  Irving, Charles

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Jack, Michael

  Day, Stephen

  Janman, Tim

  Devlin, Tim

  Jessel, Toby

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Dover, Den

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Dunn, Bob

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Durant, Tony

  Kilfedder, James

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Fallon, Michael

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Knapman, Roger

  946

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Riddick, Graham

  Lang, Ian

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Rowe, Andrew

  Lewis, Terry

  Ryder, Richard

  Lightbown, David

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Lilley, Peter

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Lord, Michael

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Sims, Roger

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Mans, Keith

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Maples, John

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Steen, Anthony

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Stern, Michael

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Summerson, Hugo

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Thorne, Neil

  Moss, Malcolm

  Thurnham, Peter

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Neale, Gerrard

  Trippier, David

  Neubert, Michael

  Trotter, Neville

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Wheeler, John

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Page, Richard

  Wilkinson, John

  Paice, James

  Wood, Timothy

  Pawsey, James

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Portillo, Michael

  Mr. Jeremy Hanley and

  Redwood, John

  Mr. Peter Rost.

  NOES

  Barron, Kevin

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

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

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Bermingham, Gerald

  McFall, John

  Callaghan, Jim

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  McKelvey, William

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Clay, Bob

  Morley, Elliott

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Mullin, Chris

  Cousins, Jim

  Nellist, Dave

  Cryer, Bob

  O'Brien, William

  Dixon, Don

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Doran, Frank

  Patchett, Terry

  Eastham, Ken

  Pike, Peter L.

  Flannery, Martin

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Flynn, Paul

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Galbraith, Sam

  Rooker, Jeff

  George, Bruce

  Sheerman, Barry

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Skinner, Dennis

  Gordon, Mildred

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Grocott, Bruce

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

  Hardy, Peter

  Spearing, Nigel

  Haynes, Frank

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Hinchliffe, David

  Holland, Stuart

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Mr. Michael Welsh and

  Janner, Greville

  Mr. Martin Redmond.

  Leighton, Ron

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Avon Light Rail Transit Bill [Lords]
Order for Second Reading read.
8.34 pm
Mr. Jerry Wiggin: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Discussion on the rapid transit system to serve the city of Bristol in the county of Avon in order to overcome the inexorably increasing problems of traffic congestion has been continuing since at least 1980. In that year, a metropolitan railway system, similar to that established in Newcastle, was proposed for Bristol and its hinterland by a number of those who are now in turn associated with the Avon Light Rail Transit Bill No. 1.
The original concept foresaw the linkage of much of the present railway network in Avon, with an underground section that would serve the expanding business and commercial area in the centre of Bristol. Although widely admired, the concept made little progress, since it relied entirely on the public purse for the subscription of capital through the taxpayer and local authority ratepayers, both for construction and for subsequent operation. An important statement had nevertheless been made—that a major contribution to improving public transport in Avon could be achieved only by a radical transformation of the railway network which no longer addressed itself to the necessity of serving the rapidly expanding commuter traffic to and from the city of Bristol.
Bristol has one of the highest levels of car ownership of any urban area of the United Kingdom, but equally, it suffers from the inadequacy of the road infrastructure and the inability to increase it without indulging in major central area road construction, which would be prohibitive on both cost and environmental grounds. It is also a fact that the majority of those living in the Avon travel-to-work area also work within the boundaries of that area. That makes the county of Avon an unusually self-contained economic unit. However, it also imposes enormous additional pressures on the transport infrastructure which the local bus operators, despite imaginative developments of their system, are unable wholly to satisfy in competing for road space, they are also the victims of increasing congestion.
Since 1980, the economic progress of Bristol and Avon has not only reflected the increasing prosperity of the nation as a whole, but in many respects has outstripped it. That is due to the excellence of the mainline railway and motorway connections with the captial and with other parts of the United Kingdom, the development of Bristol as a centre for the financial services industry and the increasing concentration on high-technology industries, clustering around long-established and prospering companies such as British Aerospace and Rolls-Royce, which continue to form a major manufacturing base in the region. As a result, the outlying districts of Woodspring, Wansdyke, and Northavon have shown substantial population increases, one feature of which is the establishment of virtually a complete new town, Bradley Stoke, on the northern outskirts of the city of Bristol.
It may confidently be expected that the economic development of Bristol and Avon will continue, given those many favourable circumstances that naturally benefit the area. However, the problems of that success, notably that of traffic congestion, also continue to grow apace. Unless confidently and effectively addressed, they
948
will not only threaten to break that expansion, but impose ever increasing penalties of pollution and environmental decay.
As a major regional capital, Bristol ought not to face such problems without a solution and that, in essence, is the concept behind the rapid transit system now proposed. The network proposed is similar to that first considered in the Avon metro proposal, but the technology of achievement has altered radically, due entirely to state-of-the-art development of modern, street-running light rail systems. The House will be aware that it has already approved such systems for Manchester and Sheffield, a Bill to establish a new network in the west midlands has now been deposited and there is active discussion of light rail networks for Edinburgh, Cardiff, Plymouth, Leeds, south Hampshire, Nottingham and a number of other important locations in the United Kingdom.
All those systems, including of course that in Bristol, will be similar to modern urban light rail systems which are a significant and important element of public transport on the continent, most notably in West Germany, France, Holland and Belgium. Even in the United States, the bastion of the motor car, light rail networks are undergoing a dramatic and highly successful revival; throughout the year, some 20 such systems are proposed or inaugurated. It is a major growth industry which offers considerable attractions for the British railway equipment manufacturing industry, once it has achieved expertise through shop window developments here at home. The opportunity so to create new job opportunities in the manufacturing industry must not be under-estimated. Equally, there is a warning that, unless British companies enter that expanding market, it will be lost entirely to overseas competitors.
Nor should the environmental aspect be overlooked. The demand that the anticipated 5 per cent. per annum increase in road traffic will create cannot be accommodated without a considerable impact on the environment in its broadest sense. The accommodation of necessary roadworks would have a devastating effect, and the related required parking provisions would be unacceptable both in land take and in its visual and economic impact. Additional roads create additional traffic. Development would be forced outwards and the attack on the green belt intensified. The so-called freedom of the private motorist cannot be satisfied without enormous cost, a cost which is too great. The pollution factor, despite an increased consumption of unleaded petrol, will also have an impact. Currently, the level of nitrogen dioxide emission from car exhausts in Bristol city centre is more than twice the recommended EEC limit.
The promoters of the Avon Light Rail Transit Bill No. 1 seek to establish, over a number of years and with a series of Bills, a complete network serving much of the populated area of the county of Avon, the essential feature of which is the intention to supply direct and rapid access to the centre of Bristol. That is something that the existing rail network, frozen in its final development at the end of the last century, cannot achieve, but which a modern light rail network can accomplish swiftly, effectively and economically.
The Bill seeks to reopen and convert a length of railway first opened in stages between 1867 and 1906, which has carried no traffic, apart from occasional steam specials, since 1981. The route parallels a wholly inadequate road,

949
the A369 from Portishead to Bristol, whose entire length can be consumed by a traffic jam at peak hours and which, even at off-peak times, constitutes ineffective access to the centre of Bristol.
Protests at traffic delays encountered by the people of Bristol are now a major feature of local authority meetings. The situation is worsened by the existence of a major traffic interchange on the M5 Exeter-to-Birmingham motorway, which Avon county council and the Department of Transport now consider to be greatly overloaded. The reopening of this single route to a temporary terminus at Wapping wharf in the centre of Bristol therefore constitutes in itself a major contribution to solving the serious problem of traffic congestion. That view has not been contested. The House will agree that it makes no sense whatsoever for such problems to continue and to increase while a perfectly usable railway line lies moribund and there are those willing and able to return it to use.
In essence, this is a Bill not for a new railway, but for the re-establishment of an existing one. Further Bills, to be laid before Parliament, at the foreseen annual intervals as currently provided for, will seek to extend this Bill by means of a street-running section crossing the centre of Bristol to link Wapping wharf and Temple Meads. Redundant railway infrastructure will be incorporated to strike north through Horfield to Filton and the new town of Bradley Stoke, while, to the east, another former railway route will be re-established to bring access to parts of Kingswood and then to Yate, where there will also be a street-running section to serve the centre of the new town area.
Further routes will aim to serve south Bristol and the area which have recently been incorporated, with parliamentary approval, in the new urban development corporation for Bristol. Advanced Transport for Avon, promoter of this and subsequent Bills, has also expressed its desire to serve the Avonmouth area and the city of Bath, whose particular traffic problems have now exceeded manageable levels.
Financing is crucial. The Bill—the first of its kind to come before the House for many years—seeks to establish a public transport system within the private sector. Projections obtained from expert consultants show that the proposed system, including, in isolation, the route for which powers are sought in this Bill, can be operated profitably without recourse to public subsidy of running costs, and undertakings that no such subsidy will be sought have been offered to Bristol city council and Avon county council which, quite properly, sought such undertakings. Such an undertaking was indeed given under the company's common seal to the county council last February.
The finance for construction will also lie heavily—indeed, predominantly—with the private sector. Advanced Transport for Avon proposes to demonstrate the long-known linkage between enhanced property values and the development of modern transport systems. This phenomenon of uprating in land and property values as a result of transport development was used to supply substantial capital to the British-constructed metro system in Hong Kong. It is being employed, in variant, in the Beckton and City extensions to the docklands light railway and will inevitably form a vital ingredient of future light rail developments in the United Kingdom, quite apart from Bristol. To establish access to these land values,
950
Advanced Transport of Avon will form a joint development company with appropriate development companies. The first of those agreements is now taking place, supplying not only opportunity, but also working capital for the development cost of the system.
Mr. Bob Cryer: In arguing the case for the Bill, the hon. Gentleman said that this is a first stage and a precursor to a number of developing stages, and that further Bills will be brought forward to give authority for, for example, street works. However, the financial memorandum to the Bill states:
"Expenditure which may be incurred in the future development of the light rail transit sytem cannot now be quantified."
If the hon. Gentleman is arguing that the system can be developed, how can he do so without explaining where the money comes from to develop the system?
Mr. Wiggin: The hon. Gentleman, who is knowledgeable about the Bill for a Sheffield light transit system, will recall that in both that case and this, there is a progression. The promoters of these schemes, whether public authorities as in the case of Sheffield, or private company, as in this case, seek to bite off each little piece rather than seeing the scheme as one vast project, the cost of which would be huge.
This relatively modest proposal as a precursor of another Bill is a sensible way of progressing. I hope that, by the time we reach the later Bills, the first stages will be running and showing that the figures and estimates are truthful. I do not think that doing this piece by piece is a bad method; I hope that, once we have convinced the House that the Bill should be given a Second Reading, further Bills will progress with greater ease.
Through its expert advisers, Advanced Transport for Avon has established a series of sites which are available for development through the usual planning consent procedure—sites on which development would occur in any case. Instead of being exported elsewhere, the additional profits that will accrue from supplying modern transport potential to those sites will be put to work creating employment and prosperity for the communities of Avon and Bristol.
The basis for that is that the people who benefit directly from the system—the house owner, the shopkeeper and the property owner—will pay, through the development that they occupy, a large part of the capital cost. I hope that the House will pay particular attention to the phrases "the normal planning consent procedure" and "on which development would occur in any case". I would not be party to a Bill that sought to delve even further into the green belt. The House knows my views about development beyond it. The idea is to provide a railway line to a development; that development will then have an enhanced value; it is therefore possible to share some of that value with the railway system.
The employment potential involved in construction, operation and maintenance of the system must not be under-estimated as a vital economic factor for the future. A large amount of job creation, estimated at about 2,000 permanent situations—including direct and indirect jobs but excluding construction personnel—will take place when the whole system is completed.
The company will grant a licence for construction to companies with enough expertise and experience to undertake the work. I can inform the House that a

951
substantial agreement with a prime contractor is now in place with a British company of international excellence. In turn, that company will supply £3·5 million in development capital to Advanced Transport for Avon. The company will also license an operator, and has entered into an agreement with Bristol city council and Avon county council in respect of their considerations in the matter.
Advanced Transport for Avon has worked closely with the Department of Transport in formulating its plans, and with the help of our merchant bank advisers is now considering a preliminary application for access to section 56 grants which can be available for projects of this sort. Section 56 grants will, it is understood, be available to the light rail systems now approved or seeking approval in Manchester, Sheffield and Birmingham. These discussions will continue, but the House will understand that nothing of substance can be said about the matter until the negotiations between the company and the Department of Transport are concluded.
It is, however, a well-established principle that section 56 grants are made available only when there is a demonstrable benefit to the community in general in terms of easement of traffic, reduction of congestion and pollution and a saving to the public purse in other direct respects, such as a saving of expenditure on infrastructure. In Avon alone, serious traffic accidents cost about £47 million a year, so even a modest reduction brought about by travellers switching from the roads to the Avon light rail transit will recompense the company's modest access to Government funds. Even in respect of this single Bill for a limited route, it is clear that a major reduction in traffic congestion and in the almost legendary delays for travellers between Portishead and Bristol will produce major benefits for the public as well as the private purse.
I mentioned earlier undertakings proposed or made between the company and Bristol city council and Avon county council. They cover a number of important aspects, among them the contributions that the company will make to the public infrastructure by the provision of funds for works associated with the light railway in connection with highways and footways. The sums involved are considerable, and the company has also offered to make a direct financial contribution to the county council to assist it with adjustments to its work load in progressing the light railway.
Throughout the prolonged negotiations over these matters, it can be shown that the company has responded generously and positively to the requests made by these two local authorities for a direct contribution to infrastructure costs.
Consultation is central to the success of a project of this kind. Unusually, and, in contemporary terms, uniquely, this public transport project is propelled by the private sector rather than by a consortium of local authorities as is the case elsewhere. Throughout the past three years, Advanced Transport for Avon has conducted detailed negotiations with the principal local authorities at officer and political level and through the respective parliamentary agents for the parties. About 76 other bodies have been consulted. Almost certainly uniquely, some of these negotiations have been conducted in public through the medium of television. There have been many public
952
meetings and addresses by the promoters to public and private bodies. No one could say that absolutely everyone has been wholly satisfied by what they have heard from Advanced Transport for Avon. Such a state of perfection, although desirable, is, in practical terms, impossible to achieve. Obviously, the time demanded by such meetings dictates that individuals and bodies who are directly influenced are the subject of detailed discussion, so discussions to date have mainly taken place with those involved in the first route and Bristol city centre.
As the project expands, the consultation process will widen correspondingly. As a private company, Advanced Transport for Avon possesses certain commercial confidences which it must retain to itself. That essential element of commercial and business life is capable of being misrepresented. In future Bills, the establishment of a street-running section across Bristol city centre will require the approval of two principal local authorities under the Tramways Acts. The company has energetically endeavoured to establish a route acceptable to all parties and to give greater time for that to be achieved. It was agreed with the county council last year to delay the deposit of the Bill to do with that section. That causes a certain delay to the project, with commensurate additional costs, but it can be cited as a clear example of the company's willingness to undertake and seek accommodation with the parties with which it negotiates.
As a further pertinent example, I cite the negotiations between the company and the Bristol port authority, which is anxious to safeguard the opportunity at some time in the future, to operate freight trains to and from its dock at Royal Portbury. That relatively new facility has no present rail link, but in the light of future traffic developments it may be necessary to establish one. The promoters have shown their willingness to accommodate such traffic within the standards and limits imposed by the railways inspectorate and have further offered at their own expense to lay the track between Bower Ashton junction and the projected junction near the Royal Portbury dock to a standard sufficient to bear the weight of modern freight trains, rather than the much lighter light railway vehicles.
That is a further and important example of the promoters supporting the public infrastructure from their own purse, as the Royal Portbury dock is owned and administered by Bristol city council. No doubt an increase in the traffic to and from that dock would benefit the people of Bristol, who continue to support that facility through their rates.
Public opinion has consistently demonstrated its support for the LRT project. That was confirmed in a MORI opinion poll, which demonstrated through the approved sampling system that 85 per cent. of the people of Avon want the light rail system introduced. That extraordinarily high figure confirms the desire of the local population to see effective action to reduce the increasing traffic congestion which afflicts the city and county.
There have, of course, been critics, and the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) has been one of them. However, she will be the first to confirm that she has had a number of meetings with the promoters and, on the most recent occasion, she was accompanied by representatives of the Labour party who sit on Bristol city council and Avon county council.
At different times, the hon. Member for Bristol, South has expressed concern on a wide range of points, which

953
include safety in operation of the system, the method of financing, consultation, whether the system will reduce congestion and whether the company intends to complete the network throughout. She has stated that the promoters were unwilling or unable to supply her with information on all or any of those points. An undertaking, however, on those matters has been given by the company to the county council during the proceedings in another place and before the commencement of proceedings in this House. Further undertakings now being negotiated with the two authorities, are confidently expected to lead to the withdrawal of holding petitions lodged by Bristol city council and Avon county council. The negotiations were detailed, complex and lengthy. As I have already stated, they are the subject of undertakings to be given under the company's common seal.
Given that those authorities bear weighty responsibilities in permitting the implementation of the light rail network, it is strange that they are satisfied, while the hon. Member for Bristol, South—who bears no such burdens—states frequently that she is not. If the hon. Lady is fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, I hope that we shall have the opportunity of hearing her detailed reasonings.
The costs of promoting the light rail scheme in Bristol have to date been entirely supported by private capital, from the promoters directly, and from those who have subscribed or contributed to the scheme in other ways. That again makes the project a unique venture, as an urban transport scheme of this kind has not been promoted by the private sector since well before the last war. In other words, those who have put up the money to promote the scheme have taken a considerable venture risk. Notwithstanding the many difficulties and problems encountered—not least the persistent objections of the hon. Member for Bristol, South—the promoters have continued to recruit both further support and capital and to reach important agreements for the financing and construction of the system. That demonstrates the faith of the railway industry, of individuals and providers of capital, that the project is sound and well-founded and capable of execution within the terms described by the promoters.
In the eight years since the original Avon metro scheme was unveiled, this is the only practical initiative which has emerged to overcome costly and increasing traffic congestion in the county of Avon. Critics who have condemned the scheme have yet to suggest any viable alternatives, or say how it is that they would develop a light rail system in Avon without a major contribution of private investment.
As the light rail industry gathers pace—first in docklands, and now in Sheffield, Manchester and Birmingham—it is abundantly clear to all open-minded people that it would be absurd for a major city such as Bristol to suffer complete traffic coagulation, with all the economic disturbance that that will incur, on the basis that public transport schemes promoted from the private sector should not be allowed to succeed for ideological or other reasons.
Of course a project of this kind involves risk—nothing in this world is absolutely certain—but the light rail project for Bristol and Avon is a brave, imaginative and courageous one, which has been set before the House by
954
public-spirited promoters, who are determined to show that there is a sensible and viable alternative to congestion upon the roads, which ultimately benefits no one.
9.3 pm
Ms. Dawn Primarolo: I should like first to deal with a few points made by the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin). I must say that I learned no more from listening to his speech than I have learnt in Bristol in the past 18 months when negotiating with the company. Unfortunately, his speech was full of generalities about which most of us would find it extremely difficult to disagree—indeed, about which it would be foolhardy to disagree.
In summary, the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare told us that there is a traffic problem in Bristol, which is indisputable; that something needs to be done about it—quite right; and that light rapid transit may be part of that solution. I have no problems with that; I completely accept it. He then told us that it will be paid for from private property speculation through the mechanism of land enhancement values, to which I shall return.
Much of what the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare told the House has not been discussed in Bristol. His claim that the light rapid transit system ca .n be effectively, swiftly and economically built is not borne out by international and national research.
There is a crucial difference between the scheme proposed in the Bill and other schemes proposed for Manchester, the west midlands and Yorkshire. I have a copy of the Chartered Surveyor Weekly of 24 November, which lists all the schemes in the pipeline. All the schemes that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned or cares to compare with that proposed in the Bill are being put forward by public transport executives, which incorporate public and private funding, and not by private companies. I believe that the hon. Gentleman is mistaken and is attempting to mislead the House if he says that the scheme proposed in the Bill is exactly the same as the other schemes. I do not accept that.
I heard what the hon. Gentleman said about financing, but before I deal with that I want to correct, in case there is any misunderstanding, what he said about the negotiations with the local authorities. Negotiations are taking place between the company and Avon county council and Bristol city council. The company has offered to give undertakings regarding the development of the project, which are being considered. I do not question that. I got the impression from the hon. Gentleman, however, that he was seeking to suggest that agreement had already been reached on those undertakings and that they were under company seal. At present, those undertakings are still in draft. They have not been formally exchanged and negotiations are still proceeding.
Mr. Cryer: I am following the debate with great interest and I want to make sure that I have got it right. Is my hon. Friend saying that the local authorities have not expressed support for the project, although they are negotiating with the company? Will my hon. Friend tell me the political character of the two authorities, as that would help the House? My understanding of the speech of the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) is that somehow opposition to the project is based on political ideology and dogma.
Ms. Primarolo: I must make it clear to the House that the two local authorities have no problem in accepting the principle of the light rapid transit system. I share their support for that system. One cannot be against it, as it offers many opportunities.
The city council is Labour-controlled and the county council, a hung council, is in the hands of the Tories and the Liberals. Those authorities have raised a number of queries with the company and have sought undertakings from it. I understand that agreement is near, but negotiations have not yet been concluded and it is misleading to imply anything else.
The way in which the company and its associates have sought to promote the Bill has, at times, been less than honourable and sometimes sordid. Local publicity undertaken by the company has played on people's worries about the problems of Bristol's traffic congestion. Anyone who lives in Bristol, as I do, knows that it has great traffic problems. The lead levels are extremely high and sometimes it can take two hours in the morning to get from the villages around the outskirts of Bristol into the city centre. Clearly that is intolerable.
The company has told us that it will solve all the traffic difficulties by developing the light rapid transit system. That claim needs closer examination. The company has never made it clear to the people of Bristol that little substantive detail currently exists about the scheme. That lack of detail has been constantly highlighted by my detailed questions and the fact that the company has constantly hidden behind the principle of commercial confidentiality and the like. That is inappropriate.
Returning to the ideological point, I should like to read out a letter that was circulated by four hon. Members, including the sponsor of the Bill, to every Conservative Member. The letter is dishonest, untrue and designed to mislead. Some of the points it raises were dealt with in the speech by the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare. The letter is dated 24 January.
Mr. Wiggin: I wrote that letter and put my signature to it. I should like to know how the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) obtained it.
Ms. Primarolo: You, Mr. Speaker, will recall that I raised a point of order earlier today and my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) said that he thought it had been put in his pigeonhole inadvertently. He did not know why it had been sent to him as he is a Labour Member.
Mr. Wiggin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. When a private communication inadvertently goes to another hon. Member, is it right and proper that it should then be put into the public domain? I understood that there was a certain code of conduct about these matters, and I hope that you might give a ruling.
Mr. Cryer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You may recall that when the matter was raised earlier today you took the view, which I share, that it was not really a point of order. As I recall, your rejoinder was to the effect that if letters are put around which misrepresent a position, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) claims, she should have the opportunity to attack them tonight. That is precisely what she is doing.
Mr. Speaker: I did say that earlier this afternoon. I have no knowledge of such letters. I expressed the view that it might be rather interesting for the Chair also to have copies of them.
Mr. Martin Redmond: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for any hon. Member to seek to raise points of order because he is ashamed of a letter that has been circulated?
Mr. Speaker: I do not think that it is a question of shame at all. The hon. Member sought to ask through the Chair how the hon. Lady had obtained a copy of the letter.
Ms. Primarolo: I have already explained how I obtained the letter. It is dated 24 January and entitled
"Avon Light Rail Transit Bill"
It says:
"This Bill is the first of a series that will enable Bristol to have a Light Rail System serving the City and its environs. Much of the track which will be used is existing line. A number of the far left on Bristol City Council are opposed to private enterprise providing transport services and for this and other reasons Dawn Primarolo is proposing to divide the House".
I shall pause to comment on that paragraph. It is wholly mischievious and without substance and I challenge the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare to prove it if he can. It is accepted and well known throughout public transport executives that in the present climate private finance is part of the arrangement in public transport. That is a fact of life.
The letter continues:
"Besides this political point"—
The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare was trying to make the ideological point that we are opposed to the Bill simply because it involves private enterprise. That allegation is a disgrace and I hope that he will withdraw it. I fail to see how that was a political point; it was just a straight smear. The letter continues:
"similar proposals for other cities could be damaged if she is able to defeat us."
I relish the though that I might defeat them, but they have more votes than we have. Even I know that.
The implication of that paragraph will mislead Conservative Members if they do not look at it carefully. It suggests that the defeat of this Bill would have implications for a future Bill. That is contrary to the private Bill procedure. It is contrary to the way in which the House makes decisions. I hope that the people who receive that letter have worked out that that, too, was a dishonest and misleading statement.
The letter goes on:
"We would be very grateful if you could find it possible to vote in support of this Bill. Signed, Jerry Wiggin, Michael Stern, Jack Aspinwall and Jonathan Sayeed."
Forgive me, Mr. Speaker—I cannot remember their constituencies exactly, so I have used their names.
I think that the letter is out of order in the sense that it is an unfair practice and once again brings the private Bill procedure into disrepute. We are supposed to be an open, democratic House. We do not need secret letters, we do not need allegations, we do not need smears. We need the matter debated here on the Floor of the House, openly, so that we know what is being agreed to.
I now turn specifically to the points that I want to make about this Bill.
Mr. Wiggin: At last.
Ms. Primarolo: It is not as boring as the hon. Gentleman was.
Any tiny company with a pipe dream, a good idea—and I am not disputing that this is a good idea—can draft a Bill which is given credence in Parliament under the private Bill procedure. This proposal is unusual, if not unique, in that it is from a very small company—I understand that it has one full-time employee and five company directors. Even with expert advice—we are not given references; we are just told that it is expert advice—it hardly forms the basis of, or represents, a company with a structure such as would fill one with confidence that it could run a public transport system.
The Select Committee which looked at the private Bill procedure—it is an inappropriate procedure, particularly for this Bill—says,
"Nor is it accepted that members of the public suffer any disadvantage from the use of the Private Bill procedure rather than the procedure for planning inquiries".
The proposal needs very careful consideration under the planning inquiry regulations. The company holds meetings where slides and attractive pictures are shown and where there is an artistic presentation of what a tram system might look like, but that is not a consultation process; it is informing people what the company intends to do. Consultation is a two-way process. The company claims that these meetings have been held, but they have, in fact, been public relations exercises.
The Department of Transport must also come in for criticism over light rapid transit systems because, despite the fact that the concept of light rail transit has existed for a number of years, nothing has emerged from the Transport and Road Research Laboratory following its review of the light rail details published in 1979, and there are no Government policy statements or circulars specifically dealing with light rail at present. Because the company told me that it would be bound by legislation and by the guidelines that central Government had laid down, I wrote to the Department asking for details of operational specifications, including safety, which is an important concern, and I was told that guidelines were being prepared, that they were in draft form and would be available soon, but that they do not yet exist and are not yet available.
My idea of public transport is that it is cheap and efficient and serves the needs of the area in which it operates. We need seriously to consider whether this proposal fulfils those criteria. Turning to the specific proposals in the Bill and in an attempt to provide some background, I should mention that nearly two years ago a proposal was launched by Advanced Transport for Avon for a metro scheme. To begin with, rightly or wrongly, the people of Bristol believed that that implied a network which was at least partly, if not wholly, underground, and which would at a sweep solve Bristol's acute traffic problems. This public transport would be provided as a free gift to Bristol by a private company which would finance the enterprise by land enhancement values—that is, by property speculation. It is unprecedented anywhere in the world for a scheme to be totally financed in this way.
The literature produced by the company was glossy and attractive and accompanying rhetoric painted an easy, imaginative and—what was more—a free system.
958
Naturally, Bristolians received the proposals enthusiastically, admired the artist's impressions of what the trams would look like and welcomed this initiative to solve their traffic problems.
On closer examination, it became increasingly obvious that no substantive information about some aspects of the scheme—including the crucial financing—had been properly worked out. That was unlike the system in Tyne and Wear, where a detailed policy statement and three-year plan on how the scheme would be developed was produced before it went forward. It was also unlike the light rail transit system of Greater Manchester on which detailed information was produced. The project developers in Avon produced A4 or A3 leaflets and nothing else. Unfortunately, that was not comparable to those other schemes.
The scheme varies in one other crucial respect from Manchester, Tyne and Wear and the others where the proposals were put forward by public transport executives. ATA is a wholly private company, seeking, through a private Bill, the powers normally afforded to public transport executives.
I shall use an analogy to explain what I am trying to say about the Bill. Suppose that someone came to you, Mr. Speaker, and said, "I will build the house of your dreams for £100,000. Will you give me £100,000?" One would ask a series of questions before handing over the £100,000. One would ask of the person; "Are you a qualified architect? Are you a qualified builder? Do you own the land on which you are going to build the house? Have you got planning permission? Will I have all the services?" All of us would ask those and a great many other questions before passing over the £100,000.
A company is saying to Bristolians, "We can build you, through speculation, a nice, efficient and clean transport system that will considerably ease Bristol's traffic problems." That is to be applauded and the company should be congratulated because it has done what nobody else has done. However, it can hardly complain when we and our representatives say, "Hang on a minute: there are a few detailed questions that we need to have clarified before we enter into that agreement with you."
I should be wholly failing in my role as a representative if I failed to raise the following points. First, on the matter of finance, we were initially told that the scheme would not cost a penny of ratepayers' or taxpayers' money but would be financed by speculation. Then we were told that the developers planned to apply for section 56 funding from central Government and would finance the scheme through a combination of grant funding and bank loans.
Normally, section 56 funding is available to local authorities and public transport executives who match the finance in some way. In October, I asked the Secretary of State for Transport to make a statement on the financing of light rapid transit railway developments. He gave the standard answer. I understand that the Government are reviewing section 56 funding, but it was said that it was normally expected that, when section 56 money was given, it was matched by local authority money. Quite rightly, that upset quite a few people in Bristol, including me, because it was not what we had been led to believe. Obviously, the Government had answered on the basis of the Department of Transport's circular No. 285 which states that light rapid transit systems might be eligible for section 56 funding under the Transport Act 1968.
Mr. Michael Welsh: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether the sponsor of the Bill is allowed to speak in the Chamber to the people responsible for the Bill. I thought that this was the House of Commons.
Mr. Speaker: That is not unknown. Those who are beyond the bar are invisible in the House, and I cannot see what is going on.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I had reason to complain earlier about the noise and laughter when my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) was making her case. The Serjeant at Arms succeeded in quelling the noise but I hope that we do not have any more.
Mr. Speaker: I have not heard any noise.
Ms. Primarolo: Things moved on. The Department of Transport told the company that it needed more detailed information. Lo and behold, it was in similar areas to those on which I had been asking questions. The company was asked to undertake an economic evaluation which would form part of its application for the grant before the detailed application could be considered. If it is necessary for the Department of Transport to know these things, the House and the people of Bristol should know them before they commit themselves finally to being for or against the scheme.
I understand that the economic evaluation will cover road congestion, pollution, amenity, regeneration, finance and ridership—the normal subjects set out in the circular issued by the Department of the Environment. The economic evaluation will be ready soon. Unfortunately, the debate has taken place before it is available. We might all have been wiser about the details of the company's proposals had it felt able to wait until the information was available.
The company has never demonstrated that it has sufficient finance to construct the entire scheme. It is inconsistent in its answers on the nature and extent of the public-private mix in finance. The latest development in the saga is that two weeks ago it was announced that two companies—Parkdale and VOM International—with ATA, the people asking for the Bill, have formed a third company called Avon Development Ltd., which will undertake property speculation to raise money to pass over to the company which wants to build the railway. That leads to confusion. What the two companies have not said is that they are so confident that land enhancement will raise considerable profit that they are prepared now to underwrite all the money for the project. They are not so confident that it is a good scheme. Presumably there is a financial risk.
The planned reliance on property speculation is unprecedented and would encourage the unwelcome escalation of property prices in Bristol, a city which is suffering sorely already because of housing and land price problems. It is said that the total scheme of which this is the first stage will cost £300 million to £400 million. I think that that is an under-estimate, but we will not discuss that now.
Let us think about how the money is to be raised. How much property development would there need to be in Bristol? Property companies will want to make their own profit and have enough left to give to the railway company
960
to build the system. If they wish to raise £300 million to £400 million the gross figure involved in property speculation in Bristol would be astronomical. That could have a profound effect on the city and its future development, raising difficult questions such as the development of green field sites and the green belt on the edge of the city. If that happened local and district plans would be breached. It is unreasonable to propose a project that raises all those questions without giving a clear understanding about how it will work.
We have asked whether the company can confirm that £14 million of public money will be sought in the construction of the No. 1 plan. Can the company say whether the money is being sought in Government grants that will not involve a contribution from the local highways authority? Can it also confirm that no local authority funding will be required for the costing and operation of the railway in future? If the company is not seeking public subsidy to meet the operating costs of the railway, it must know that its proposal is an international rarity. The subsidy that is usually required for the operation of light railways tends to be high. How can this company justify its proposals in relation to the studies that it has undertaken in Avon, including full ridership and revenue studies on a best and worst scenario?
We have asked many detailed questions, not because we want the company to tell us where the money is coming from, as we can understand the concept of commercial confidentiality, but this company seems to be unable to understand the ways in which it could tell us firmly that is has the money to complete the entire network. The advice given to me by experts shows that the first part of the system means nothing on its own, and it must be taken as part of an integrated transport network in the city.
I commented earlier on certain development problems, including the contravention of the green belt and other planning policies. We have asked the company frequently to explain clearly how the proposed land enhancement will work, how the land value will be liberated to pay for the project and its possible effects on the future of Bristol's environment. Bristol is a beautiful city and intends to stay that way. While I represent one of its constituencies, I shall certainly fight the proposal to allow unfettered property development across the city, whether or not it provides a free addition to our transport network. The price is too high for us to pay.
There has been rumour upon rumour about how the company would be financed. At the beginning we were told that it would be done by a rail consortium. Then we found that the consortium was just one railway enthusiast, who claimed to speak on behalf of many people, but did not. That scheme fell by the wayside. Next, we were told that the finance would be raised through loans, then grants, and then a combination of loans and grants. Then we returned to the idea of land enhancement. Now we are considering a proposal by this new company. It is unsatisfactory to proceed in this way in an area as crucial as public transport.
We sent the proposals to Mr. Barry J. Simpson, who is our main expert adviser, and who has given me support and advice. He is a planning and transport consultant and has done national and international comparisons of this kind of scheme. We asked him for his opinions on the proposals, which give us the most up-to-date information.

961
The company does reply to letters and provides some information, and we have regular discussions about the matter.
On traffic congestion, Mr. Simpson says that the revenue implications of the number of people the company expects to use the system is on the low side compared with other systems and that that makes the cost very suspicious. All other urban rail systems with that kind of ridership level—that is, the number of people who decide to leave their cars and go on the trams instead—require heavy public subsidy. He goes on to say that evidence from other light rail networks shows that a light rail system by itself does not have a significant effect on road traffic congestion. While some motorists are persuaded to use the rail instead of their cars, other car users seem to replace them; perhaps other members of the family use the car which has been left at home. Some cities, such as Marseilles, which has had a metro system of this type since 1977, still have terrible traffic congestion, and others, such as Gothenburg, Bremen and Munich, have used light rail as an opportunity to address a whole series of measures relating to traffic restraint and the environment.
It requires an integrated, co-ordinated response by all concerned with the provision of public transport to solve the problem of congestion and that certainly applies to the city of Bristol. That means co-ordination between the city council, the county council, the company promoting the Bill, the bus companies, British Rail and organisations such as the Civic Society, Cities for People, Cycle Bag and Transport 2000.
Those various organisations must meet and work out an integrated, complementary system of buses, car restraint, trams and pedestrianisation. Having done that, they should bring forward proposals of a similar nature to the Tyne and Wear system and others that have been shown to be successful. The House would then probably give a speedy passage to the enabling measure. But that has not happened in this case.
The evidence is that other networks of this type have not made a significant difference to traffic congestion. The company has continually been asked to substantiate its claim that traffic congestion would be solved by the scheme. It has not done that.
Various questions about technical evaluation need to be asked, but time does not permit me to do that. However, I point out that we are talking of a system that runs on roads when it goes through the city and on overhead cables with gantries. We must note clearly the implications, including the construction time, the traffic disruption during construction, the frequency of running and what would happen if this private company decided at any stage that it no longer wished to run a private metro system in the city of Bristol.
Mr. Cryer: Does my hon. Friend believe that the local authorities' reservations about the project arise because of the method of financing the construction by bank borrowing, as explained in the Bill? For example, if the company overreached itself and was forced into liquidation, perhaps after interfering with highways to facilitate construction, the local authorities would have to pick up the bill and bring the highways back into proper use.
Ms. Primarolo: That is another question to which I do not know the answer. Central Government, through the
962
local authorities, might have to take over the scheme or remove the whole system from the roads of Bristol. My hon. Friend has raised one of many technical problems that I do not have time to develop.
The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare spoke of employment, and in that connection one must consider the question of safety. As the hon. Member pointed out, the company will not run the system. It will be licensed to other operators and part of that contract will include a percentage of profit—we understand 5 to 10 per cent.—that will go directly to the holding company, ATA, to pay off its bank loan. So the operators will have to make a profit for themselves, pay their workers and pay a subsidy, a direct payment, to ATA.
I asked the company for its criteria in those licences so that I could see what measures were involved. It sent me vehicle specifications for the trams. Interesting though vehicle specifications are, they do not form the basis for criteria on the very serious considerations of who is entitled to operate a system and under what guidelines they will be expected so to do.
We have seen many problems caused by the pursuit of profit affecting safety on public transport only too recently, and we know full well that there is a very delicate balance between making something economically viable and spending the money that is necessary to make it safe for the public.
I heard the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare say on the radio this morning that this project would create 2,000 jobs. I think that the Labour party will win the next general election, but Conservative members do not agree with me. Just because I say it does not make it true, and just because the hon. Gentleman says without proof or detail that 2,000 jobs might be created does not make it a reality, and it plays on the fears and worries of people who are desperate for work to suggest that this scheme would at a sweep create 2,000 jobs and that the only reason they have not got them is because I have the audacity to try to question the company on its intentions, its backers and its security.
A private company is being given the status of a public transport executive with compulsory purchase powers and all the other powers of a public transport executive. That is very important. We need to look carefully at whom Parliament gives the authority to run public transport and to make sure that nothing is left to chance. I am not saying that the company is not capable of running the scheme; I am saying is that it needs to answer some questions before we can form an intelligent judgment on whether it can run the scheme.
The safety arguments are linked to the accountability arguments, and it is vital that all the details of the scheme are in the public domain so that they can be properly discussed and considered. If the company's finances are unclear and the project goes ahead with tightly drawn financial criteria, it will not always be possible to guarantee safety, and we should be aware of that before we give the authority to proceed.
As I said earlier, international research shows that light rapid transit systems need greater public finance, both capital and revenue, or private finance and are more expensive than any other type of public transport system. We may be prepared to pay that price because we believe the system is superior to buses, and certainly there is a strong environmental argument about lead pollution and the problems of the city of Bristol to support that.

963
We are talking about establishing that accountability and control from the beginning. Parliament cannot make a decision on behalf of the people of Bristol about this scheme until we have all the information from the company and until the people of Bristol have had an opportunity to comment on all the consequences of this Bill.
It is undeniable that Bristol's traffic congestion is appalling and that light rapid transit systems may well be part of the solution, but we must be sure that the traffic problem is not inadvertently made worse by our supporting a scheme that has not been properly worked out.
The company has initiated discussions with various authorities. It is unfortunate and regrettable that the local authorities have not done that before in moving forward, unlike other local authorities. There are many reasons for that, but I shall not go into those now.
There is no short cut for deciding matters of public transport. Parliament must have the relevant information. It is legitimate for us to ask for that. Hon. Members should not face a barrage of misrepresentation and abuse. I have been told that if the Bill fails I will be to blame for Bristol's appalling traffic problems. Such accusations should be firmly rejected by the House. We should say that, while wanting to solve Bristol's traffic problems, we will not be bounced into a shoddy decision simply because something sounds like a good idea. Therefore, I ask the House to vote against the Bill.
9.46 pm
The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Michael Portillo): It may be helpful if I intervene to give a brief idea of the Government's view on the Bill.
This is one of a number of private Bills providing for new light railway systems, or modern tramways, in our major cities. Light rail has many potential advantages—for example, faster speeds than buses where segregated from other vehicles, but with the flexibility to go on-street and to cope with gradients and curves beyond the capacity of conventional railways.
Therefore, we welcome the way in which transport planners in many urban areas are now examining what light rail has to offer. It can bring considerable benefits, as it has done in the case of the docklands light railway. Parliament has already legislated for the Manchester MetroLink project, which was promoted by the Greater Manchester passenger travel executive.
Now Advanced Transport for Avon is seeking to take an important new step—the initiation as well as the development of a light railway by a private company. It is expecting finance from the improvement in land values which rail access would bring.
In principle, the Bill is acceptable to the Government, and we have no points outstanding on it.
The Department of Transport provided finance for the docklands light railway and we have said that the Manchester MetroLink is likely to be eligible for grant. Advanced Transport for Avon has not applied for grant. If it does so, we shall look at its case on its merits. I cannot forecast the outcome of that tonight.
We welcome the private sector initiative on which the project is based. That accords closely with the
964
Government's wish to see the private sector involved to the greatest possible extent in the efficient provision of public transport. I hope that we shall see more such proposals before long.
I should add that we are satisfied with the railway's safety aspects as proposed in the Bill.
There are a number of petitioners against the Bill, and if their petitions are pursued they will have the opportunity to present their objections to the Select Committee. The Committee will be in a much better position than we are tonight to examine in detail the issues involved and it will have the added advantage of having expert evidence.
Therefore, I hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading to allow it to proceed in the usual way to Committee for detailed consideration of the issues involved.
9.48 pm
Mr. Peter Snape: I listened with interest to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo). She rightly said that similar Bills now before the House have been put forward by passenger transport executives. Understandably, she talked of the need for an intetrated and co-ordinated transport system in Bristol. I agree with her, but, regrettably, under the present Administration such integration and co-ordination is anathema. Each system is supposed to compete one with another—a transport mode unique in the western world and one that is already causing considerable problems in London as in other cities, which, if allowed to continue unchecked, will presumably cause the sort of problems in Bristol outlined by my hon. Friend.
There are four outstanding petitions against the Bill. I checked earlier today and found that there is still an outstanding point in the petition presented by Avon county council, but it is hoped that it will be resolved, thus rendering it unnecessary for the county council to take the petition before the Opposed Private Bill Committee. There are some outstanding problems that affect British Rail, especially about running rights for existing, virtually disused railway lines and their possible use for rail freight traffic at night. Again, it is hoped that those difficulties will be resolved before a petition is taken to the Committee.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South will know better than I about the detailed and protracted negotiations that have taken place with Bristol city council. Certain offers have been made and certain assurances have been given to the city council, which will be considered. The one other outstanding petitioner is a private steel stockholding company. It was originally offered an alternative site, which it accepted. Evidently, some difficulties with that site arose and an alternative has now been offered. Negotiations are taking place at present.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South discussed the problem of railway safety. That is uppermost in our minds when we remember the Clapham accident before Christmas. It is not for me to give my hon. Friend any assurances about that, and she will be aware that the responsibility for safety on the Avon system, as on any other railway system in the United Kingdom, will lie with the railways inspectorate of the Department of Transport.
Mr. Portillo: With the operator.
Mr. Snape: The Minister says that responsibility will lie with the operator, so it seems that the railways inspectorate of the Department of Transport will have no part to play in safety. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South is right, therefore, to express her fears and concerns; I should also express them officially on behalf of the Opposition. It has always been the custom for the railways inspectorate of the Department of Transport—or the Board of Trade before that—to be responsible, in any railway system, for overseeing the railway and seeing that safety regulations are in place and are carried out.
Mr. Portillo indicated assent
Mr. Snape: I am grateful that I am getting a nod from the Minister that that will be the case for this particular system.
It is a pity that these matters—with which my hon. Friend has dealt so ably and thoroughly—were not debated and decided before Third Reading. Had they been, we might have been deprived of my hon. Friend's speech, but the Bill might have received a fairer wind. It remains to be seen whether the outstanding points to which I referred can be resolved before the Bill is considered by the Committee. I hope that they will be resolved and although, like my hon. Friend, I feel that it would have been infinitely preferable for public accountability to be involved in the Avon system, we are stuck whether we like it or not—and of course, we do not—with a Government who have a crazy ideology that states that every mode of transport must compete against the others.
Provided that the petitioners can be reassured, it seems that within the narrow parameters of that ideology a start will at least be made on a new transport system for the Bristol area. Given the amount of congestion in that city, I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that an initiative—perhaps a more detailed and integrated initiative than the present one—is essential. However, perhaps we should put up with the half loaf that we have instead of having the proper system that my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South, myself, and all Opposition Members at least would like to see.
9.54 pm
Mr. Michael Welsh: I rise to speak against the Bill on a number of issues but I shall be short and selective because that is necessary.
If a Bill is presented to this House, it should be correctly worded so that we can understand it. Parts of the Bill frighten me in so far as they relate to protecting individuals against legislation of this nature. Clause 14 states:
"The Company may"—
that word "may" is very important; indeed, I almost take "may" as being the opposite to "must"—
"at its own expense, subject as hereinafter provided, underpin or otherwise strengthen any house or building within 30 metres of any of the authorised works, and for this purpose the following provisions shall have effect:—".
that the company may underpin houses, buildings or factories if it so desires. It may be right or it may be wrong to do so.
However, the worst part of these provisions for any individual who may be a houseowner are contained in subsection (c), which states:
"If any owner, lessee or occupier of any such house or building, shall, within 10 days after the giving of such notice,
966
give a counter-notice in writing that he disputes the necessity of such underpinning or strengthening, the question of the necessity shall be settled by arbitration".
I repeat that only 10 days are given. How many hon. Members go on holiday for more than 10 days? I should think that the answer is many. I have gone on holiday many times for 12 days. If the Bill is to be seriously considered, we must consider the importance of giving a poor house owner only 10 days to answer the notice. The house owner might go to the beautiful Yorkshire coast of Scarborough for a fortnight's holiday, but this subsection means that he has no chance to appeal. The work will go ahead and his house will be underpinned, or anything that the company desires may happen, because the clause states "may".
The Bill is wrongly worded. It may have passed certain rules of the House and some examination, but on balance, I should not like to think that somebody might underpin my house within a period of just 10 days when I might be in Scarborough on a fortnight's holiday. I should be terribly hurt on my return and, being a Yorkshire lad, I might even lose my temper. The consequence would most probably be that the chap who underpinned the house would end up on the floor and I would end up in court. I should not like that to happen to anybody.
No hon. Member, of whatever political party, should accept such limiting wording. Indeed, many Conservative Members go away for three months' holiday. If they went away for that length of time, they might return to find their houses underpinned or even pulled down, without knowing anything about it.
However, it would be too late for them to do anything about it because it would have been done under an Act of Parliament. If that happened, those Conservative Members would come crying to us, saying, "We should have voted with you. We should not have allowed the Bill to go through."
Let us be fair—if a Bill of this description is introduced, it should at least be written so that everybody has a reasonable chance to object, through the law of the land, to the decisions that are made in this House. That subsection is absolutely wicked.
If we consider the Bill further, we come to clause 18 which deals with the extinction of private rights of way. I know that many Conservative Members and many of my hon. Friends do a tremendous amount of walking. It is a great sport in this country to go hiking with one's wife or family and to enjoy being in the countryside. There are ways of protecting the countryside under certain Acts, but this Bill will take away the right to go walking in the countryside and to push a pram down the highway. That cannot be right; it is almost immoral to take away the right of people to go strolling in the countryside, but this Bill would do that.
It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
Motion made, and Question put.
That, at this day's sitting, the Avon Light Rail Transit Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Fallon.]
The House divided: Ayes 182, Noes 57.

Division No. 49]

[10 pm

AYES

Adley, Robert

Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

Alexander, Richard

Ashby, David

Alton, David

Aspinwall, Jack

Arbuthnot, James

Atkins, Robert

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Atkinson, David

967

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Heddle, John

Batiste, Spencer

Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

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

Beggs, Roy

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Beith, A. J.

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Bendall, Vivian

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Bevan, David Gilroy

Hunter, Andrew

Bitten, Rt Hon John

Irvine, Michael

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Jack, Michael

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Janman, Tim

Boswell, Tim

Jessel, Toby

Bowis, John

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Kilfedder, James

Bright, Graham

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Kirkhope, Timothy

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

Kirkwood, Archy

Browne, John (Winchester)

Knapman, Roger

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Lang, Ian

Budgen, Nicholas

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Burt, Alistair

Lightbown, David

Butcher, John

Lilley, Peter

Butler, Chris

Livsey, Richard

Buttertill, John

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Lord, Michael

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Macfarlane, Sir Neil

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

McLoughlin, Patrick

Carrington, Matthew

McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

Carttiss, Michael

Mans, Keith

Cartwright, John

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Cash, William

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Chapman, Sydney

Maude, Hon Francis

Chope, Christopher

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Miller, Sir Hal

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Conway, Derek

Mitchell, Sir David

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Moss, Malcolm

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Moynihan, Hon Colin

Cope, Rt Hon John

Neale, Gerrard

Cran, James

Neubert, Michael

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

Nicholls, Patrick

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Devlin, Tim

Norris, Steve

Dorrell, Stephen

Paice, James

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Patten, Chris (Bath)

Dover, Den

Pawsey, James

Dunn, Bob

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Durant, Tony

Porter, David (Waveney)

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

Portillo, Michael

Fallon, Michael

Raffan, Keith

Favell, Tony

Redwood, John

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

Roe, Mrs Marion

Fishburn, John Dudley

Ross, William (Londonderry E)

Fookes, Dame Janet

Rowe, Andrew

Forman, Nigel

Sackville, Hon Tom

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Sayeed, Jonathan

Forth, Eric

Shaw, David (Dover)

Fox, Sir Marcus

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Franks, Cecil

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

French, Douglas

Sims, Roger

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Gill, Christopher

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Glyn, Dr Alan

Speller, Tony

Goodhari, Sir Philip

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Goodlad, Alastair

Stanbrook, Ivor

Gorst, John

Steel, Rt Hon David

Gow, Ian

Steen, Anthony

Gower, Sir Raymond

Stern, Michael

Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

Stevens, Lewis

Gregory, Conal

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Ground, Patrick

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Hannam, John

Summerson, Hugo

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

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Harris, David

Thorne, Neil

Hayward, Robert

Thurnham, Peter

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Townend, John (Bridlington)

968

Tredinnick, David

Wiggin, Jerry

Trippier, David

Wilkinson, John

Trotter, Neville

Wood, Timothy

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Woodcock, Mike

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Wallace, James

Mr. David Maclean and

Waller, Gary

Mr. John M. Taylor.

NOES

Armstrong, Hilary

Loyden, Eddie

Barron, Kevin

McAvoy, Thomas

Bermingham, Gerald

McCartney, Ian

Boateng, Paul

McFall, John

Buckley, George J.

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Callaghan, Jim

Martlew, Eric

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Maxton, John

Cousins, Jim

Morgan, Rhodri

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Morley, Elliott

Cunningham, Dr John

Mullin, Chris

Dalyell, Tarn

Nellist, Dave

Darling, Alistair

Parry, Robert

Doran, Frank

Pike, Peter L.

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Primarolo, Dawn

Eastham, Ken

Redmond, Martin

Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

Flynn, Paul

Ruddock, Joan

Galloway, George

Skinner, Dennis

Gordon, Mildred

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Graham, Thomas

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

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Hardy, Peter

Walley, Joan

Hinchliffe, David

Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

Home Robertson, John

Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

Hood, Jimmy

Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Illsley, Eric

Janner, Greville

Tellers for the Noes:

Lewis, Terry

Mr. Bob Cryer and

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Mr. Alan Meale.

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Question accordingly agreed to.
Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the City of London (Spitalfields Market) Bill and the Avon Light Rail Transit Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.
Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second Time.
10.13 pm
Mr. Welsh: I shall now carry on to talk about the extinction of certain rights of way. I am not against changing rights of way. If this were a planning application, there would be discussion at planning level and, if the planners wanted to do away with one right of way, they would provide another one. That would be done, however, before the plans were accepted, which is reasonable. That is the correct planning approach. However, it is written in this Bill and, if it is passed, it will become an Act of Parliament and planning will not be involved. That is why I strongly object to Bills of this description, because they give planning permission in disguise. That is wrong. It is against good planning and local government.
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: Has the hon. Gentleman read the Greater Manchester (Light Rapid Transit System) (No. 3) Bill which has exactly the same powers—the powers to acquire land, to disregard recent improvements and interests, and to cause the extinction of private rights of way. Will the hon. Gentleman therefore vote against the Greater Manchester Bill?
Mr. Welsh: We are discussing this Bill, but I shall note the hon. Gentleman's comments.

969
Such matters should not be in any Bill. Plans should go to the planning authority and not to this House. It is laid down by this House that they should go through the planning authority. They should be considered in the correct way. After negotiations at planning level with planning officers—not elected members—the council should make a decision. I hope that, after such detailed discussion the scheme will go ahead. That is the correct way to proceed under the planning laws decided by this House.
These are not partisan issues involving the Government and the Opposition, but important issues that affect all of us. Clause 20 of the Bill relates to the acquisition of part of certain properties and subsection (2) says:
"Where the land subject to the notice is part only of a house, building or factory, or part only of land consisting of a house, together with any park or garden belonging thereto"
the person on whom that notice is served has only 21 days in which to object. Conservative Members could come back from the Caribbean, and we could come back from beautiful Scarborough, to find that we no longer had a garden because we were away for more than 21 days and were therefore unable to appeal against the notice. That cannot be right, but that is what the Bill says.
If the Bill is unamended in Committee, many Conservative Members will come back from holiday to find that their swimming pool has gone. Imagine going to dive into one's pool only to find it has changed into a railway track. The same could happen to the tennis courts. I am a keen vegetable man and I would not want anyone to interfere with them, but that could easily happen.
Some people go away for winter holidays. Many of our elderly citizens go away to Spain for two or three months in the winter. They enjoy the sunshine and they live a lot longer because of such holidays—all credit is due to them. I go to Spain for about eight days at Christmas and it is lovely to see the elderly citizens who stay there for two or three months. What would happen to them if the Bill went through? They would have no garden left.
970
I cannot accept the present wording in the Bill. It should be thrown out and a new Bill should be introduced. The present Bill is unacceptable to the people to whom we are accountable.
Similar Bills may have been put through years ago, but since the 1960s our society has changed. People go on longer holidays, so it is not right for the 21-day notice to be included in the present Bill.
Clause 23(1) states:
"If the deposited plans or the deposited book of reference are inaccurate in their description of any land"
the company may apply for a correction after giving not less than 10 days' notice. Such action would not be possible under normal local planning procedures. For a number of years I was chairman of planning, and if my officers brought plans to me before I went into a committee I always insisted that we had long discussions with those who had submitted them so that the best result was achieved, for the environment, the developer and the community.
If any of the information is wrong, a person has 10 days in which to alter it, but after that they can do nothing about it. What happens if people are on holiday? What happens to those people who are ill in the infirmary, who cannot comprehend any letters, let alone answer them? They may come back to find the description of the land that they occupy has been altered after 10 days. That cannot be right.
We have to examine the Bill a little more rationally and ask the sponsors to take back the Bill and rewrite it to give the kiddies and the lads and lasses time to look at it, consider it in more detail and appeal before any decisions are taken. For that and for other reasons, but mainly because of the reasons that I have described, I cannot accept the Bill. It is an affront to democracy and l do not think that hon. Members from either side of the House should accept a Bill written in such a way. I ask hon. Members to vote against it later this evening.
10.19 pm
Mr. Bob Cryer: I speak objectively as a shareholder in a private railway. I have five £10 shares in the Keighley and Worth Valley light railway. I was chairman of the Keighley and Worth Valley Light Railway Preservation Society for 10 years and undertook negotiations with British Railways that led to the agreement to purchase the line over 25 years, and I was instrumental in ensuring that that railway was operated on the basis of democratic Socialism.
I cannot be accused of not supporting railways, but it is fair to raise a number of queries about the proposals. I am an enthusiastic advocate of railways, but I have to make sure that the proposals are soundly based so that, if the scheme gets into difficulties, it does not cast a reflection on other railway projects, which could happen.
The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) suggested that the Bill was the precursor of several, that it is a building-brick process and that the railway will be developed in steps towards an integral system with the extensions being authorised by future Acts of Parliament. However, I pointed out to him—he answered me in a most unsatisfactory way—that the financial memorandum contains no details about any financial projections that would help to justify the Bill as the pier on which the spreading bridge might be built. It states:
"Expenditure which may be incurred in the future development of the light rail transit system cannot now be quantified."
That underlines the case of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) that there is a lack of detail. Basic details are required in such proposals.
The Minister said that we should hurry this part of the procedures out of the way and get the Bill into Committee. Committees considering private Bills are notorious earning areas for lawyers who do not go into detail as much as they go into length of time. I have never had the misfortune of being on a private Bill Committee, and I hope never to do so, but my hon. Friends who have been on such Committees tell me that it is not the best way of pursuing what is in effect a public policy Bill. It is interesting that, in the Division on the business motion, the Government turned out a fair chunk of the payroll vote. Not for the first time, the Government are pursuing public policy by means of a private Bill. They have done that on several previous occasions. They are getting the payroll vote whipped in to support a private Bill and that really goes against the grain.
Paragraph (4) of the preamble states:
"It is accordingly expedient that the Company should be empowered to construct the works authorised by this Act, and to acquire or use the lands referred to in this Act, for the development of the first stage of such a system".
Therefore, the Bill is providing compulsory purchase powers. If the Bill were being promoted by a public body, those powers would undergo much greater scrutiny, because a public body is more accountable than the company appears to be under the Bill. It appears that an office and a secretary are running the company and a board of directors meets separately because the premises are not large enough. That is my impression.
Secondly, it is unsatisfactory to give compulsory purchase powers to a private body that will use them to sell
972
land at a speculative price to finance the development of the railway, because it cuts out the inquiries into compulsory purchase proposals which, for example, a local authority would be required to hold if it were embarking simply on the compulsory purchase procedure under existing legislation.
Mr. Redmond: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have been here from the beginning of the debate. The House has been discussing whether to give the Bill a Second Reading. We have just had a vote to allow business to continue after 10 o'clock. The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) voted for business to continue. I have several questions that I want to ask about the Bill. Unfortunately, I cannot ask them. I wonder, Madam Deputy Speaker, whether it would be in order for you to suspend the sitting for 10 or 15 minutes to allow the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare to do whatever he needs to do so that he can come back into the Chamber.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): I understand the hon. Gentleman's point of order, but the whereabouts of hon. Members is not a matter for the Chair.
Mr. Cryer: Planning consent will be required from the local authority, but there will be some pressure, once the Bill has been passed, for the local authority to acquiesce because of the scale of the proposal and, by and large, because everybody wants to see traffic congestion eased.
Of course, everyone says that a light railway transit system is bound to be an improvement and they are probably right, but to justify the Bill we ought to have more details than have so far been provided. We do not want this to founder because of the peculiar, indeed unique, method of financing the proposal, which could give rise to serious problems. As I understand it, the money to start the work is being provided not by the Advanced Transport for Avon company but by the contractor that it has chosen to build the line, presumably on a repayment basis later. According to the promoter, the construction company is providing some £3·5 million. It is a very unusual system whereby a construction company pays to construct something that it is employed to undertake by the principal promoting company.
I, too, am sorry that the sponsor is not here to take up this point and answer it to the satisfaction of the House—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin), who is speaking from the Strangers Gallery, is not in the Chamber.
Mr. Cryer: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for confirming that the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare is not in the Chamber and is unable, therefore, to answer the questions that I am raising.
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: I am happy to give the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) the assurance that when my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) returns, I will inform him of anything that has been said that is germane to the argument. It is unlikely that I shall be troubling him.
Mr. Cryer: That is helpful of the hon. Member for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed), although I do not see why he should sneer at the end. If he is saying that, having made

973
this offer, he is not going to bother, it is an arrogant affront to the House that he should present a Bill with the backing of the payroll vote and, when hon. Members seek information, fob them off with a sneer such as I saw just now. It is an affront to democracy and to the procedures of the House.[Interruption.] I do not know who said, "Get on with it," but it is very important that we should consider this seriously.
Would the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) like to intervene rather than shouting from a sedentary position?
Mr. Tim Devlin: The hon. Gentleman asked who had said, "Let's get on with it," to which my reply was, "Just about everyone."
Mr. Cryer: I see. The hon. Gentleman wants to rush legislation through using the jackboot heel of the payroll vote to crush Parliament. I sometimes wonder whether some Conservative Members carry boxes of matches in their pockets, intending to set fire to this place because they regard it as redundant. I do not like having to say this, but that is the arrogant attitude that some Conservative Members seem to have to this place.
The method of construction is somewhat curious. The promoter made it clear—and it is clear from the Bill—that the company will have to borrow from the banks. The promoter did not explain what sort of construction period is envisaged. What effect will the present high interest rates have on the project? They must surely have some influence on it. Will the company have to stretch the construction time from five to seven years, for example to cushion itself against soaring interest rates under the Government's present policy?
It is dangerous to depend so heavily on borrowing, because revenue will not come in until land is sold and land values have increased—something that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is desperately trying to stop. The Chancellor tells the House that prices are slowing down, and it is the whole point and purpose of the increase in interest rates to cool the economy, which is overheated and producing higher prices yet to succeed the Bill depends on the very reverse of the Chancellor's policy. The Chancellor is trying to control prices; the Bill depends on soaring prices to provide the finance for the venture. Tat is a very risky financial basis on which to place what is—in all considered judgments—a very important venture.
If, by any chance, the Chancellor's policies succeed, the alternative source of revenue—a system of what amounts to franchising or licensing—will have to be used. The company has to complete the construction to obtain the revenue from the licensed operators to meet the costs of borrowing. The Bill provides that a proportion of the charge to the licensees will be to cover interest on the money borrowed. That is a very curious system, as the company clearly cannot obtain revenue from the licensees until construction is already a good way advanced and there is a prospect of the licensees obtaining fare revenue from people using the railways.
It seems to me that there are potential dangers. Suppose that quicksand is discovered, or that the company has to construct major deviations to avoid sewage systems, which it is not allowed to touch under the Bill. Those are potential problems with an urban transport system. If the borrowing process is stretched over a number of years, any such difficulties in construction will mean heavier
974
borrowing and the possibility of the company getting into financial difficulty, particularly if the land that it is compulsorily purchased does not have the enhanced value that is necessary to meet the considerable costs—perhaps £3 million to £4 million in all, although they are not sums speculated on in the Bill. Sage opinion will have it that this is not a sound basis on which to enter the construction of a major civil engineering works, because such works have a nasty habit of proving costlier than estimated a nd producing construction snags that were only hinted at when a venture was first embarked upon.
Construction time is important when we consider the safety of the operation of the light railway and the volume of traffic using the roads. Major road works are envisaged in the Bill. Clause 26 and the ensuing clauses set out protective provisions to make sure that the construction companies follow a proper procedure of notification to local authorities about when they are about to embark on highway construction, deviation or whatever. That means that there will be severe intrusion into traffic flows to and from Bristol.
The promoters have not indicated for how long traffic flows will be interrupted. We have the right to know what calculations the company has made. If the Minister's point about the Committee dealing with these matters in detail is right, the promoters should have the information between now and the Committee stage. They should really have it in their pockets now, ready to be produced to inquirers like me. For how long will the citizens of Bristol have to put up with single line working, and so on? Will it be months or years? What places will be affected? The House should know, so that we are better able to make a judgment about the merits of the Bill and the shrewdness with which the promoters have planned the project.
There are temporary and permanent problems to be considered. There will be the intrusion of road works during construction, but there will also be permanent disruption caused by the level crossings that are authorised in clause 12. The laying of the rails may take only a few weeks, but the level crossings will be permanent. There has been comment from both sides of the House about the traffic congestion in Bristol, and the provision of level crossings is important.
Accidents have taken place at level crossings opera ted by British Rail. Clause 12(5) refers to "automatic or other devices". Does that mean automatic level crossings? I refer the House to the Hixon level crossing disaster some years ago, when a heavy transformer was being taken across a level crossing where the barriers were not linked to signals. A British Rail train, hauled by an English Electric type 4 locomotive, hit the transformer. The transformer, weighing many tonnes, was carried several yards down the line with loss of life. That was in the early days of automatic barriers for crossings.
As a matter of operating safety, I prefer manned or womaned level crossings with interlocking signals between the gates and the signals so that a driver knows that, when the signal is released, the full gates are across the road, barricading the railway from traffic intrusion. The Bill simply says that the Secretary of State can authorise level crossings.
It would be handy to know what sort of level crossings the promoters have in mind, because there were several accidents in 1987 with half-barrier level crossings. Motorists try to dodge round them. I know that they should not, but we are talking about areas with heavy

975
traffic congestion, and there is pressure on motorists to take short cuts and get round safety measures. It is important to know whether there will be interlocking signals with barriers, and preferably gates, or automatic, remotely-operated level crossing signals with the gates not being linked to signals. This is a crucial matter, particularly as a great deal of traffic goes into and out of Bristol. I hope that the promoters will provide the information.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South complained about the lack of detail. I was a little surprised at that, because of my activities in obtaining the light railway order and the transport order to establish the Keighley and Worth Valley light railway in 1967 and 1968. We were required by the Department of Transport to provide a great deal of detail—including, for example, a register of all the curves on the branch line. We had to provide details of the bridges and abutments, the axle load that the bridges could provide and a register of the weights of rail. Presumably, on a new railway, there will be new rails.
The promoters say that it is envisaged that part of their railway will be linked to a dock, which will provide future freight services. I am all for the transfer of freight from road to rail, and I welcome that aspect of the proposal. But the biggest wagons on British Rail have an axle load of 22 tonnes. Is any detail provided to satisfy the Department of Transport that any bridge work and weight of rail will be sufficient to withstand such axle loads? Are the promoters, in their calculations for finance, taking into account the extra expense in such construction?
I can tell the House that some of the most damaging movements of wagons on the British Rail network are the 22-tonne axle loads, which have had some very damaging effects on bridges and viaducts.
Ms. Primarolo: The Bill proposes a railway that will go from Portishead into the city centre at Wapping wharf. In order to join up with the route identified in the proposed No. 2 Bill, which has not yet come to the House, a bridge is required. What is more, it will have to be built parallel to a swing bridge.
Bristol is an old port with an extensively used dock in the inner city. When I mention that there will be great difficulties in building that bridge, the company is silent. Our expert advice leads us to believe that the company has not properly taken into consideration these points about the cost and the technical points about the bridge.
Mr. Cryer: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for elucidating that point. I am slightly shocked that the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare did not mention those matters. Had he done so that would have indicated to the House a determination to tackle the issues head on and convince the House, not by the payroll vote but by tackling all the problems seriously. That seriousness has been entirely absent from the hon. Member's elucidation of the Bill.
As the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) said during the 1987 general election campaign, it is not good for a Government to have too big a majority. He was right—although he was sacked for saying it—because instead of providing a sound and reasoned case, the Government simply rely on the payroll vote, on those
976
who are loyal anyway and on those who desperately want to join the payroll vote and are anxious to be here and to be noticed. That way of proceeding is not conducive to a healthy Parliament. It is far better for Ministers to have to argue their case and answer the sort of legitimate questions that we are asking. We are asking three questions not in any spirit of ideological antagonism but because my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South and others are concerned to ensure that any light railway transit system is soundly based financially and technically.
I welcome in principle the suggestion of the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare that part of this network should be used for freight, but several technical questions about the construction of the system remain unanswered.
It would have been pleasant if the hon. Member had said that all employees of the railway would have full trade union rights and that great consideration would be given not only to the safety of the public but to the health and safety of the staff. Generally speaking, if the standards of the latter are high, the standards of operation for the public are high.
Such an assurance would have helped those who fear that a private railway network might mean lower standards of employment, with poor wages and long working hours. After all, we have been discovering, for example, that while British Rail has majority union membership, private contractors can lower standards. That is a pointer to the Clapham junction crash. I shall not reach any conclusion, because the inquiry into that has not been completed, but signalmen installing signals near one of the busiest junctions in the world were working through the night, with torches, installing wiring.
It would have helped the House if we had been assured that such standards would not be allowed on this projected railway, and that one factor in ensuring decent standards of employment would be the right to trade union membership. While the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare may be intimidated by—or perhaps he supports—the Government's antagonism towards trade unions, he could have settled some of our doubts had he made the position clear.
I support the introduction of light railway systems anywhere in Britain—[Interruption.]—including in Bristol. One of my children attends Bristol polytechnic and I am fond of the city, having visited it many times. But that system must be financially sound, be part of an integral transport network and not be operating in an absurdly antagonistic competitive situation.
There must be a collective decision on how to solve these traffic problems. I want the problems solved in the most sensible and rational way, and a better way of doing that would be to have the initiative taken by the two local authorities—one a Labour-controlled local authority, and the other Tory and Liberal-controlled—and using their pivotal position to invoke, if necessary, the assistance of the private sector.
I would not exclude the private sector, but we should use the local authorities as the primary initiative to develop a liaison between all the other means of transport. It seems to me that, particularly where the local authority is responsible for the maintenance of the roads, it would make sense to have a much closer link during construction than is proposed.
I suggest, therefore, that the best way of dealing with the Bill is for the sponsor to withdraw it and to say, "No, I am not going to depend on the payroll vote to get this Bill

977
through, come what may; there are defects and I will bring it back to the House," on the basis that I have suggested. In that way he will receive the consent and support of both sides of the House, but I am afraid that on the present basis the Bill is so misconceived and the promoters' case is so lacking in detail, that I will vote against the Second Reading.
10.51 pm
Mr. Martin Redmond: I listened very intently to what the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) had to say when he was introducing the Bill. Unfortunately, nothing that was said allayed any of the doubts that I have about this Bill. I cannot understand why there is suddenly such a terrible rush to have this Bill discussed that we have to move a business motion to proceed after 10 o'clock, when last year a number of other private Bills were in the Private Bills Office and two came out. On inquiry, we were told that was because no one was pushing them into the system.
I find it deplorable that this House is called to discuss a private Bill after 10 o'clock at night, when really we should have had ample time before the Queen's Speech. I wonder whether we should be here discussing this Bill at all, although I accept that the Clerks to the Private Bill Office have deemed that it is a Bill that can be discussed.
A Bill such as is being promoted this evening has such major implications that it would have been better dealt with by a public inquiry in Bristol, to give the people there the opportunity of having their questions answered.
We received in the post this morning a statement on behalf of the promoters, and one would be grateful if at the end of the debate the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare could clarify it, because, if this is the first in a series of Bills that is to come before this House, one really must object if one believes in long-term planning. But, in laying down long-term plans, one must know what the objectives are at the end of the day. According to the Bill's promoters, other Bills are coming along that will enhance this Bill's progress.
I cannot understand why the Minister raised no objections. He said that no public money had been earmarked but that if an application were made, consideration would be given to it. Surely the Minister should have said that such money would be used for the passengers using the railways today.
The promoters say that the second phase of the rail transit system avoids the heavy cost of underground construction. Obviously, one would like such a system to be underground and out of sight where it would not blight the landscape.
Paragraph (4) of the promoters' statement says that there have been extensive discussions between Avon county council and Bristol city council on matters of concern to them and that a substantial measure of agreement has been reached. Surely it would have been in the promoters' interests for all parties concerned to have reached agreement before the Bill came to the House.
I cannot understand why last year there was no rush, but this year there is a rush and the various parties appear not to want to reach agreement. I understand that a number of petitioners have withdrawn.
978
My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) mentioned the Chancellor's anxiety about borrowing and the way in which measures such as this affect expenditure and the rates.
Clause 6(3) says:
"The Company shall construct good and sufficient fences on the side of any road bridge forming part of the LRT system."
What happens to the fences in between the bridges? Who is responsible for them? The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare said that the railway would use part of the existing British Rail system. I hope that he will correct me if I am wrong. Should we assume that responsibility for fencing between any new bridges will rest with British Rail? If not, the owners of the land backing on to the railway will be presented with a bill, if the Bill receives its Second Reading this evening.
Clause 9(1) says:
"the railways shall be electric power or such other motive power as the Secretary of State may approve."
If it is to be electricity, why do we need that qualification? Is it to keep the options open, so that diesel-powered motors can be used to propel the carriages? That would mean pollution for the nearby houses.
Clause 9(3) states:
"In the provision of passenger services on the LRT system the Company shall have regard to the transport needs of members of the public who are elderly or disabled."
Does that mean providing facilities such as special seating and easy access to and egress from the pick-up points, or does it mean that the fares charged to the elderly or disabled will be lower than those for normal, working members of the public? Perhaps the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare will clarify whether the Bill is referring to fares and facilities, or merely to fares.
I am extremely concerned about clause 11, which deals with the temporary stoppage of highways. Although the Bill is a private Bill, it seems that many members of the public will be affected if the Bill is enacted. A temporary stoppage of the highway may create additional problems on the motorways going into Bristol, so that may be another reason why the Bill should be withdrawn. We should look at the overall strategy and needs because anything that helps to take traffic off the road should be supported, unless it deals with the matter piecemeal.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) also mentioned safety arrangements at public level crossings. There have been many accidents on such systems and we should consider the arrangements that the company will make to alleviate some of the dangers. It is not sufficient to say that we shall accept good, standard practices; we should seek to improve those practices.
One cannot stress enough the underpinning of houses near works. It seems to be, "Heads I win, tails you lose". From the moment that the Bill was introduced, it blighted houses along the proposed route. Some of the people represented by the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare have lost many thousands of pounds because of the blight on their houses. The company will not be responsible for making up the difference between what the houses would have fetched and their present value. The hon. Gentleman should take that point further. On the other hand, houses that are not affected by blight may have their prices enhanced and, as a result, will not receive compensation.
Clause 15(4) states:
"The Company shall take all such steps as may reasonably be required."

979
Again, it is possible to argue about what "reasonably" means. Is this a matter for an adjudicator like the one used by British Coal, the decisions of whom the Government and British Coal appear to take no notice of, regardless of what they are? Such decisions should be made by an independent arbitrator.
Clause 16 makes certain provisions to ensure safe use of electricity. What insurance does the company intend to take out? It is to be hoped that many people will use a transport system in Bristol that has required such long-term planning. Will there be adequate cover, or will the firm go bankrupt if it has to pay out any large sums?
Clause 18 provides for the extinction of private rights of way, which is deplorable. Many rights of way have been private for many years. Owners sometimes allow the public to use them—walks that are charming in both summer and winter.
Turning to clause 22, I should like to know whether the company will pick up the blighted properties for the market price that they would otherwise have fetched. As for clause 23, which deals with deposited plans, I deplore the Genghis Khan-like principle, "Irrespective of what is decided you must accept what I say, and we can correct any errors."
I should also like to know who makes the appointments referred to on page 16 of the Bill. Perhaps, if the Bill has a Committee stage, the matter will be clarified then.
It appears from clause 27(5) that there will be no chance for local people affected by the Bill to complain. The Bill gives a private company carte blanche to assume the same rights and powers as a public body with none of the responsibilities. Public bodies as we know them are accountable to the Government and to themselves; this private company will be accountable to no one but the courts, and the little men who cannot afford legal action will be in no position to take the company on.
Clause 27(10) states that the company shall
"supply the engineer with all such information as he may reasonably require".
Why should British Rail seek to provide a competitor with whatever benefits it might have as a company?
We hope that the Bill will be withdrawn and that a much more sensible Bill will be introduced as part of an overall package to provide the transport system that Bristol needs. It is deplorable that people should be attacked for holding a different point of view. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) quite rightly wants her questions answered so as to be sure that her constituents will be looked after properly, but Conservative Members appear to consider it wrong to hold a different view from theirs. I hope that they will bear in mind the fact that a different point of view can sometimes be very good for people outside this House.
Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
The House divided: Ayes 149, Noes 49.

Division No. 50]

[23.10 pm

AYES

Adley, Robert

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Alton, David

Atkins, Robert

Amess, David

Atkinson, David

Arbuthnot, James

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Ashby, David

Beggs, Roy

980

Beith, A. J.

Irvine, Michael

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Jack, Michael

Bevan, David Gilroy

Jessel, Toby

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Boswell, Tim

Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

Bowis, John

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Brazier, Julian

Kirkwood, Archy

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

Knapman, Roger

Browne, John (Winchester)

Knowles, Michael

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Lightbown, David

Budgen, Nicholas

Lilley, Peter

Burns, Simon

Livsey, Richard

Burt, Alistair

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Butcher, John

Lyell, Sir Nicholas

Butler, Chris

Maclean, David

Butterfill, John

Mans, Keith

Campbell, Menzies (File NE)

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Miller, Sir Hal

Carrington, Matthew

Mills, Iain

Carttiss, Michael

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Cartwright, John

Mitchell, Sir David

Cash, William

Moss, Malcolm

Chapman, Sydney

Moynihan, Hon Colin

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Neale, Gerrard

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Hushcliffe)

Neubert, Michael

Conway, Derek

Nicholls, Patrick

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Norris, Steve

Cope, Rt Hon John

Paice, James

Cran, James

Patten, Chris (Bath)

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

Pawsey, James

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Devlin, Tim

Porter, David (Waveney)

Dorrell, Stephen

Portillo, Michael

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Raffan, Keith

Dover, Den

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Dunn, Bob

Roe, Mrs Marion

Durant, Tony

Ross, William (Londonderry E)

Fallon, Michael

Rowe, Andrew

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Sackville, Hon Tom

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Shaw, David (Dover)

Fishburn, John Dudley

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Fookes, Dame Janet

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Forman, Nigel

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Franks, Cecil

Speller, Tony

French, Douglas

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Stanbrook, Ivor

Gill, Christopher

Steel, Rt Hon David

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Stern, Michael

Goodlad, Alastair

Stevens, Lewis

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Gower, Sir Raymond

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Gregory, Conal

Summerson, Hugo

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Ground, Patrick

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Thurnham, Peter

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Tredinnick, David

Hannam, John

Trippier, David

Harris, David

Trotter, Neville

Hayward, Robert

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Walker, Bill (T side North)

Heddle, John

Wallace, James

Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

Waller, Gary

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

Wiggin, Jerry

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed and

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Mr. Jack Aspinall.

Hunter, Andrew

NOES

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Barron, Kevin

Doran, Frank

Bermingham, Gerald

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Boateng, Paul

Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

Buckley, George J.

Galbraith, Sam

Cryer, Bob

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Gordon, Mildred

981

Hardy, Peter

Mullin, Chris

Haynes, Frank

Nellist, Dave

Hinchliffe, David

Parry, Robert

Home Robertson, John

Pike, Peter L.

Hood, Jimmy

Primarolo, Dawn

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Redmond, Martin

Illsley, Eric

Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Salmond, Alex

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Skinner, Dennis

Loyden, Eddie

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

McAvoy, Thomas

Walley, Joan

McCartney, Ian

Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

McFall, John

Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Martlew, Eric

Wray, Jimmy

Maxton, John

Michael, Alun

Tellers for the Noes:

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Mr. Michael Welsh and

Morgan, Rhodri

Mr. Alan Meale.

Morley, Elliott

Question accordingly agreed to.
Bill read a Second time and committed.

Access to Personal Files
11.22 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth): I beg to move,
That the draft Access to Personal Files (Social Work) (Scotland) Regulations 1989, which were laid before this House on 16th January, be approved.
The Government have liberalised access to computer records by making orders under the Data Protection Act 1984. This measure was followed in 1987 by the Access to Personal Files Act, promoted by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), whom I am delighted to see in the Chamber. It made provision for access in a number of areas to records kept manually or in any other non-computerised form.
The Government gave a general commitment to develop access to personal information on manual records in certain areas in a controlled and evolutionary way. There must, however, be checks and balances in any access arrangements to ensure that individual rights are respected and that public-sector authorities can continue to discharge their legal responsibilities towards the people they serve. That is the basis upon which the range of measures we have in mind will proceed.
I will sketch in some steps we are taking on access to personal records in public sector services. The Government favour the principle that NHS patients have the right to see what has been written about them. We gave a commitment to this effect during the passage of the 1987 Act. We believe that what is needed is a voluntary code of practice on access to those records, and consultations have taken place on a United Kingdom basis with the relevant professional and other interests. No agreement has yet been reached. We strongly prefer the voluntary route, and I hope that the discussions will be concluded satisfactorily.
We have consulted widely on access to school pupil records and further education student records. We believe that parents should have a right of access to pupil records and that pupils or students over 16 should also have an independent right. Last year., our consultations on access in the further education sector showed general support for the Government's proposals. Before making regulations we will have to consider carefully a number of complex technical points raised by consultees. We will also want to take into account the results of separate consultations on school pupil records.
In December, we issued a consultative paper on access to housing records. Local authorities, new towns, the Scottish Special Housing Association, Scottish Homes, the Confederation of Scottish Local Authorities and other interested bodies have been consulted. The responses are currently being considered.
The present regulations apply the principle of access to social work records held by local authorities. The regulations should be brought into force on 1 April. Local authorities have been aware of our plans for some time and some have been working towards more open access as a matter of good professional practice. The proposed timetable will allow authorities to adjust their procedures and, where necessary, train staff. The regulations provide for access, subject to certain safeguards. Those safeguards reflect circumstances in which it would not be right to grant access to all the available information on

983
individuals. It should be exceptional for information to be withheld and, even where some is withheld, it should be possible to release most of the available information.
How will it work in practice? Following a request from an individual, a local authority will have to tell him whether it holds "personal information" about him and give him access to it. The definition of "personal information" in the 1987 Act includes expressions of opinion, but no indication of the intentions of the authority towards the individual.
The right to access may be satisfied either by supplying an individual with a copy of the personal information or by some other means, such as letting him see the information. If, however, the individual, having seen the information requires a copy of it, he must be given one. And, if any of the information is not intelligible without explanation, the individual is entitled to that explanation.
Applications for access must be in writing. In addition, authorities will be able to charge a fee of up to £10 for giving access. Authorities should take account of an applicant's ability to pay. Authorities are not obliged to comply with an access request unless they receive the information necessary to establish the identity of the applicant and to locate the information he seeks. Where information on the record could lead to the identity of a third party being revealed or being identified as its source, the local authority must notify the third party within 14 days of receipt of a request for access and seek his consent to access being given. "Third party", in this context, does not include a health professional or someone employed by, or providing a service for reward to, the local authority. Authorities have 40 days from the date of receiving the request or obtaining the necessary further information or consent already referred to, to comply with it.
There are exemptions from the general provisions on access. Some of the information held may contain material provided by a health professional. The local authority will have to notify the health board or the health professional—if the individual is not employed by a health board—within 14 days of receiving the request. Where the health board or the health professional says that access should not be given to some or all of the information, the local authority cannot grant access. This would happen where access might cause serious harm to the physical or mental health of the individual or another person, or where access would let a third party be identified—other than a health professional. That also applies to information which comes from the reporter to the children's panel.
The reporter's job depends on a free flow of information to him from the police and other agencies, including health professionals. The reporter will often have an interest in a child or children of families who are involved with those other agencies and where sensitive and confidential family issues are at stake. For example, the police may be pursuing criminal investigations against the parent of a child whose case is being examined by the reporter.
Over the years, reporters have built up good relationships with other agencies that have been prepared to share their information about families in order to help the reporter make the fullest assessment of a child'
984
situation. That relationship could be prejudiced if the social work department disclosed information inappropriately.
It seems sensible, therefore, to make the social work department get the reporter's approval to disclose any information which comes from him. The reporter must apply tests, including those of serious harm and identity of third parties, broadly similar to those required by social work authorities.
The local authority itself may withhold information in certain circumstances. Those include the risk of serious harm to the health or emotional condition of the individual or a third party. Withholding information on that ground would be exceptional. Local authorities cannot disclose information about or provided by third parties without their consent unless the information can be made anonymous. If the authority does not receive the third party's consent within the time limit, it must give access to as much information as possible without revealing the other person's identity or the fact that he is the source of the information.
Individuals can ask for their records to be changed if they feel that the personal information is wrong. Individuals can ask for a review by the local authority of any decision taken to withhold access completely or partially or where requests to change the records are rejected.
These regulations and the data protection orders provide individuals with comprehensive rights of access, subject to certain specified safeguards, to local authority social work records. They mark the first of a number of steps towards extending the area of service to which access to personal information will apply.
I commend the regulations to the House.
11.30 pm
Mr. Sam Galbraith: First, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) for the Bill of which the regulations form a subsequent part. I was not in the House when that Bill passed through it, but I have read Hansard, from which it is clear that the hon. Member pursued the matter with considerable vigour and attention to detail. It is a tribute to the hon. Gentleman and to the House that the Bill is now on the statute book.
Turning to the regulations, I acknowledge the Minister's consultation with various parties before the draft circulars were prepared. However, I understand that there was some slight difficulty over the regulations applying to the reporters to the children's panels. I understand that those regulations were inserted at a later date. Today I received a representation from the reporter to the children's panel in Tayside, a Mr. Meek, who was worried whether the word "individual" should also apply to children who are also able to refuse the question on informed consent.
However, I welcome the consultation that took place before the regulations were produced. Because we agree broadly with the regulations, we shall not vote against them. We welcome them because, although considerable work will be involved, social workers agree that they will lead to better records and better decisions by social workers.
The more I read the regulations, the more I am impressed by their complexity. Social work records are

985
voluminous and extremely detailed. They contain a mixture of opinion and fact and a vast amount of third party information. The combination of those factors makes social work records difficult to open up widely to the public.
It is slightly incongruous that we are talking about social work records without also discussing medical case records, which are not so detailed. They are usually smaller and mostly factual, and rarely contain non-medical third-party opinions. It would be logical and easier for us to have discussed them in the first place. However, if copies of medical records had been made available to patients, many of the problems dealt with by the regulations would not exist, because the patients would already possess copies of the information.
Therefore, we should remain committed—as the Labour party is, and I am sure the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire is—to opening up medical records as well. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about that. There are considerable parallels between the records we are discussing tonight and medical case records. We remain committed to that, but only after extensive consultation, and with the agreement of the medical profession ensuring all the necessary safeguards.
During the passage of this Bill, Ministers constantly came to the Dispatch Box and spoke of the discussions that they were having with the medical profession on this matter. Could the Minister let us know just how far they have gone? When the Access to Medical Reports Bill was being debated, the Minister said:
"The House will recall that, during the passage of what is now the Access to Personal Files Act in the previous Parliament, the Government gave an undertaking to enter into talks with the medical profession, with a view to achieving substantive and timely progress in opening up medical records on a non-statutory basis".—[Official Report, 12 February 1988; Vol. 127, c. 665.]
Perhaps the Minister could let us know what progress has been made in these talks. Are we any further forward in opening up medical records on a non-statutory basis?
While we are talking tonight about social work records, I do not think that we can allow medical records to be taboo. If we are to give patients increased flexibility, greater choice and control over their medical care, they must have a copy of their own case records.
On this subject, I echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) who said in the debate on the Access to Personal Files Bill:
"In the field of health it is especially important to redress the odds that are presently in favour of the medical profession and turn them in favour of the consumer. This is part of the general idea of giving people power. They have power to choose as consumers and they want that power in all aspects of their lives. We have a duty to give them that power and that applies especially in medical matters"—
as I understand myself—
"where there is a kind of awe of the medical profession that can shelter incompetence and inadequacy."—[Official Report, 20 February 1987; Vol. 110, c. 1197.]
We say, "Hear, hear," to these words.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Say it again, Sam.
Mr. Galbraith: The hon. Member can read it in the morning in the Official Report because I want to get on now, so that other hon. Members can perhaps catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker.
986
I come now specifically to the regulations, although I will intertwine my comments on them with parallels on medical case records. I deal first with the charge of £10. The Minister and I will agree that, to both of us, £10 is probably not all that much. I thought I heard one of my hon. Friends at the back of me disagreeing. Really, though, £10 is not that much. The Minister knows that to a member of Muirfield golf club £10 would not be very much to ask. He will appreciate, however, that the sort of people who generally have social work records are often on income support; and if one is on income support, a charge of £10 is excessive.
I realise that local authorities need not make that charge, and I think that Strathclyde will probably make no charge, but I should have preferred the £10 charge not to be part of this. There should be no financial barrier, no practical or theoretical barrier, in gaining access to one's files.
The lead-in time is rather short. This starts on 1 April. The Minister said that it will give time for the necessary training and preparation of new files. It may be true that there will be time, but there is also another area to be dealt with—discussion with other parties on the third party's access to the information. It has been the experience of social work departments that, when they go to other bodies such as the police or children's panels or health boards, those bodies are unaware of what is happening. It will take a considerable amount of time for them to pick up on all the regulations, and that will make the lead-in time rather short. We could have done with extending it a little further.
On the definition of "serious harm", I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran) who will perhaps, if he can catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, give a lawyer's viewpoint on this question. It has been said to me that this will be of great benefit to the profession to which my hon. Friend belongs. It is difficult to decide what serious harm is, but I think that we could do with a slightly wider definition.
Access to the records could be prevented by that test. I know that from my own profession. In discussions about whether medical records should be opened up, someone almost always says, "It would be difficult to do that because it might produce serious harm in the patient." I always worry about that excuse. I have been practising for many years now and I cannot think of one case in which I could not have allowed access on the ground that to do so would have caused serious harm to the patient. I am not saying that that never happens in other specialties, although I should have thought that if serious harm occurred, it would have occurred in my specialty. I am not saying that we do not need safeguards: I merely say that, although the danger of serious harm is often used as a reason for refusing access to files in my profession, I could not have used it in the case of any of my patients. It would help if the Government could produce further guidance on what the definition of serious harm entails.
Social work records are complex and voluminous. They are full of opinions, often from third parties. That creates problems with the 40-day rule, which says that a social work department has to give a reply within 40 days. Certain difficulties will arise if a department has to consult third parties. Suppose that it consulted the health board and found that the consultant was away on holiday yet again. It would then take a considerable length of time to obtain his opinion. But under the regulations, if no reply

987
is given within 40 days, it is accepted that the information can be made available. Information may therefore be made available that the consultant would not have wished to be made available. The 40-day period may produce problems—although perhaps not insurmountable problems—and we should be considering it.
Let us consider the complexity of the process and the number of people who have to be involved. Let us take what is considered a simple social work case—a case of child abuse.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Simple?
Mr. Galbraith: The diagnosis is simple, but from a social work point of view a child abuse case is probably the most complex type of case there is. Numerous third parties are involved, including the police force, a general practitioner, a community nurse, the procurator fiscal, a community health specialist, a health visitor, a district nurse and a voluntary organisation. All of them will have to be consulted and a review of all documents and registers will have to be carried out by the senior manager. A decision will have to be made on the basis of the serious harm criterion in the light of all that information. There will have to be counselling for the individual, to assist him in coming to terms with the information. There will have to be support for the staff, legal advice and the consideration of the possibility of appeal. That shows the complexity of what is involved.
That very complexity bears with it certain financial burdens, which will be thrown on social work departments—expenditure not just on training but on preparing the reports. When the Data Protection Act was introduced, there were very few requests, whereas in a three-month pilot scheme involving 11,000 records in Strathclyde social work department there were 22 requests. If we round that figure up over the year for complex cases, it means a cost to Strathclyde social work department of about £1·5 million—aconsiderable financial resource.
We do not know exactly what financial resource will be involved, because we do not know how many requests there will be; there may be far fewer than in the pilot scheme, or there may be far more. The social work departments will monitor the costs. Will the Minister look favourably on any requests if it is found that the financial burdens are considerable?
I have raised some important points about the regulations, and I know that some of my hon. Friends will wish to consider them further. Nevertheless, we welcome the regulations—in the spirit of opening up information and giving individuals greater responsibility, and for the good of society as a whole.
11.44 pm
Mr. Bill Walker: The hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) illustrated the complexity of this matter. I compliment my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary on again showing how good he is at consultation, discussion and negotiation before presenting regulations. He and I will agree that anyone who thinks that simply bringing in regulations will be a solution to this complex problem has made no attempt to study what is involved.
988
The hon. Member gave an honest and frank account of the position as he sees it. I do not disagree with anything he said. We all welcome the theory, but we have reservations about the practice. In the more complex cases, it will be very difficult to give the individual what he wants because of all the third parties who will be involved.
By its very nature, social work involves many people. I have never been a champion of social workers. I have always felt that there are some things with which they should not be dealing. It is not their fault, but it has arisen because of the powers which Parliament has given to local authorities. We have created vast empires which are not always to the advantage of those in need.
I am not condemning social workers. Many of them are highly motivated, and we should understand the problems that they face at the sharp end. I have grave reservations about whether we are achieving what the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) initially wanted, but I welcome the fact that we are moving forward and that individuals may get access to more information which affects them personally. Hopefully, it will help people to come to terms with their problems. On that basis, I welcome the regulations.
11.47 pm
Dr. Norman A. Godman: In response to the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), I would say that I have great trust in and respect for the overwhelming majority of social workers. They have to take on the burdens that others leave on their doorsteps. I say that not because I am married to a senior social worker who has on occasion had to take into care young children who have been subject to physical and/or sexual abuse. Social workers take their duties very seriously.
I welcome the regulations, but they are an appalling piece of work. The English is dreadful. Many of the paragraphs have to be read and re-read. Fortunately, a fairly useful explanatory note is attached. I should like definitive answers to problems that I have encountered.
Under the heading "Exemptions from access to other information", regulation 10(3) refers to some information being withheld and the need in some cases to withhold information. I ask the Minister who is to be the censor where this information is concerned. Is it to be the social worker who has dealt with the applicant in the past or the manager of the department in which the social workers work? This one paragraph presents formidable problems for social workers.
Another question concerns whether the information is always to be given to the applicant in documentary form. Can a social worker refuse to give information to a client who is well known to him or her and seeks information over the telephone or in a face-to-face interview in an office?
With regard to regulation 5, where another individual is concerned, I ask the Minister where a young person stands who makes an application at the local Department of Social Security office for income support because he or she has been driven from the family home by the violence inflicted on him or her, by parents or the partner of a parent, and the official requires evidence of the domestic state of affairs? What happens to that young person, who is presumably known to a social worker, when he or she seeks information to strengthen or substantiate a claim for

989
income support? In such a case, will the social worker have to approach the person who has inflicted or threatened to inflict violence upon that person seeking help?
Another example is that of the estranged couple where, say, the wife leaves the family home, again perhaps because of incidents involving domestic violence, and seeks help from the local housing department and the DSS office and is told that she needs evidence to support her application for assistance from these officials. In this case, will a social worker be allowed to approach the partner who has threatened violence? What will happen if, in a case like this, the violent partner refuses to co-operate with the social worker? What sanctions can a social worker impose on a third party who refuses to co-operate in cases of this kind?
I do not need to remind the Minister that such cases are not altogether rare in Scotland, I regret to say. These are important questions, particularly concerning the refusal of a named individual to consent to information being given to an applicant. I look forward to hearing the Minister's replies to these questions.
11.55 pm
Mr. Allan Stewart: I had intended to ask the Minister a question similar to that put by the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman). I congratulate the Under-Secretary on the clarity of his explanation of these complex regulations. Without complicating the question that the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow asked, may I ask my hon. Friend to comment on the position of estranged couples where one is in Scotland and one is in England? I raise the matter because of a constituency case, and clarification of the point would be appreciated.
My hon. Friend explained the progress that the Government had made on access, particularly in relation to education. If my hon. Friend referred to housing regulations, I may have missed his remarks. I understand that consultation on access in that area is taking place.
Do the regulations affect hon. Members? I gather that we have no rights of access to information under the regulations, although we sometimes get confidential information when those in charge of it feel it appropriate because they can regard us as people who will respect their trust and confidence. Presumably we could get information if we acted, in effect, as an appointed agent for somebody under the regulations. Hon. Members often become closely involved with social workers in individual cases, so if the Under-Secretary would comment on the way in which, if at all, the regulations affect us, that would be helpful.
11.57 pm,
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: It is a pleasure to take part in the debate. These are the first regulations to reach the Floor of the House since the passage of the Access to Personal Files Act 1987. I agree with what has been said about the complexity of some of the language that is now used; the original concept was simple and crystal clear in setting out what we were trying to achieve.
While I appreciate the difficulties involved in getting the checks and balances right, I have some misgivings about the detail of the regulations, apart from the complexity of the language. The Government seem to have made the
990
mistake of trying to maintain common provisions between the regulations that govern access to manual records, with which we are dealing tonight, and the access provisions that relate to computer-stored information under the data Protection Act 1984.
I have always maintained that the two types of records are entirely different. Individuals have had access since 1984 to the sort of information that will be stored typically on computer and electronic files. But the type of information that we are discussing—manually stored information will—still, even looking into the fairly far future, be stored manually, even as we become a more electronically geared society. In social work departments there will always be a need for hard copy, manilla files which, as the Under-Secretary said, will be voluminous and of a quite different character from the electronically stored information that is covered by the Data Protection Act. Of course there is a need to keep common provisions, because we want to keep life as simple as we can, but I think that the Government were wrong to insist that the same provisions that governed the Data Protection Act should be used in governing access to manually stored files.
I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) that there is a suspicion that the medical profession is backsliding—ld say it is no coincidence—on access to medical files and people's individual medical records.
I think that the BMA was right to ask for extra time. At its conference two years ago it was on the point of agreeing to adopt access to medical reports as a matter of course. However, it has moved back from that point, and I am extremely worried about that. I do not think that the Government can hide behind the need to get a voluntary scheme up and running if that scheme is going to take too long to achieve.
Has the Minister in mind a timetable within which he thinks it would be reasonable to try to achieve a voluntary scheme? If he can achieve it I should certainly be prepared to let it run and see how it operated, and if it operated reasonably well I should be prepared to countenance leaving it on a voluntary basis. However, if the medical profession really digs in its heels and makes life difficult, the Government may have to resort to statutory legislation and regulations such as we are discussing. The Minister should have a clear idea not to take five, three or even two years to make up his mind about that.
Section 2(4) of the Access to Personal Files Act explicitly rules out retrospection. That is right and proper because, as the House will know, after 1 April, and only then, individuals will have a new right of access. The social work profession has that much time to change its practice—many areas have already done so—to make sure that files created after that date are made readily and easily accessible. An absolute bar on retrospection and a rigid enforcement of the provision in section 2(4) would make access of limited use to some very specific categories of people. I am thinking, for example, of children who were formerly in cares and I think that a local authority faced with an application from someone who was formerly in care, should go beyond the minimum requirements laid down in the parent Act and these regulations and should be allowed flexibility. I hope that any guidance practice notes from the Scottish Office dealing with that aspect of the regulations will reflect my view.

991
The House should be aware that there is no bar on retrospection and access to social work records under the Data Protection Act 1984 and that is something of an anomaly, although I understand the need to give a certain amount of protection, and a line has to be drawn somewhere. At that point the regulations come into force, because otherwise there would be havoc, leading to some of the expenses that the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden referred to. There is a need for flexibility in applying retrospection under the regulations.
I endorse what the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden said about fees, because the £10 maximum charge, which is of course again a reflection of the charges made under the Data Protection Act, will put many people off if it is charged in full. I hope that the Scottish Office will give guidance to local authorities on that matter. I remind the House that the Department of Social Security, that well-known enlightened institution, makes no charge to people who want access to computerised social security records. If the DSS can do that under the Data Protection Act, I hope that Scottish local authorities will do the same.
If local authorities make full use of maximum charges, they will not only be able to charge £10 for access to manually stored records but £10 for computer-stored records. In many cases one file will straddle manually and electronically stored files, and access may cost £20, which would be a bad thing.
Access should be of mutual benefit to the practitioners in the profession and the clients, and I hope that the regulations will be implemented in that spirit. I know from my experience in drawing up the parent Act that many local authorites, particularly in England and Wales, are far ahead of the regulations, with successful schemes up and running which allow access free of charge. I hope that that will be borne in mind.
I understand that future cases must be extremely sensitively handled but the House should know that the provision on opinions being disclosable but intentions being withheld was forced on us by the Government and the wording reflects that of the Data Protection Act. It is regrettable that it is here, but it is, and I hope that it will be applied sensitively.
I fear that there may be some problems about the stipulated compliance period for local authorities. I do not disagree with anything that the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden said, but I take a slightly different perspective—that of the applicant. Local authorities will have substantial problems. In my part of the world they are much smaller than some of the social work departments in the west of Scotland. But 40 days within which to comply with the regulations is a long delay.
If I read the regulations correctly—I am sure that the Minister will put me right if I have not—that 40-day period starts only after the application has been made, and identification and all the other requests have been completed by the applicant to the satisfaction of the local authority. Then the local authority has 10 days in which to identify third parties whose consent may have to be solicited before the information is divulged.
If the third party delays or refuses to provide that information, at worst there may be a delay of two, three or four months. I think that the Minister said explicitly that,
992
if a third party refuses to comply or delays, the local authority has an obligation to publish the information minus whatever information would be in the gift of—or related to—the other identifiable person. I assume that his or her rights will be protected if there is no response to the local authority request—the information will be disclosed, but the third party information will be withheld. If I have understood that properly, it at least makes the matter clear. The regulations should state explicitly that access is afforded after the third party identifiable in the files has refused a request or has delayed.
Dr. Godman: The hon. Gentleman is the expert in these matters, although not a self-proclaimed expert. Is he suggesting that if another individual refuses to grant consent to the disclosure of information, his refusal should be ignored? How do the English regulations, which the hon. Gentleman lauded earlier, deal with such refusals?
Mr. Kirkwood: I am not sure that I understand the question. My interpretation of the regulations is that if there are any references to identifiable persons, who have rights over disclosures made to another party, they are entitled to be consulted about whether they wish the information that relates to then—no more and no less—to be divulged. They have a choice. Requests come from the local authority asking whether the people identified mind the authority divulging the information. They can say yes, do nothing or say no. If they say no, the local authority divulges the information without reference to them. It blanks it out, or removes the relevant page, report or section and the file is then made available. Third parties should be given the option to remove, excise or amend the information as they please. They can make representations to the local authority to preserve their own rights.
I was concerned about what would happen if a person did nothing, and the Minister cleared up that point. Initially I thought that the regulations would enable the local authority to say that it had not had a response from the identified third person, so it would not divulge any information. The Minister has clarified that by saying that, in such circumstances, the local authority would divulge the information except for anything that related to the identified third party.
Mr. Michael Forsyth: I shall clarify the position. To put it simply, the third person can object only to his identity being disclosed. He cannot object to the information being disclosed. It would be open to the authority, when there was a refusal by a third party, to make the information anonymous and to provide it on that basis.
Mr. Kirkwood: I hope that that information is helpful. That is what I was trying to say, in a convoluted way.
The regulations on exemptions are an improvement on the original suggestion from the Government that harm, rather than serious harm, should be the test for exemption. The idea of a test of serious harm is based on the Data Protection Act 1984 and is a considerable advantage on the simple test of harm, which would have provided far too big a loophole. The Bill that I presented to the House originally allowed for information to be withheld where serious harm would be caused to someone other than the applicant.
To deal with situations such as child abuse and wife battering, the original Bill did not allow complete withholding of information on any harm grounds. It had

993
a better solution. In the case of distress or harm, it allowed for inspection in the presence of a professional. In such cases the professional would be a social worker. In the case of serious harm potentially being inflicted on a person, we suggested that there should be a referral for six months so that counselling and other matters could be examined. I still think that that was a better way to proceed, but although the regulations do not allow for it I recognise that they are something of an advance.
The regulations do not seem to lay any duty on local authorities to notify people when parts of the record are withheld. That worries me. As in the Data Protection Act 1984, there is no provision for applicants to be told whether the records that they have received in response to their applications are complete. Last year I brought forward a Bill on access to medical reports, which is now an Act. It requires doctors to tell patients when they are withholding information from reports supplied to insurance companies and potential employers, either because it might cause serious harm or because it involves the privacy of others. I regret the omission from the regulations, because I think that the value of such reports is much greater if those who receive them can be sure that what they have is all that there is—or are told explicitly if that is not the case.
The provision for an appeal procedure involving three members of the local authority would lead, in my view, to a hare, sparse and minimal system. I think that there should be an ultimate right of appeal to the courts. Hon. Members may consider that that would be taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut, but if we do not get it right people may start having recourse to judicial reviews over unreasonable refusal of access. That remedy would, of course, he technically available, but it would also be expensive and time-consuming.
Under the Data Protection Act there is a right of appeal, initially to the registrar and thereafter to the courts. Neither of those independent routes is available under the regulations. Presumably people have a theoretical right to go to the ombudsman if they can show that injustice has been caused by maladministration, but that is a strict test compared with the provision of an explicit right to go to the sheriff court.
I am disappointed by a number of aspects of the regulations. If they are implemented inflexibly, they may lead to unnecessary delays and diminish the new rights conveyed by the parent Act by being too costly for many people to exercise. They deny the spirit of the Access to Personal Files Act 1987, which sought to provide cheap and ready access to files held on individuals by local authorities. I fear that such over-rigorous implementation of the regulations may erect substantial barriers on the road to achieving the ends sought by the original Act.
12.18 am
Mr. Frank Doran: When I left university in 1975 I went to work for a local authority. I specialised in social work, particularly child care. It was an exciting time to go into that sort of work, because the Children Act 1975 had just been passed, giving social workers involved with children a strong indication that at last some attention was being paid to their profession.
As I became more involved in the subject, however, I realised that a number of fundamental problems had not been dealt with, two of which are exemplified in the
994
regulations. One was the protective attitude that social workers, like most professionals, felt towards information that they held on behalf of their clients; the other was the complexity of the law relating to children particularly, and to social work in general.
I made a quick check in the Library tonight. When I was practising in adoption, there were 18 or 19 statutes covering adoption law in Scotland. I am pleased to see that there has been an improvement—there are now only seven—but that gives hon. Members some idea of the complexity facing social workers when considering the la .w of adoption. I counted 24 statutes which infringe on the subject of child care. The complexity of the issues that we have discussed tonight is reflected in these regulations. The parliamentary draftsman has failed miserably. The prolixity will make the job of the social worker even more difficult.
The regulations also show the problems of protecting the interests of the professionals before we even consider the principle and spirit of the Act promoted by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), which concerns the interests of the person who is the subject of all the social work attention and who should have access to that information. As a practising solicitor, both in local authority work and in our courts in Scotland, I have seen the difficulties of presenting a reasonable case.
I intend to pick out some of the problems created by the regulations and relate them to the protection of the professionals and the complexity of the regulations. A number of issues cause me concern. For example, paragraph 10(2), to which my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) referred, states:
"the carrying out of the social work functions of the social work authority would be likely to be prejudiced by reason of the fact that serious harm to the physical or mental health or emotional condition of the individual who is the subject of the information would be likely to be caused"
and is thus a reason for refusing access to information. That is a very loose test. Who will determine the criteria? A reporter, medical practitioner or health board can certify as, under these regulations, can the social worker who may be carrying the day-to-day responsibility for a case. The phrase "emotional condition" concerns me greatly.
I know from experience that clients who have seen the information held on their social work files have been bloody angry about what has been said about them. Will a social worker be able to say that that is a condition, because revealing that information will affect the management of his case? I discussed this matter with the Scottish representative of the British Association of Social Workers and he thought the definition very loose. The provision should be used only on rare occasions. In the time available to me, I can pick out only examples of the abuse that might be open to a difficult person who does not want the information to be released. Anyone who has had access to social work case records—I have had access to hundreds—will be aware that, in many cases, they contain more opinion than fact and sometimes the opinion is very subjective. It is only when these things are tested, particularly before a court, that we can separate opinion from fact and realise how loosely those records are compiled.
Let me deal now with the position of reporters to the children's panels. I have had a great deal of experience in

995
dealing with children's panels and I am concerned about the operation of the regulations in this respect, particularly about the problems that confronted me as a lawyer, and other lawyers in Scotland, after the case of Kennedy v. A, which was reported in page 358 of the 1986 Scots Law Times. In that case, the person appearing before the children's panel had no right of access to the reports which were before the panel. As I understand it, subject to all the exemptions in the regulations, the parent will now be allowed access to those reports.
I am concerned about how that will operate in the day-to-day operation of children's hearings. For example, when a parent appears before a children's hearing, the chairman will be instructed by the regulations that govern the procedure at hearings that a summary of the content of the reports available to the hearing will be made available to the parent. Will that change now that the parent has access to the reports through these regulations? The practical operation of the regulations will make it impossible for the parent to have the information if the local authority decides to use the time limits available here. That information is of most use to the parent at the time when he appears before the children's hearing, or when his representative addresses it. Will the children's hearing procedure be changed?
One of the major effects of the Kennedy v. A case with which I had to deal on a number of occasions was the ridiculous problem of lawyers being expected to act on behalf of their clients in presenting appeals to the court, and, because of the decision of the Court of Session, they were not allowed access to the information upon which the decision of the children's hearing was based. Will the decision in that case be changed as a result of the regulations? It is important for practising solicitors who have to appear before the courts to know how the regulations will operate in practice. I am well aware of the handicap of having to present a case to the sheriff court—initially—on appeal without adequate information, or the ability to question the information that the children's hearing or the reports' compilers have had access to.
I have been away from practice since I was elected to the House, so I do not know, and have not been able to check, whether there has been a change in the Kennedy v. A position, but I should be surprised if there had been. I would be delighted to hear the Minister's views on that.
I am also worried about prison records. Social workers operate in prisons as representatives of local authorities. Of course, most prison records are covered by the Official Secrets Act 1911, but they are in the possession of the local authorities. Can the Minister clarify that? Are prison social work records also subject to these regulations, and would the subjects of the records be allowed access to them?
I am gravely concerned, too, about the review procedure. With all due respect to local authority councillors, a review body composed of them would be inappropriate. I have practical experience of this, and shall mention one example in a moment. Before someone can make a decision on case records, he must have access to them. Local councillors have access to certain local authority records, by statutory right. But they have never had access to the case records of social work clients. I hope that that system will continue, and that they will not be
996
given such access. I mean no criticism of local councillors; it is just inappropriate for them to have access to the records of people who may be their constituents or neighbours.
As I understand it, decisions on social work cases are made as follows. Reports are prepared by social workers in the case of, say, assumption of parental rights. Full case records are not submitted to the council sub-committee dealing with the cases—abstracts and summaries of cases are produced. Social workers may discuss particular details, but the idea of case records is alien.
When I was employed by the local authority, the chairman of a committee discovered that the social work department had information relating to a member of the family of a councillor of an opposing party. That chairman insisted on access to that file. The social worker involved had the guts to stand up to the councillor and refused to allow him access. The case was fought hard and, thankfully, the director of social work, with the backing of the social workers' professional body, refused to release the file to the councillor. The councillor pleaded his statutory right—in which he had the backing of the chief executive of the local authority—but the director of social work stood up to him. That is an example of the inappropriate use of social work records. I am unhappy about these regulations, because they would legalise access by councillors to social work records. The only proper way to review the decision of a local authority officer—Which is effectively what we are doing—is through the courts, not through a committee of the council.
The Minister has recently established a review committee to study child care legislation. One of the areas being examined is the assumption of parental rights. I have always been opposed to the idea of a local authority being judge and jury in its own case. It does not matter that it is a local authority: it could be any individual or body. In cases of assumption of parental rights, it effectively will be judge and jury under these regulations. I implore the Minister to review that position and to seriously consider involving the courts, so that we can have some objectivity and maintain the principle of the confidentiality of social work case records.
The point has already been made forcibly that costs will act as a barrier. I appreciate that local authorities are not obliged to charge £10, but I cannot understand why a person who is an ordinary run-of-the-mill social work client should have to pay £10 to gain access to his records, whereas an adopted person who has statutory rights under the Adoption (Scotland) Act 1978 to ask the local authority for information concerning his natural parents and the details of his adoption, does not have to pay a fee. I do not understand why a distinction is being made. Why is there a barrier to those people, who are not adoptees, having access to their records? I would appreciate some information about that.
Another important omission in these regulations is counselling. I shall again use the adoption legislation as an example. An adult who was adopted as a child, who wants access to his record, is counselled. The local authority is statutorily required to provide a counselling record. Under these regulations, vulnerable people may have access to their records, but there is no obligation or right to counselling. I should like the Minister to explain the distinction between the person who has been adopted and the ordinary social work client.

997
The regulations, of course, recognise that we are dealing with a complex situation concerning vulnerable people, who have had cause to call on the social work services. Some of those people may have spent their lives under the umbrella of social workers. I have acted for people who have known nothing else but contact with the social work department from early childhood right through to adulthood, because of a variety of circumstances—perhaps because of mental illness or handicap or because they were children in care. They have come through the system, and now their children are going into care. Counselling would be valuable to such'people. Why is it not their statutory right?
Despite my critical comments, I am not intending to force a vote on these regulations. I feel, however, that they have the serious defects relating to costs and the review body. I hope that the Minister will be able to give me the satisfaction which I am seeking and that he will take on board what has been said and reconsider these crucial issues.
It is important to pay some tribute to the practice which has now developed in social work. In many respects—the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire alluded to this—the regulations lie behind what is now good social work practice. When records are compiled they are now the subject of discussion with the client, so he knows what is being placed on the record and he can assess what is said about him.
It is important that we recognise the good practices that now exist and pay tribute to social workers who work under the present difficult circumstances in Scotland.
12.35 am
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: In common with other hon. Members who have spoken I give a broad welcome to the regulations because I believe that access should be given to information held in personal files.
I want to pick up two matters that have not been touched upon by other hon. Members, and I hope that the Minister will comment on them. First, I want to know the implications of the regulations for the voluntary agencies that work within the social work sector. Paragraph 1 of the regulations refers to the Access to Personal Files Act 1987 and the definitions in that paragraph appear to relate to local authority social work departments. I am sure, however, that all hon. Members will recognise the valuable role of the voluntary agencies that operate in the Scottish social work sector.
The hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) referred to the cost implications for Strathclyde regional council and its social work department. Obviously there will also be cost implications for the voluntary agencies if the regulations apply to them. Many of such agencies operate on a shoestring budget and have limited facilities, nevertheless they perform a vital function. Many work closely with local authorities, which we welcome, and it is important to know the implications of the regulations to those agencies.
What are the implications of the regulations to files that are compiled during the training of professional social workers? Before coming to the House I was a co-ordinator for the certificate in social service and my responsibilities covered the west of Scotland, which included Strathclyde
998
regional council, Dumfries and Galloway regional council, the two education departments of those local authorities and various voluntary organisations.
During training, those students who were already employed had to compile a great deal of work that related to the type of case load that they would have on a day-to-day basis. There was always a difficulty in defining whether those case files were the property of the college that was responsible for the academic qualification, the social work department that employed the student or the individual student. I stress that throughout the work undertaken on that course we emphasised confidentiality to our students and we never accepted any clear identification of an individual involved in those case files.
We must consider the implications of the regulations on those files that are used by students in the process of their professional training. We need highly skilled, professionally trained social workers if we are to face up to the many problems in our society.
Have the implications of the regulations been discussed with the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work, which is the validating body? If not, will such an opportunity arise because, in the past, different interpretations have been given to the various schemes that operate the certificate in social service? It would be helpful to have clear guidance.
12.39 am
Mr. Michael Forsyth: We have had a wide-ranging debate in which hon. Members have quoted some interesting legal cases, to which I do not propose to give an instant response tonight. One of the interesting aspects of the debate was the emphasis placed on medical records, which are not immediately covered by the regulations. The hon. Members for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) and for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) pressed me on the progress with the medical profession on that matter. As I said in my opening remarks, negotiations are continuing. The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire suggested that, if we were unable to reach agreement on a voluntary basis, we should take the necessary statutory measures. I can assure him tonight, without too much equivocation, that if we are unable to reach agreement on a voluntary code, I shall respond vigorously to the pressure that the hon. Gentleman and others are putting on the Government in that respect.
The hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden, and a number of other hon. Members, placed some emphasis on the question of charging. The £10 fee is a maximum charge and local authorities have the discretion to charge nothing at all if they feel that a charge would result in the information not being made available to the applicant. Our guidance will recommend that the applicant's ability to pay should be taken into account. That should satisfy the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden and a number of others, including the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire.
I was asked about the lead time being given to local authorities. At the beginning of this month local authorities were told that the regulations would come into force on 1 April. As the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran) pointed out, many local authorities have already established good practices in that respect and therefore have a head start. I appreciate that it imposes a

999
certain discipline on the authorities to ensure that they have the necessary mechanisms in place to operate the regulations in time, but I do not believe that there will be any particular problem.
I was a little confused about the messages on the 40-day rule. If I understood him correctly, the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden argued that that was not enough time to respond. However, the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire argued that it was far too long, so I suppose that we have probably got it just about right.
Mr. Galbraith: I do not think that the 40-day rule is too long or too short. I agree that the Minister has got it just about right. I was trying to make the point that there may be exceptional circumstances in which for some reason it is impossible to get third-party permission within the 40-day rule. I wonder whether the guidance to local authorities might contain some exceptional exemptions that would allow for that. For example if a consultant was away for a considerable time, and if information was released without the permission of that person, that could lead to distrust with the authority from which the information was obtained and could cause further problems in future. Will the Minister consider making some special exceptional exemptions?
Mr. Forsyth: I think that I can help the hon. Gentleman. If he reads Hansard tomorrow, he will see that the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire made the point that the 40-day clock starts ticking once the necessary information is available, so there is provision for that. I do not want to dissuade the hon. Gentleman from the view that we have got it right by pursuing that issue too far.
As to his point about consultants going on holiday, there is provision in the regulations for another health professional to give the necessary consent, in the absence of the appropriate person.
The other main theme which the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden raised at the beginning of the debate was the definition of serious harm. The point has been made in consultation as to why the regulations do not specify "harm" instead of "serious harm". A balance is involved. It is a difficult subject, but by definition such matters can be decided only on a case-by-case basis. We all recognise that the desire which we share to ensure that information is available where appropriate must be balanced by the odd, very exceptional case where this test would be met. I can perhaps reassure those hon. Members who were concerned about the definition by saying that it is our view that it should be exceptional for information to be withheld, rather than the kind of circumstance which the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South was concerned about.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) asked me about the housing regulations. Yes, we are at present consulting about those matters and we have had about 30 responses to date. We will proceed with the same vigour but care which we have shown in the regulations themselves.
My hon. Friend also asked me about the position of Members of Parliament. The position of hon. Members will, as usual, be the same as that of any other citizen: they
1000
will have no special rights under these regulations. But, as my hon. Friend himself pointed out, if they are acting as agent they will be able to operate on that basis.
The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) asked who would act as censor, who would be responsible for deciding whether information should be withheld. I can assure him that such a decision will be taken by senior management.
The hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden asked me about the resource implications. It is perhaps appropriate at this point to highlight the splendid record of this Government in providing support for social work services in local government. I am bound to say that when I looked at these figures I was so astonished by the increases that we have made available that I had them checked, and I am assured that since 1979, when we came into office, the planning figure for such services has increased by no less than two thirds, in real terms. Next year the planned provision exceeds that for the current year by 13 per cent. and local authorities' own budgets by 6 per cent. for that year, so I do not anticipate that these regulations will make much of a dent on the very substantial resources which we have provided. However, it is open to the local authorities, in the light of experience, in the negotiations which take place on the rate support grant, to make a case if they feel it appropriate.
I was asked about the regulations not providing for a person to be told of information being withheld. This is an important point made, I think, by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire. I must say that in some circumstances it would be almost as damaging to make it known that information was being withheld as to provide the information in the first place. But the hon. Gentleman is right to emphasise that the imperative should be to make information available where appropriate—and that includes the information that the information is being withheld. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the guidance will invite local authorities to judge whether a person should be told, in keeping with that good practice.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South referred to the complexity of the child care law. I completely agree with him. He himself pointed out that a child care review is operating currently. It will report to my hon. Friend and will, I think, cover some of the points which concern the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South also asked me about prison records. Although social work records in prison would not be covered by the regulations, we will try to ensure that the same kind of code is operated on social work records in the prison system, although not on a statutory basis. I think that that will meet his point.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South also asked about the provision of counselling for people who have obtained access to their records. The guidance will certainly suggest that local authorities should offer counselling where appropriate consistent with good practice. He also made an important point about the children's hearings rules, and asked whether they would need to be changed as a result of the regulations. Chairmen of children's hearings are still required to discuss the substance of reports with families. If the regulations are approved, we shall reconsider the terms of the children's hearing rules in that respect. The rules are laid down by statutory instrument, and I am happy to undertake to look at—and, if necessary, amend—the instrument before the regulations come into force on 1 April.

1001
The hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) asked me about voluntary organisations. The 1987 Act extends only to the manual records of local authorities for their social work functions, and the regulations could not, therefore, extend to the records of voluntary organisations, although the hon. Lady has made a point of substance. It is open to the voluntary organisations to institute procedures based on the regulations, as I have confirmed we shall do in the prison service. Some voluntary bodies are already developing access arrangements but we are not requiring them to do so.
There has been some criticism of the complexity of the regulations. That is often a consequence of private Members' legislation. I have discovered in recent months that it is never as simple as it might appear at first sight. Nevertheless, I hope that the House will accept the regulations as a genuine and sincere attempt to bring to people in Scotland the opportunity of access to information to which they are entitled, and the first in a long line of such attempts.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Access to Personal Files (Social Work) (Scotland) Regulations 1989, which were laid before this House on 16th January, be approved.

Gravel Extraction (Burnham Beeches)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Maclean.]
12.52 am
Mr. Tim Smith: On 14 July last year, the Summerleaze Gravel Company Limited applied to Buckinghamshire county council for planning permission in relation to land in East Burnham park, Lees farm and Hunts Wood farm, all of which are in East Burnham in my constituency. The application is for the winning and working of sand and gravel and matters ancillary thereto, including the erection of processing plant, the crossing of public highways, the importation of infilling material and restoration to agriculture. Part of the land is at present used as farmland, part is a nursery and part is woodland.
The total site area is 52 hectares and the development will take 13 years to complete. It will involve the removal of 1·65 million tonnes of gravel at the rate of 150,000 tonnes a year. The site will then be filled with 1·1 million cu m of waste material. According to the planning application, the development will involve maximum daily lorry movements of 365.
The application site lies within a preferred area in the Buckinghamshire county council's minerals local plan, which was adopted nearly seven years ago, in April 1982. The preferred area is known as area 17. Preferred areas are areas where applications to work sand and gravel for general market needs will be favourably considered. There is therefore a presumption in favour of the application. I want to explain to my hon. Friend why that presumption should be rebutted—at any rate, why we should call in the application, even though there is a presumption in its favour.
There are two principal reasons—one of substance and the other of procedure. The substantive reason relates to the proximity to the site of Burnham beeches, which is nationally recognised as one of the largest remaining blocks of woodland in England—undisturbed since the ice age—and is highly valued for the ecological system to be found within its borders. It is listed as a site of special scientific interest under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. The beeches have been owned by the Corporation of London since 1880. The Corporation of London (Open Spaces) Act requires it to keep the land unenclosed and unbuilt on for the recreation and enjoyment of the public and to observe its natural aspect. Burnham beeches attract up to 500,000 visitors from the surrounding area, London and overseas every year.
The application site is about 200 m from the southern boundary of the beeches. The corporation of London is therefore concerned that, should planning permission be granted, damage would be caused to the environment and amenity of Burnham beeches. The ground water table system could be unbalanced by the draw-down effects of the excavation of the natural water table. The corporation has therefore commissioned a report from the Institute of Hydrology on the hydrological implications. To date it has received only an interim report, prepared in under six weeks. The Institute of Hydrology has concluded that the underlying parts of the beeches are in hydraulic connection with the gravel it is proposed to extract. The exact nature of the connection is not known at this stage, and its establishment will require further boreholes and associated study.

1003
The pollution effects of dust discharge over the beeches could be severe. The corporation has therefore also commissioned a report on the potential effects of dust discharge and in particular the effect of such pollution under the lichen and algae within the beeches. The bedrock strata immediately adjoining sections of the proposed site are fractured and fissured in such a way that the methane by-product of the infill material could find its way through the substrata into the beeches. The corporation has therefore commissioned another report on the potential effects of pollution as a consequence of the proposed landfill with industrial and domestic waste.
My hon. Friend may, not unreasonably, say that all these matters must have been thoroughly investigated when the Buckinghamshire minerals local plan was drawn up at the beginning of the decade. The Nature Conservancy Council has addressed this point in its assessment of the potential effects of the proposal on
Burnham beeches. The council says:
"The plan dates back to the early 1980s and the NCC would have had an opportunity to comment at the draft stage. That they did not raise any objections to extraction in this area reflects the state of knowledge relating to hydrological matters, and likely implications for sites of nature conservation interest, at that time. Since then a number of sites have suffered badly, particularly in East Anglia, through the effects of changing the groundwater table. In response to these problems our understanding has increased, through the implementation of directed research, and we would almost certainly have questioned the designation of this sie as a preferred area had the plan been presented today."
There are two additional matters of relevance to the minerals local plan. The first is that the description of the buffer zone in the plan is out of date following residential development of the land. The second is that the plan
envisages a maximum production rate of 100,000 tonnes per annum, whereas the application proposes 150,000 tonnes per annum. To summarise this substantive reason, Burnham beeches could be irreparably damaged by the proposal. The Summerleage Gravel Company Limited has written to me today to say:
"We pose no threat to Burnham Beeches."
That is a disputed issue of such importance that it should
be considered by an independent public inquiry.
The procedural reason why the planning application should be called in arises from the need for an overall environmental assessment. As my hon. Friend knows, the Town and Country Planning (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1988 came into effect on 15 July. It is, of course, no coincidence that this planning application was submitted on 14 July, because the chief planning officer advised Summerleage to get its planning application in quickly to avoid the effect of the regulations. This suggests that the planning officer took the view that, had the regulations been in force, an environmental assessment might have been necessary.
My hon. Friend wrote to me on 9 January to explain the position in relation to planning applications made in the period from 3 to 14 July. The directive ought to have come into effect in the United Kingdom on 3 July. My hon. Friend told me that it would be open to the Secretary of State to call in such an application for his own decision, if it appeared to him to relate to a project that might fall within the terms of the directive. In that event, my hon. Friend told me, the Secretary of State would be likely to arrange an inquiry, the procedure for which would achieve
1004
the principal objective of the directive. In this way, the spirit of the directive would be respected in the case of applications lodged during this period.
The Department's circular on environmental assessment, which was issued last year, explains that it is a technique for drawing together in a systematic way expert quantitative analysis and qualitative assessment of a project's environmental effects, and presenting the results in a way which enables the importance of the predicted effects and the scope for modifying or mitigating them, to be properly evaluated by the relevant decision-making body before a decision is given.
In my view, that is precisely what is required in this case: a drawing together in a systematic way of all the evidence and the presentation of the results in a way that facilitates a proper evaluation. In the absence of an environmental assessment, which the applicant has contrived to avoid, this can be achieved only by a public inquiry.
My hon. Friend might say that such an inquiry would place a heavy burden on all the parties involved. My answer to that is that, when it comes to the preservation of something as special as Burnham beeches, there is a heavy responsibility on all of us to ensure that its future is secure.
I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that many of the environmental matters that have to be considered in a case such as this are highly technical. There is, no doubt, no shortage of technical expertise at county hall, but for the reasons I have given, it is vital that there should be an independent inquiry into all these matters.
I understand that the county planning committee proposes to consider this matter in April. I doubt very much whether it will have all the information it needs to be able to make an informed decision by then. A public inquiry would be able to consider all the important issues in a sensible timescale.
Some 200 of my constituents have written to me on this matter. A rather larger number attended a public meeting recently. Many organisations support the calling in of this application. They are the British Lichen Society, Britwell parish council, the Bucks, Berks and Oxon Naturalists Trust, Burnham parish council, the corporation of London, the Council for the Protection of Rural England, English Heritage, Farnham Royal parish council, Friends of the Earth, the Nature Conservancy Council and the Ramblers Association. There is widespread local concern about the impact that this development would have on the whole surrounding area, and I urge my hon. Friend to call the application in.
1.4 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Christopher Chope): I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) on the lucid way in which he has raised this important matter. He has addressed a matter of considerable worry to many of his constituents and to others who enjoy the beauty and tranquility of Burnham beeches.
Outside Greater London and the metropolitan areas, day-to-day planning responsibility for minerals planning and development control is vested in the county councils. Although my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State does have discretion under section 35 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, to require a planning application to be

1005
referred to him for decision, it is a long-established policy for the Secretary of State not to interfere with the jurisdiction of planning authorities unless it is absolutely necessary to do so.
Reference to the Secretary of State is required only when matters of more than local importance are raised by the application. This is an important principle. Parliament has given clear duties and responsibilities to the mineral planning authorities. They are frequently faced with difficult and contentious proposals for mineral development and they have to balance the need for mineral supplies to be maintained against the need to preserve the countryside and the environment. Mineral planning authorities generally face up to their responsibilities well, and it would be wrong for my right hon. Friend to intervene unnecessarily in the development control process.
A significant feature of this case is that the application relates to a site designated a preferred area for sand and gravel extraction in the Buckinghamshire minerals subject local plan, as my hon. Friend said. This plan aimed to provide for sand and gravel production in the county at about 16 million tonnes over the period 1981–91. The plan identified a number of preferred areas in the south of the county, together with some areas of search elsewhere in the county, where this target could be met with the least environmental damage. Within these preferred areas, favourable consideration would be given to applications for sand and gravel extraction, although each application would have to be judged on its own merits.
This minerals subject plan was the subject of a long and detailed public inquiry, and the possibility of designating this area east of Burnham, the so-called area 17, was thoroughly debated. The inspector who conducted the inquiry concluded that the area was suitable as a preferred area for sand and gravel extraction, subject to conditions concerned with access and with the safeguarding of three listed buildings in the area. In his view, sand and gravel extraction could take place without unacceptable visual intrusion if suitable earth bunds were erected.
Buckinghamshire county council adopted this plan in April 1982. In July of that year it granted planning permission to the Summerleaze Gravel Company Limited to extract gravel from a 10 hectare site within this preferred area. As my hon. Friend said, the company has now submitted a new application to extract gravel from almost the whole of the preferred area, and it is this application which has generated the current controversy.
It has been argued by some of those who have made representations opposing the application that this minerals local plan is out of date, and my hon. Friend spoke to that point. That is an aspect which the Secretary of State will have to consider, notwithstanding the fact that the plan was designed to cover the period up to 1991. It is the statutory development plan for mineral development in the county and, as such, the county council is obliged to take it into account as a material consideration when determining planning applications.
My hon. Friend expressed particular worries about a threat to Burnham beeches, which is a site of special scientific interest. I wish to reassure him that I am in no doubt about the national importance of the beeches. Their history, habitats and flora are all well documented and they must be protected. I am sure that this view is shared by Buckinghamshire county council.
1006
The possibility of an adverse effect on the hydrology of the Burnham beeches area appears to be a particular concern, not least to the Nature Conservancy Council. My hon. Friend pointed out, fairly, that this is to a large extent a new issue which was not canvassed when the minerals local plan was debated. This is clearly a matter which needs to be investigated. It will need to be established whether there is a hydraulic connection between the water in the glacial sands and gravels which underlie the beeches and water in the Boyn Hill terrace gravels which the applicants propose to work.
I understand that the county council has asked the applicants to provide a report on the likely effects of their proposals on the area's hydrology and that the council has retained an independent hydrological expert to examine that report when it is produced. I am sure that the applicants realise that they must satisfy the planning authority that the working of the application site will not affect the water regime at Burnham beeches.
I understand that the City of London corporation has also commissioned some hydrological studies into this matter and has written to the county council saying that its preliminary studies indicate that there is a link between the groundwater underlying Burnham beeches and the site which is the subject of the planning application. It would be extremely helpful if the corporation could make any evidence it has available to the county council, and to the applicants' hydrological consultants to help them resolve the matter.
My hon. Friend raised the question whether the applicants should be required to provide an environmental assessment of their proposals. The Town and Country Planning (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1988 require developers to provide an environmental assessment to accompany planning applications for certain developments if they are likely to have significant effects by virtue of factors such as size, nature or location.
As my hon. Friend said, these regulations apply to applications submitted on or after 15 July last year but implement an EC directive on environmental assessment which came into force on 3 July. The Summerleaze Gravel Company Limited submitted its planning application on 14 July.
Two questions therefore arise. First, there is the general question whether planning applications made before the United Kingdom regulations came into force on 15 July 1988, but after the EC directive came into force on 3 July 1988, should be subject to the requirement to provide an environmental assessment. Second, there is the question whether this particular planning application would have needed to have been accompanied by an environmental assessment if it had been submitted on or after 15 July.
On the first point, under normal circumstances United Kingdom legislation is not applied retrospectively. and in the planning system it has been considered generally to be both against the principles of natural justice and impractical to alter provisions affecting a particular application after it has been made. The 1988 regulations do not apply, therefore, to planning applications made before 15 July 1988, when the United Kingdom regulations came into force.
Nevertheless, I can assure the House that the spirit of the directive will be respected in the case of applications lodged in the relatively short period between the entry into force of the EC directive and the starting date for the

1007
United Kingdom regulations. If any relevant planning application made between the two dates is drawn to my right hon. Friend's attention, he will consider whether it would have required assessment under the regulations if they had applied to it. It would then be open to my right hon. Friend to call in the applications for his decision if it appears to him to be such a case apart from any other grounds he might have for calling the application in. In that event he would be likely to arrange an inquiry, the procedure for which would achieve the directive's aims of supplying environmental information and consultation with bodies with relevant responsibilities.
It has been pointed out in representations that the site area of this application is 2 hectares greater than the indicative 50-hectare threshold for sand and gravel operations which is mentioned in the Departmental circular which accompanied the regulations. However, the size thresholds for mineral operations referred to in the circular are only indicative, and projects which exceed the thresholds will not in every case require assessment. The main criterion is whether the proposal raises the likelihood of significant environmental effects. On the information available to me, it would appear that the hydrological
1008
studies which have been set in train will cover the issue which would assume greatest importance in any environmental assessment of this application.
My right hon. Friend is considering this matter in the light of the representations he has received. Clearly, an important consideration will be the possible impact of the proposed sand and gravel extraction on the hydrology of the area. As I have already mentioned, the mineral planning authority is acting quite properly and responsibly in looking into this, and my right hon. Friend will wish to take account of its investigations, and the other points raised so eloquently this evening by my hon. Friend, before reaching a decision on whether or not to call in this particular sand and gravel extraction proposal for his own determination.
My hon. Friend mentioned that, if there were to be a public inquiry, it would be a burden. That would not be a constraint on the Department's consideration whether it was necessary to call in the application. I can assure my hon. Friend that would not be a relevant consideration; we would judge the issue on the other criteria to which I have referred. I and my right hon. Friend are well aware of the importance of Burnham beeches, and before reaching a decision we shall very carefully consider all the issues.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twelve minutes past One o'clock.

TRANSPORT

  Severn Bridge
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to end the imposition of tolls on the Severn bridge; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  No.

  Vehicle Weights
  Mr. Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has any plans to require that all commercial vehicles entering the United Kingdom by sea pass over a weighbridge before travelling on the public roads; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We are about to install automatic equipment in the main ferry ports which will indicate whether incoming vehicles are overloaded. This will supplement the existing weighbridges used by the Department's traffic examiners.

  Air Traffic Control
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what was the number of air traffic controllers employed at each of Heathrow, Gatwick and Manchester airports for each of the past 20 years;

  (2) what was the number of new air traffic controllers employed in positions in England in each of the past 20 years;

  (3) what was the total number of air traffic controllers employed in England in each of the past 20 years;

  (4) what has been the capital investment in air traffic control systems for each of the past 20 years;

  (5) what was the capital expenditure on air traffic control facilities at Heathrow airport, both on general facilities and on computer systems, in each of the 10 years prior to privatisation.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  These matters have all been within the responsibility of the Civil Aviation Authority and the National Air Traffic Services since 1972. I suggest the hon. Member writes to the chairman of the authority.

  Heathrow Airport
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the capital expenditure on general facilities at Heathrow by the airport authority itself in each of the 10 years prior to privatisation.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Department does not hold this information.

  For the years 1977–78 to 1983–84 such information was given in the authority's annual report and accounts, which are in the Library; for the three subsequent years I suggest the hon. Member approaches BAA plc direct.

  M3 Extension
  Mr. Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether contracts have yet been let for the southern section of the M3 extension.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Necessary works in advance of the main contract for the Compton to Bassett section of the M3 are under way. We hope to invite tenders for the main contract shortly to enable work to start this summer.

  Mr. Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has now received the independent inspector's report on the latest public inquiry about the final link between the M27 and M3 motorways; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Yes. The inspector's report of the reopened inquiry into the Bar End to Compton section of the M3 extension was received at the end of November. It will be considered together with that of the 1985 inquiry inspector. The reports cover the many complex issues covered at the inquiries. My right hon. Friends will announce their joint decisions as quickly as they can.

  Dangerous Cargoes
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what permission needs to be sought by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, British Nuclear Fuels Limited or commercial handlers of nuclear materials to transport by air radiotoxic materials such as plutonium or tritium within the United Kingdom, or from the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The consignors of all radioactive materials by air must satisfy the Department of Transport that the arrangements comply fully with the national and international regulations.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to review the safety of air transportation of dangerous toxic cargoes, including radio isotopes, depleted uranium, radioactive wastes and plutonium.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The transport of radioactive materials by all modes of transport must comply fully with the national and international regulations which are under continuous review by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

  The IAEA is currently undertaking a special review to decide whether any regulatory changes are needed to cover the particular circumstances of air transport.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if, during the next meeting of the Council of European Transport Ministers, he will make it his policy to initiate an EEC review of the hazards of the air, sea, road and rail transport of radiotoxic nuclear materials.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The transport of all radioactive materials must comply with the international regulations of the International Atomic Energy Agency, which is a United Nations body. These are under continuous review. All EEC countries are member states of the IAEA, and there is no need for a special EEC review.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to set up a review
  469
  study of the rail transport of spent nuclear fuel on the north and south London rail network lines, to study the appropriateness of the routeing and the preparedness of emergency plans in the event of an accident involving the significant release of radioactivity.

  Mr. Portillo
  All movements of spent nuclear fuel must comply with regulations of the International Atomic Energy Agency. The required design of the steel flasks ensure that even in the event of a severe railway accident there would be no significant release of the contents.
  Long-standing and well-rehearsed emergency arrangements exist to provide a rapid response to any incident involving nuclear materials in transit.

  Boeing 757 (Safety)
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has as to the time and date when the Boeing Aircraft Company first became aware of wiring problems in their 757 aircraft; when the Federal Aviation Authority was notified; when the federal authority gave instructions that the aircraft were to be checked; what the time and date was when the Civil Aviation Authority was notified; and when the Civil Aviation Authority notified United Kingdom airlines operating these aircraft.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  I understand that the United States Federal Aviation Administration and the Boeing Company are investigating the chronology of the notification of wiring faults in the hold fire warning and extinguishing system of the Boeing 757.

  My information is that the Civil Aviation Authority was notified by the FAA, by telephone, at 5.30 pm on Friday, 13 January, that an airworthiness directive was being issued which concerned the wiring of the B757 hold fire warning and extinguishing system. By 7.30 that evening the CAA had notified all United Kingdom operators of the forthcoming airworthiness directive.

  On Saturday morning, 14 January, the full airworthiness directive was received by the CAA by telex. The CAA confirmed immediately that all United Kingdom operators of the aircraft had received the telex. Action was by then under way and by the end of the morning British Airways, for example, had already inspected and cleared 12 of their B757s.

  Urban Programme
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his provision for the urban programme for 1988–89 and for the next three years at cash prices and at 1987–88 constant prices.

  Mr. Portillo
  The Department of Transport's cash provision for the urban programme in 1988–89 and each of the succeeding three years is £11 million. This is £10 million per annum at 1987–88 constant prices.

  In addition to the urban programme works, which are administered by the Department of the Environment, urban areas receive substantial benefit from the Department of Transport's other programmes, including those for trunk road construction, local authority roads and public transport.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what changes he proposes to make to the cash limits on his votes and to his Department's running costs limit.

  Mr. Channon
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimates, the cash limits for my votes are to be changed as follows:

  £'000

  Current cash

  Change

  Revised cash

  limit

  limit

  Class VIII Vote 1

  1,027,307

  14,145

  1,041,452

  2

  215,838

  3,390

  212,448

  4

  122,453

  1,130

  123,583

  The increase in class VIII, vote I will be charged to the Reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure. This increase takes account of a reduction of £1,585,000 to compensate for an overspend of the cash limit in 1987–88. This follows the normal practice of reducing the cash limit for one financial year by the amount of the previous year's overspend.

  The reduced cash limit on class VIII, vote 2 takes account of transfers of:

  (a) £1,130,000 to class VIII, vote 4 to offset an equivalent increase on that vote;

  (b) £2,110,000 to class VIII, vote 5 as a partial offset to increased public expenditure on rural bus grants on that vote; and

  (c) £150,000 to class XI, vote 3 in respect of a transfer of civil defence provision to the Home Office.

  The balance of the increased requirement for rural bus grants will be offset by savings on class VIII, vote 5 and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  The running costs limit of the Department of Transport has been reduced by £38,000 from £257,017,000 to £256,979,000. This amount will be transferred to the running costs limit of Her Majesty's Treasury to cover the cost of additional work incurred in respect of the forthcoming transfer of the Department of Transport payroll to the Chessington computer centre.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Sales Practices
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) whether he intends to introduce further measures to curb the practice known as telephone cold calling;

  (2) how many representations he has received since 1 January 1988 regarding the sale practice known as telephone cold calling; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  My Department has received 39 complaints from consumers about unsolicited telephone sales calls since 1 January 1988. The Office of Fair Trading, the Office of Telecommunications and local authority trading standards departments have also received complaints about this practice.
  The British Direct Marketing Association is planning to introduce a telephone preference service which would enable telephone subscribers to choose to have their details excluded from lists used by direct selling organisations. Discussions about the form of such a service are taking
  471
  place with the Office of Fair Trading and other interested Government bodies. My Department is keeping in touch with these developments.

  Local Pay Additions
  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the number of staff in his Department, by grade, in receipt of local pay additions outside London and the south east economic planning region; what are the different amounts paid to staff by grade; whether this figure varies due to location; what qualifying period of scale-related criteria is used; and whether this varies by location.

  Mr. Forth
  Nine administrative officers, four administrative assistants and two personal secretaries are receiving local pay additions in offices of the Department of Trade and Industry in Cambridge, which is outside London and the south-east economic planning region. The annual salaries of the administrative officers and administrative assistants are increased to £300 above the national rate in the first year of service in the Department; thereafter annual salaries are increased to £600 above the national rate, except where staff are on the maximum of their salary scale, when the annual salaries are increased to £400 above the national rate. The annual salaries of personal secretaries are adjusted in the same manner, except that they are increased to £600 above the national rate in the first year of service. The criteria for payment of these additions do not vary between offices.

  Aircraft (Research)
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what progress has been made in the review of support for civil aircraft and aero engine research.

  Mr. Atkins
  In the White Paper "DTI—The Department for Enterprise" (CM 278, January 1988) my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry announced that the Government intended to review during 1988 the Department's support for civil aircraft and aeroengine research and demonstration.

  A comprehensive review has now been carried out by officials of my Department and implementation of the recommendations is under way. It concluded that there is a continuing need for the Government to fund research in support of the United Kingdom civil aircraft industry in view of the particular circumstances of this international market. At the same time, the review recommended that the Government should seek measures in the international arena to reduce the market distortions which play their part in making such Government support necessary. We are considering further how to take this forward.

  As a result of the review, we shall be taking a number of steps and introducing procedures that are designed both to bring the support in line with wider Government and departmental research objectives and to ensure that we obtain good value for money from the funding. These include withdrawing near market support and encouraging more collaborative research. Because of the particular nature of the industry we shall continue, exceptionally, to make available support for longer-term single company research projects in the airframe, aeroengine and helicopter sectors, limited to a maximum funding of 25 per cent. of total project costs. Also, for research carried out
  472
  either in Government research establishments or agencies, we shall in future expect aerospace companies, as major beneficiaries of the work, to contribute to the funding, usually by seconding staff to the research teams.

  Century Newspapers Ltd., Belfast
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many days he has allowed for consultation between the date of the announcement of the proposed takeover of Century Newspapers Ltd., Belfast, by Thompson Regional Newspapers and the date when the submissions must be received by him before a decision on referral to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, what is the normal period for such consultation; and whether he has received any representations from the National Graphical Association and the National Union of Journalists about the possibility of a monopoly of newspaper ownership being created in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 16 January 1989]On 10 January my Department issued a press notice inviting comments on the proposal by 17 January.
  The Department's procedures for a formal consultation period were introduced in October 1988. This is the fist application for consent to a newspaper merger under the financial urgency provisions received since then. I have received seven representations on the proposal including a full submission from the National Graphical Association.

  Net Book Agreement
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will set up an inquiry into the working of the net book agreement with a view to examining its effect on booksellers, publishers and book purchasers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 19 January 1989]: The Restrictive Practices Court has considered the net book agreement on two occasions and has found it not to be contrary to the public interest. Under the relevant legislation, the Director General of Fair Trading may apply to the court for a review of its decision if at any time he considers that there has been a material change in circumstances on which the original judgment was based. It is not open to Ministers to make such an application.

  In the circumstances it would serve no useful purpose for the Government to set up an inquiry. However, the Government have proposed fundamental reforms to restrictive trade practices legislation under which, among other things, it is intended that arrangements such as the net book agreement which have been cleared under existing legislation should be reconsidered in due course by the appropriate competition authority under criteria laid down in the new legislation.

  Inner Cities Initiative
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the allocation for the inner cities initiative for 1988–89 and each of the next three years at cash prices and at 1987–88 constant prices.

  Mr. Newton
  The inner cities unit of my Department has an allocation of £21·3 million for 1988–89 (£20·0 million in 1987–88 constant prices). Information about
  473
  planned expenditure in the following three years will shortly be published in the public expenditure White Paper.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Eritrea
  Mr. Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether, in view of the greater use now being made of the United Nations Security Council in the sphere of conflict resolution, the Government have raised the issue of Eritrea in informal contacts in Security Council circles; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We are concerned about the continuing conflict in Eritrea and take every opportunity to urge all those involved to reach a solution by negotiation. We do not believe it would be helpful to raise the issue in the Security Council.

  British Embassies and High Commissions
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the total number of British embassies and high commissions; what is the number of staff employed in them, and what is the total annual cost.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  There are 130 embassies and high commissions, and 78 subordinate and miscellaneous other posts. The total running cost in financial year 1987–88 was £241·4 million.

  UN Security Council
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give for the last full year for which figures are available the number of meetings of the United Nations Security Council; and the number of times it voted.

  Mr. Eggar
  Between 16 June 1987 and 15 June 1988 (the last full year for which figures are available), the United Nations Security Council held 67 meetings, and voted 33 times.

  British Antarctic Territory
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he proposes to take with regard to the administration of the British Antarctic Territory; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  The British Antarctic Territory was established as a separate dependent territory in 1962. Since then, as a matter of convenience, the territory has been administered by an high commissioner resident in Stanley. Following consideration of the future administrative needs of the territory, we have decided that from 1 July this year the administration of the BAT will be repatriated to London and that the commissioner will be a senior official of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The present high commissioner has been informed and is informing the Falkland Islands Councillors. The British Indian Ocean Territory has been similarly administered from London since 1977.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Capital Allocation (Warwickshire)
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will set out in the Official Report his Department's capital allocation in real terms to Warwickshire county council for each year since 1978–79.

  Mr. Butcher
  The information requested for the years 1981–82 to 1989–90 is set out in tables 1 and 2. Before 1981–82 local education authorities did not receive block allocations but were notified annually, in the context of a rolling programme, of a limit on the value of building starts in the following year.

  Table 1

  Warwickshire Lea Prescribed capital expenditure 1981–82 to 1989–90

  Cash Prices

  1Constant Prices

  £000s

  £000s

  1981–82

  1,366

  1,843

  1982–83

  1,367

  1,722

  1983–84

  1,991

  2,398

  1984–85

  1,428

  1,637

  1985–86

  1,703

  1,853

  1986–87

  1,236

  1,301

  1987–88

  1,162

  1,162

  1988–89

  1,375

  1,294

  1989–90

  1,729

  1,550

  1 These figures are calculated at 1987–88 prices using the GDP deflator.

  Table 2

  Allocations/or capital expenditure by Governors of Aided Schools in Warwickshire 1981–82 to 1989–90

  Cash prices

  Constant
  prices

  1981–82

  —

  —

  1982–83

  259

  326

  1983–84

  346

  417

  1984–85

  110

  126

  1985–86

  245

  267

  1986–87

  19

  20

  1987–88

  80

  80

  1988–89

  715

  673

  1989–90

  631

  566

  Notes:

  1. Allocations for 1981–82 and earlier years were made on a different basis and have therefore been omitted.

  2. The allocations shown are those announced before the start of the financial year in question and do not reflect subsequent revision.

  3. These figures are calculated at 1987–88 prices using the GDP deflator.

  Teacher Numbers
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will give the figures for the total number of teachers employed in schools maintained by the local education authorities of Derbyshire, Staffordshire, Nottinghamshire and Hereford/Worcester.

  Mr. Butcher
  The total number of full-time equivalent teachers in January 1988 were as follows:
  475

  LEA

  Qualified teachers within schools1

  Total number of teachers paid by the local education authority2

  Derbyshire

  7,859

  8,353

  Staffordshire

  8,124

  8,746

  Nottinghamshire

  8,315

  8,702

  Hereford and

  Worcester

  4,894

  5,273

  1 Full-time equivalent qualified teachers within maintained nursery primary and secondary schools.

  2 The total number of full-time equivalent teachers including qualified teachers, student teachers and instructors employed for service in maintained nursery, primary and secondary schools.

  Pupil Numbers
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will give the figures for the total number of pupils attending schools maintained by the local education authorities up to the age of 19 years, in Derbyshire, Staffordshire, Nottinghamshire and Hereford/Worcester.

  Mr. Butcher
  The total number of pupils up to and including those aged 19 and over attending maintained schools in January 1988 were as follows:

  LEA

  Pupil Numbers1

  Derbyshire

  143,000

  Staffordshire

  160,998

  Nottinghamshire

  154,699

  Hereford and Worcester

  96,527

  1 Total number of pupils in secondary and special schools maintained nursery, primary, middle, Includes those attending part-time.

  Superannuation (Compensation)
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has made compensation regulations under section 24 of the Superannuation Act 1972.

  Mr. Butcher
  My right hon. Friend has made the following compensation regulations under section 24 of the Superannuation Act 1972

  1. The Colleges of Education (Compensation) Regulations 1975.

  2. The Teachers' (Compensation for Redundancy and Premature Retirement) Regulations 1985.

  Special Educational Needs
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if his Department has plans to increase funds available for the education of children with special educational needs.

  Mr. Butcher
  The Government's expenditure plans for 1989– provide for local authorities to spend £59 million, or over 10 per cent., more in cash on maintained special schools than was allowed for within the 1988–89 plans, at a time when pupil numbers in special schools are declining. Expenditure on pupils with special educational needs in ordinary schools cannot be separately identified.

  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps his Department is taking to safeguard special educational needs after the implementation of the Education Act 1988.
  476
  Mr. Butcher
  The Education Act 1988 contains many safeguards for children with special educational needs. The National Curriculum Council and the Schools Examination and Assessment Council are fully aware of the particular difficulties faced by such children. The Government believe that all children, including those with special educational needs will benefit from the provisions of the 1988 Act. Nevertheless, provision for children with special educational needs will continue to be monitored after the implementation of the Act, as it is at present, by Her Majesty's inspectorate.

  Glandular Fever
  Sir David Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what research he is supporting into infectious mononucleosis—known as glandular fever; arid what are the prospects of developing a successful anti-body to the Epstein-Barr virus.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Medical Research Council, which receives its grant-in-aid from this Department, is currently supporting a virological study of Paul-Bunnell negative glandular fever at the communicable diseases division of the MRC clinical research centre. In addition, the MRC and university departments and medical schools support a range of basic research which may have relevance to glandular fever.

  The council's sub-committee on herpes virus vaccines has recently concluded that it is now possible to undertake studies of whether an Epstein-Barr virus antigen will stimulate immunity in humans. Proposals for such studies are presently being formulated.

  Viraj Mendis
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information he has as to the cost to public funds of Mr. Viraj Mendis's maintenance and tuition at the University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology between 1973 and 1979.

  Mr. Jackson
  I understand that Mr. Mendis is recorded as having supported himself during his attendance at the university of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology between 1973 and 1979. However, the tuition fees charged to overseas students at that time were subsidised and an element of the cost of Mr. Mendis' tuition will therefore have been met through the public funding of higher education institutions. It is not possible to quantify this element.

  List 99
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list in the Official Report for each academic or calendar year since 1970 (a) the total number of teachers on list 99, (b) the number included on the list under each of the four principal reasons for inclusion, (c) the number removed and granted permission to resume teaching and (d) the number subsequently relisted; and if he will make a statement on the operation of the list 99 process.

  Mr. Butcher
  The table shows the number of persons added to list 99 in each financial year from 1 April 1970 to 31 March 1988 categorised as requested, and the number
  477
  of persons removed from the list in each year. The total number of persons on list 99 at present is 1,471. The other information requested is not available.

  List 99 contains the names, dates of birth, and departmental reference numbers, of teachers, youth workers, and others whom the Secretary of State has directed should be excluded wholly or partially from

  Year

  Number of persons included on list 99 categorised by type of misconduct

  Total

  Number of persons removed from list 99

  (1)

  (2)

  (3)

  (4)

  (5)

  1970–71

  55

  3

  19

  4

  2

  83

  19

  1971–72

  49

  8

  7

  2

  4

  70

  6

  1972–73

  53

  2

  10

  3

  3

  71

  14

  1973–74

  21

  1

  3

  —

  1

  26

  9

  1974–75

  44

  1

  7

  —

  —

  52

  14

  1975–76

  32

  —

  5

  1

  5

  43

  7

  1976–77

  30

  2

  3

  —

  3

  38

  10

  1977–78

  22

  I

  —

  1

  1

  25

  11

  1978–79

  16

  1

  1

  1

  4

  23

  10

  1979–80

  31

  1

  4

  —

  1

  37

  6

  1980–81

  29

  —

  4

  1

  4

  38

  4

  1981–82

  34

  2

  7

  —

  2

  45

  7

  1982–83

  28

  1

  7

  —

  3

  39

  1

  1983–84

  25

  2

  5

  —

  7

  39

  6

  1984–85

  35

  2

  6

  —

  1

  44

  6

  1985–86

  31

  7

  9

  —

  4

  51

  3

  1986–87

  47

  7

  10

  —

  1

  65

  8

  1987–88

  28

  7

  2

  3

  7

  47

  6

  Categories:

  1. Sexual misconduct.

  2. Drugs cases.

  3. Financial cases.

  4. False claims as to qualifications.

  5. Others.

  University Lecturers (Pay)
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when was the last independent review of university lecturers' pay; what it recommended; and to what extent its findings have been implemented.

  Mr. Jackson
  Since 1970 the pay of university lecturers has been settled by negotiations between employers and employees under an independent chairman. The last such settlement was in 1987: it provided for pay rises of 16·6 per cent. with effect from 1 December 1986 and a further 7·4 per cent. with effect from I March 1988. Those increases have been implemented.

  Urban Programme
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is his provision for the urban programme for 1988–89 and for the next three years at cash prices and at 1987–88 constant prices.

  Mr. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend has made provision for education projects under the urban programme of:

  £ million

  Cash

  1987–88 prices

  1988–89 forecast outturn

  44

  41

  1989–90 plans

  45

  42

  1990–91 plans

  46

  43

  1991–92 plans

  47

  44

  478
  teaching or work with children or young persons under the age of 19, on grounds of misconduct, in accordance with the Education (Teachers') Regulations 1982. Copies of the list are held on a confidential basis by local education authorities and certain other employers and national bodies concerned with the employment of teachers or workers with children or young people.

  Under-fives
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the relevant current expenditure on schools for under-fives in 1988–89 and for the next three years.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Information for local authority actual spending on education in 1988–89 is not yet available. Provisional outturn spending on under-fives in 1988–89 is £495 million, a 25 per cent. increase in cash over spending in 1986–87. The Government's plans for spending in 1989–90 provide for £536 million to be spent on the under-fives, a further cash increase of over 8 per cent. over provisional outturn in 1988–89. The information requested on spending on under-fives beyond 1990 is not available.

  Schools (Opting Out)
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to be able to make his first decisions about the applications by schools to opt out under the Education Reform Act 1988.

  Mr. Butcher
  [holding answer 23 January 1989]: The first schools have now published proposes for grant-maintained status, and a number of others are preparing to do so. My right hon. Friend will determine such proposals as quickly as the statutory procedures and his consideration of all the relevant factors permit.

WALES

  Hospital Equipment
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list those hospitals in Wales which have (i) echo cardiagrams, and (ii) lithotripsy machines; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  Information on the acquisition of echo cardiagram equipment by NHS hospitals in Wales is not held centrally. No NHS hospital in Wales has yet acquired a lithrotripter. The Welsh Office is currently considering proposals for the provision of a lithotripsy service in Wales.

  Education (Special Needs)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement concerning his plans to safeguard the schooling of children with special needs.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The Education Act 1981 and the Education Reform Act 1988 make comprehensive provision to safeguard the schooling of children with special educational needs. The Department is also issuing this week for consultation a draft circular on procedures for assessments and statements of special educational needs.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the impact of the

  Nursery Schools1

  Welsh counties

  1977–78

  1978–79

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  Clwyd

  15·3

  16·7

  18·3

  19·6

  20·8

  20·1

  19·9

  19·7

  19·6

  18·6

  16·5

  Dyfed

  190

  16·8

  15·4

  17·7

  18·9

  20·1

  18·5

  18·9

  22·4

  22·4

  22·7

  Gwent

  18·3

  20·7

  19·9

  21·2

  21·6

  23·6

  23·0

  22·8

  22·5

  22·8

  23·1

  Gwynedd

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Mid Glamorgan

  17·8

  18·9

  19·4

  18·9

  18·8

  19·1

  19·2

  19·2

  18·7

  20·4

  19·4

  Powys

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  South Glamorgan

  20·2

  20·3

  20·4

  17·9

  18·8

  19·1

  18·8

  18·1

  18·4

  19·5

  18·6

  West Glamorgan

  19·2

  21·0

  18·5

  16·0

  23·5

  23·7

  22·7

  24·0

  29·1

  23·4

  23·4

  Primary Schools1

  Welsh counties

  1977–78

  1978–79

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  Clwyd

  23·2

  23·0

  23·1

  22·9

  23·3

  23·2

  23·2

  23·4

  23·8

  24·1

  24·0

  Dyfed

  19·0

  19·3

  18·4

  18·8

  19·1

  19·2

  19·0

  19·7

  20·7

  20·6

  20·8

  Gwent

  23·8

  22·7

  22·8

  22·8

  22·8

  22·1

  22·3

  22·3

  22·2

  21·9

  22·5

  Gwynedd

  21·3

  21·0

  20·5

  19·9

  19·5

  19·8

  19·7

  20·0

  20·2

  20·4

  20·3

  Mid Glamorgan

  23·8

  23·3

  23·6

  23·6

  23·5

  23·5

  22·3

  22·9

  22·9

  23·3

  22·9

  Powys

  18·3

  18·1

  18·7

  18·7

  19·5

  18·8

  18·6

  19·5

  19·5

  19·3

  19·3

  South Glamorgan

  23·2

  23·4

  23·2

  22·8

  22·9

  22·9

  22·9

  22·8

  22·9

  22·9

  22·7

  West Glamorgan

  21·8

  21·2

  21·1

  20·7

  21·2

  21·4

  21·5

  21·7

  21·6

  21·2

  21·3

  Secondary schools1

  Welsh counties

  1977–78

  1978–79

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  Clwyd

  16·9

  16·9

  17·0

  17·0

  17·2

  16·9

  16·7

  16·8

  16·7

  16·5

  15·9

  Dyfed

  17·9

  17·1

  16·8

  16·6

  16·4

  16·4

  16·1

  16·1

  16·0

  15·8

  15·5

  Gwent

  16·7

  16·5

  16·1

  16·6

  16·4

  16·1

  15·8

  15·8

  15·5

  15·3

  15·0

  Gwynedd

  17·3

  16·8

  16·2

  16·1

  16·0

  16·0

  15·5

  15·6

  15·2

  15·3

  14·8

  Mid Glamorgan

  17·2

  16·9

  16·8

  16·8

  17·6

  17·4

  16·6

  16·7

  16·7

  16·5

  16·0

  Powys

  16·3

  16·2

  16·0

  15·9

  15·7

  15·9

  15·5

  15·2

  14·9

  14·8

  14·5

  South Glamorgan

  17·2

  17·0

  16·8

  16·9

  16·9

  16·7

  16·7

  16·6

  16·5

  16·5

  16·4

  West Glamorgan

  16·7

  16·4

  16·4

  16·1

  16·0

  15·8

  15·7

  15·9

  15·6

  15·3

  14·8

  Special schools1

  Welsh counties

  1977–78

  1978–79

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  Clwyd

  8·6

  7·3

  8·5

  8·6

  8·6

  8·4

  8·5

  8·2

  7·9

  7·7

  7·2

  Dyfed

  7·6

  7·2

  7·5

  7·5

  1·2

  7·2

  7·5

  6·7

  6·8

  6·8

  6·7

  Gwent

  8·4

  8·9

  8·6

  8·3

  8·5

  7·8

  7·1

  7·2

  7·3

  7·6

  6·8

  480
  Education Reform Act upon the professional activity of those teachers engaged at primary and secondary school level in the special needs section; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The Education Reform Act offers the opportunity for a significant improvement in the provision made for children with special educational needs. The entitlement of all children to a basic curriculum from five to 16, together with the extensive flexibility which the Act provides for this to be tailored to the needs of individual children, sets a framework which should encourage a better educational experience for many children with special needs. Further work is being undertaken to provide their teachers, with helpful guidance in the light of the Act.

  Pupil-teacher Ratios
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish a table in the Official Report showing pupil-teacher ratios in schools in each Welsh local education authority by type of school for the latest available date for which such information is available; and if he will give the figures for the previous 10 years.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Pupil-teacher ratios within maintained schools are shown by type of school in the following tables:
  481

  Welsh counties

  1977–78

  1978–79

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  Gwynedd

  7·7

  6·9

  7·7

  7·8

  27·7

  7·6

  7·0

  6·6

  6·9

  7·3

  7·3

  Mid Glamorgan

  10·2

  7·8

  7·9

  8·1

  8·5

  8·6

  28·4

  8·0

  7·9

  7·1

  7·4

  Powys

  7·6

  7·2

  7·3

  6·5

  5·9

  6·5

  6·5

  6·3

  5·7

  6·1

  6·0

  South Glamorgan

  7·4

  7·0

  7·0

  7·2

  7·0

  6·7

  6·5

  6·1

  6·2

  6·1

  6·2

  West Glamorgan

  7·3

  7·0

  7·3

  7·1

  7·3

  7·3

  7·2

  6·9

  6·2

  6·1

  5·9

  1 At January for each academic year.

  2 Estimated figure.

  Second Homes
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimates he has as to the number of second houses liable for community charge in each district council area.

  Mr. Grist
  The Welsh Office is presently consulting on where the boundary between domestic and non-domestic properties should be drawn and thus which properties should be subject to the standard community charge. It is therefore not yet possible to provide the figures requested. General information on second homes is, however, available, and table 2.7 of the 1986 Welsh intercensal survey, a copy of which is in the Library, provides estimates of their distribution among districts. These figures can only provide a broad indication of this distribution as they are derived from a sample survey of about 60,000 Welsh households and there are some difficulties in distinguishing between second homes and other categories of housing in a general survey of this type.

  Retirement Homes
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list for the Pembroke constituency the number of registered places in residential homes for the elderly in(a) each local authority home and (b) each privately owned home; and if he will indicate in each case the number of beds provided for people requiring nursing care.

  Mr. Grist
  The information requested is given in the following tables.

  Local authority homes for the elderly in the Pembroke constituency as at 31 March 1988

  Home

  Number of residential1 places

  Heywood

  18

  Havenhurst

  38

  Prendergast House

  36

  Riverside Home

  40

  Merlin House

  41

  Sunnybank Home

  58

  1 Local authority homes do not provide nursing beds.

  Private Homes for the Elderly in the Pembroke Constituency as at 31 March 1988

  Home

  Number of Residential Places

  Number of Nursing Places1

  Bangeston Hall

  27

  —

  Ridgeway Home for the Elderly

  25

  20

  Glenwood House

  16

  —

  Parc-y-Llyn

  11

  15

  Montrose

  12

  —

  Nightingales

  10

  —

  Cartref

  24

  —

  Brooklands

  7

  —

  482

  Home

  Number of Residential Places

  Number of Nursing Places1

  Rostley

  8

  —

  Apley Lodge

  8

  —

  Maesteg House

  6

  2

  Rosehill Country Home

  17

  —

  Belvedere Residential Home

  15

  —

  Ashdale Residential Home

  30

  —

  Lynnefield

  6

  —

  Canterbury House

  12

  —

  Castle View

  12

  —

  Woodfield House

  15

  —

  1 Registered with the health authority under Part II of the Registered Homes Act 1984. Nursing places are not included in the residential places shown in this table.

  Environmental Research
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was Welsh Office expenditure on environmental research in Wales in each year since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  The information is as follows:

  £000s cash

  1979–80

  93

  1980–81

  80

  1981–82

  126

  1982–83

  165

  1983–84

  187

  1984–85

  205

  1985–86

  270

  1986–87

  887

  1987–88

  367

  The increase in expenditure in 1986–87 was due to payments for studies relating to: the redevelopment of Cardiff bay, the staging of a national garden festival in Wales, and the intensive monitoring of sheep and other agricultural produce following the Chernobyl accident in 1986.

  Environmental Health Services
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the total expenditure on local authority environmental health services in Wales and the number of environmental health officers employed, in each year since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  Expenditure on local authority environmental health staff and the staff employed in each financial year since 1979–80 is shown in the following table:
  483

  Current expenditure

  Capital expenditure

  Environmental health officers and support staff

  (£000)

  (£000)

  (fte)1

  1979–80

  12,373

  508

  1,258

  1980–81

  16,142

  746

  1,253

  1981–82

  18,111

  608

  1,235

  1982–83

  20,368

  580

  1,238

  1983–84

  22,011

  750

  1,292

  1984–85

  23,093

  721

  1,407

  1985–86

  24,312

  609

  1,353

  1986–87

  25,511

  1,071

  1,342

  1 In March each financial year.

  Information on the number of Environmental Health Officers alone is not held centrally.

  Doctors (Working Hours)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many junior hospital doctors work(a) more than 104 hours a week in (i) Wales, (ii) Clwyd health authority, (iii) East Dyfed health authority, (iv) Gwent health authority, (v) Gwynedd health authority, (vi) Mid Glamorgan health authority, (vii) Pembrokeshire health authority, (viii) Powys health authority, (ix) South Glamorgan health authority, and (x) West Glamorgan health authority and (b) more than 112 hours a week in (i) Wales, (ii) Clwyd health authority, (iii) East Dyfed health authority, (iv) Gwent health authority, (v) Gwynedd health authority, (vi) Mid Glamorgan health authority, (vii) Pembrokeshire health authority, (viii) Powys health authority, (ix) South Glamorgan health authority, and (x) West Glamorgan health authority.

  Mr. Ian Grist
  Information about the hours worked by junior hospital doctors is not available centrally. The numbers of junior doctors who are contracted for the standard working week and to be available on standby or on-call together totalling more than 104 hours is eight out of a total of approximately 1,400 junior doctors in Wales.

  Exhaust Emissions
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has of the scale of pollution in Wales from road vehicle emissions of(a) carbon monoxide, (b) hydrocarbons, and (c) nitrogen oxides; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Information about emissions from road vehicles is not held in this form but total United 484
  Kingdom figures are published annually in the Department of the Environment's "Digest of Environmental Protection and Water Statistics".

  Nitrogen dioxide figures can be taken as an adequate indicator of the level of road vehicle pollution. A United Kingdom wide survey of Nitrogen dioxide made for the Department of the Environment by Warren Spring laboratory in 1986 showed levels in Welsh cities to be generally below the average for the United Kingdom.

  Noise Pollution
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information he has on the number of noise pollution complaints received by environmental health officers in Wales; what are the sources of that noise pollution; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  The information is not maintained centrally.

  Water Pollution
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the number of water pollution incidents in Wales for each year since 1979 and the sources of that pollution; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  The annual reports of the Welsh water authority, copies of which are in the Library, contain some references to the number of pollution incidents affecting water in the Welsh water authority's area.

  The detailed information is not held centrally, so I have asked the chairman of the Welsh water authority to write to the hon. Gentleman.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the numbers of lakes in Wales without fish due to pollution or acid rain; what steps he is taking to improve the situation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  There is no definite evidence to show that any lake in Wales has become fishless because of the effect of acid rain. However, it is generally accepted that acidic deposition can bring about the acidification of lakes in areas with sensitive strata. The Welsh Office, with the Department of the Environment, funds an extensive programme of research with the aim of assessing the relative contribution which air pollution, afforestation, land type, land use and practice makes to the acidification of Welsh lakes and the effect that acidification has on fish populations.

  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the latest waiting list figures for(a) in-patients for each Welsh health authority, (b) in-patients for each Welsh health authority (i) waiting more than one month for an urgent operation and (ii) waiting more than one year for a non-urgent operation and (c) out-patients.

  Mr. Grist
  All the information requested by the hon. Gentleman is contained in the 10th issue of the "Welsh Hospital Waiting List Bulletin," a copy of which is in the Library.

PRIME MINISTER

  President Bush
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Prime Minister when she next expects to meet President Bush.

  The Prime Minister
  I met Mr. Bush in November. On present plans, we shall next meet at the economic summit in Paris.

  Ash-cum-Ridley
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has any plans to pay an official visit to Ash-cum-Ridley.

  The Prime Minister
  I have at present no plans to do so.

  Food
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will transfer all responsibility for matters relating to food to the Ministry of Health.

  The Prime Minister
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body) on 17 January 1989, at column 128.

  Engagements
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 24 January.

  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 24 January.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 24 January.

  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 24 January.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 24 January.

  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 24 January.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 24 January.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 24 January.

  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 24 January.
  486
  The Prime Minister
  This morning I had meetings with Ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

  Windscale Fire 1957
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will now review the decision not to release all the documents in respect of the fire at Windscale in 1957.

  The Prime Minister
  The release of public records is governed by the requirements of the Public Records Acts. I have nothing to add to the replies that I gave the hon. Gentleman on 19 January 1988 at column 597 and to the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) on 14 January 1988 at column 353.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Aid (Cash Limits)
  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what change has been agreed in the 1988–89 cash limits for overseas aid.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary spring supplementary estimate the cash limit for the overseas aid vote (class II, vote 5) will be increased by £51,204,000 from £1,223,114,000 to £1,274,318,000. The change includes allowance for the increase in the overall provision for overseas aid announced on 14 November 1988 (at column 371). Voted provision is being further increased by £1,400,000 for emergency assistance provided in the current financial year following the earthquake in Armenia. The increase will be charged to the reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure. The running costs limit for the Overseas Development Administration within the voted provision will be reduced by £1,000 to £42,932,000. This decrease will be matched by an increase in the running costs limits for the Office of the Minister for the Civil Service (class XX, vote 1) and reflects the transfer of costs for recruitment under the direct entry grade 7 competition, 1988.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. French
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioner, how many oral parliamentary questions he has answered by written reply because the question was not reached at Question Time, for the most recent year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Alison
  In 1988, of a total of 38 oral questions, 10 were answered as written replies because the question was not reached in the time allotted.

  Clergy
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, if he will make a statement about the number of(a) clergy who are likely to retire and (b) ordination candidates during the next 15 years.
  487
  Mr. Alison
  It is estimated that the number of clergy retiring over the next 15 years will average 410 per year. Taking into account the numbers likely to move in and out of the parochial ministry in mid career, it is estimated that to produce a stable total number of full-time male clergy over the same period would require an ordination rate of about 375 a year. This would represent an increase over the recent steady average, which is about 320 a year. However, any shortfall could be made up, at least in part, by the increased numbers of women entering the ministry.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Land Registry
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Attorney-General what is the number of(a) the Land Registry Office's backlog of substantive searches,(b) its backlog of preliminary searches and (c) the extra staff who have been taken on to deal with the backlog.

  The Attorney-General
  The total number of applications held at the Land Registry at the various stages of processing at the end of December 1988 was 1,171,402. Preliminary searches have always received priority. 90 per cent. of these searches are processed within four working days. Since April 1988 over 2,000 staff have been recruited and trained. An additional authorisation in August of 900 posts was approved to meet the high intakes.

  Viraj Mendis
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Attorney-General what estimates he has as to the cost of court proceedings in the case of Mr. Viraj Mendis.

  The Solicitor-General
  The costs of court proceedings in the case of Viraj Mendis include the costs of Mr. Mendis's original application to the Queen's Bench Divisional Court and the Court of Appeal, and his two recent applications for judicial review relating to his deportation to Sri Lanka. He received legal aid for all these applications.

  The fees payable to Mr. Mendis's legal advisers have not yet been finally assessed by the court. The legal aid
  administration has not, therefore, yet received any claims in respect of those costs. My right hon. Friend the Home
  Secretary has provided details of the legal costs incurred by the Home Office, in answer to a question from the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) on 23 January 1989.

CIVIL SERVICE

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. French
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service how many oral parliamentary questions he has answered by written reply because the question was not reached at Question Time, for the most recent year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Luce
  [holding answer 19 January 1989: In 1988 a total of 60 questions were tabled to the Minister for the Civil Service, of which 18 received a written reply. These figures do not include oral questions which were subsequently withdrawn, unstarred or transferred to other Departments.

THE ARTS

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. French
  To ask the Minister for the Arts how many oral parliamentary questions he has answered by written reply because the question was not reached at Question Time, for the most recent year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Luce
  [holding answer 19 January 1989]: In 1988 a total of 222 questions were tabled to the Minister for the Arts, of which 186 received a written reply. These figures do not include oral questions which were subsequently withdrawn, unstarred or transferred to other Departments.

  Museums and Galleries (Attendances)
  Mr. Faulds
  To ask the Minister for the Arts whether he will publish in the Official Report the attendance figures for 1988 reported by the national museums and galleries in England for which he is responsible, broken down into the individual institutions but including their outstations, with figures in each case of the percentage increase or decrease on the attendance figures for 1987.

  Mr. Luce
  [holding answer 16 January 19891: The estimated number of visitors during 1988 to the 11 national museums and galleries for which I am responsible are as follows:

  Estimated attendance in 1988

  Percentage change from 1987

  British Museum

  4,172,472

  + 4·1

  British Museum(Natural History)

  1,671,380

  - 16·4

  Imperial War Museum

  1,086,587

  -8·3

  National Gallery

  3,228,153

  -9·5

  National Maritime Museum

  707,399

  + 60·0

  National Museum and Galleries on Merseyside

  1,525,672

  +14·8

  National Portrait Gallery

  638,595

  + 8·1

  Science Museum

  3,861,433

  -18·4

  Tate Gallery

  12,091,267

  + 20·0

  Victoria and Albert Museum

  1,430,637

  + 2·3

  Wallace Collection

  157,524

  -6·3

  TOTAL

  20,571,119

  1 Figure includes Tate Gallery Liverpool which opened in May 198S.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Competitive Tendering (Merit Pay)
  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether there have been any instances of rewarding staff through merit pay for carrying through a successful competitive tendering exercise.

  Mr. Brooke
  Merit pay is awarded by individual Departments and the information requested is riot available centrally. Personal salary details, as opposed to the pay rate for the job are, however, normally confidential to the individual concerned.

  Developing Countries (Debt)
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give the information relating to official
  489
  debts by all developing countries outstanding at the end of 1987 in the same format as that given as at the end of 1986 to the hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) on 18 April 1988, Official Report, columns 328–30.

  Mr. Lawson
  I regret that this information is not yet available.

  Taxes and Royalties attributable to United Kingdom and UKCS oil and gas (and gas levy) at 1978–791prices

  £million

  Financial Year

  1978–79

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  Royalty

  289

  537

  716

  917

  1,000

  1,117

  1,365

  1,092

  471

  490

  Supplementary Petroleum Duty

  —

  —

  —

  1,331

  1,468

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Petroleum Revenue Tax2

  183

  1,228

  1,740

  1,570

  2,006

  3,529

  4,039

  3,384

  609

  1,120

  Total Corporation tax before ACT set-off

  93

  214

  246

  447

  319

  514

  1,365

  1,545

  1,372

  680

  ACT set-off

  40

  67

  70

  177

  124

  252

  696

  573

  579

  340

  Mainstream CT

  53

  147

  176

  270

  196

  262

  669

  972

  792

  340

  Total3 Revenues

  565

  1,979

  2,703

  4,265

  4,793

  5,160

  6,769

  6,021

  2,451

  2,290

  Gas Levy

  —

  —

  —

  252

  289

  306

  281

  279

  264

  245

  1 By reference to movements in the GDP deflator.

  2Includes Advance Petroleum Revenue Tax (APRT).

  3Constituent figures do not add up due to rounding.

SCOTLAND

  Fisheries
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will make a statement on the up-to-date situation regarding the application for a Loch Awe Protection Order under the Freshwater and Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act 1976.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  On 26 September 1988 the consultative committee on freshwater fisheries decided that it could not recommend that the Secretary of State should grant proposals for statutory protection of freshwater fishing rights in Loch Awe, Loch Avich and the River Avich.

  My right hon. and learned Friend is currently considering whether to accept or to reject the proposals or to hold a local inquiry in the light of the consultative committee's advice, the views of objectors and the comments of the proposers. A decision will be announced as soon as possible.

  Conservation
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he proposes to take to limit the amount of compensation paid to farmers and landowners to prevent them damaging areas of special conservation interest.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  While my right hon. and learned Friend makes payments to facilitate the conservation of certain areas, compensation payments in relation to sites of special scientific interest are made by the Nature Conservancy Council from funds provided by the Department of the Environment.

  Oil and Gas (Taxes and Royalties>
  Mr.Salmond
  To ask the chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table, similar to table 18 on page 72 of the current edition of "Development of Oil and Gas Resource of the United Kingdom", showing taxes and royalties attributable to United Kingdom and United Kingdom continental shelf oil and gas, at constant Prices.

  Mr.Lilley
  [holding answer 23 January 1989]: The figures are as follows:

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the Lord Advocate proposes any changes to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service cash and running cost limits for 1988–89.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The cash limit on class XI, vote 14 will be reduced by £100,000 from £21,267,000 to £21,167,000 and the running costs limit by £100,000 from £18,820,000 to £18,720,000.

  East End Executive, Glasgow
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many jobs in each classification have been created to date by the East End Executive, Glasgow.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 16 January 1989]: Such statistics are not held centrally. I understand that the East End Executive's records show that, from its inception in August 1987 until 31 December 1988, businesses in receipt of advice and counselling from the executive have provided a total of 1,627 jobs in the area; of these, 558 were in manufacturing industry and 1,069 in the service sector.

  Employment Training
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total number of authorised places in employment training in 1988–89 and 1989–90.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 19 January 1989]: There is provision for 41,473 employment training places in Scotland in 1988–89 once the programme is fully operational. Provision for 1989–90 has not yet been finalised.
  491
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total amount of planned expenditure on employment training in 1988–89 and 1989–90.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 19 January 1989: Up to £180 million is available for employment training in Scotland in 1988–89. Expenditure plans for 1989–90 have not yet been finalised.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to reduce the number of authorised employment training places.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 19 January 19891: Provision for employment training in Scotland is kept under review in the light of changing circumstances including the level of long-term unemployment.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give in percentage form the local government rate support grant settlement for each of the years 1977–78 to 1987–88.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 23 January 1989J: The information requested is as follows:

  Scotland

  Percentage

  1977–78

  68·5

  1978–79

  68·5

  1979–80

  68·5

  1980–81

  68·5

  1981–82

  66·7

  1982–83

  64·2

  1983–84

  61·7

  1984–85

  60·2

  1985–86

  57·7

  1986–87

  56·1

  1987–88

  55·5

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Gipsies
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many gipsies have been encamped at the junctions of the Middletown-Rookford roads, Armagh, during December 1988; how many caravans were there; how many caravans were burnt; what assistance he has given towards the replacement of damaged caravans; on how many occasions the Royal Ulster Constabulary and fire authority were called to this camp in December; whether the gipsy children attended school; what financial and social assistance was given to these gipsies; how many of them came from the Republic of Ireland; what action he took to remove them; and whether any public nuisance was caused by them.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  During December 1988 some 40–50 travelling people were encamped at the junctions of the Middletown/Rookford roads, Armagh. Two of the 19 caravans on the site were burnt. No claim under the Criminal Damage (Compensation) (Northern Ireland) Order 1977 has been received for damage caused during December 1988 to property at that location.

  I understand that the Royal Ulster Constabulary was called to the site on 16 occasions during December 1988. The Northern Ireland Fire Authority was called to the site on two occasions in December.
  492
  It is understood that the children of the itinerant families did not attend school while at the location.

  It has been possible to identify five travellers from the site who during this time were in receipt of social security benefit. However, any of the people on the site who applied would have received the benefits to which they were entitled. Social work help, mainly in relation to welfare rights inquiries, was provided.

  Details of the number of travelling people from the Republic of Ireland are not available.

  It was considered by the district council that a public health nuisance was caused by those at the site and 12 statutory notices to remove them were issued. In addition, it was also considered that a road traffic hazard was being caused.

  Community Unit of Management (Belfast)
  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will provide details of the budgetary provision for 1987–88 and 1988–89 for the community unit of management in north and west Belfast; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  The final budget allocation to the north and west Belfast community unit of management in 1987–88 was £18,250,758, including capital. The unit's initial budget allocation for 1988–89 was £18,410,452. In addition, in 1988–89 the unit received an additional allocation of £611,250 through the "Making Belfast Work" initiative. The final budget allocations for 1988–89 have not yet been determined.

  Health Standards (Belfast)
  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the standards of health of the population of north and west Belfast.

  Mr. Needham
  A recent report by the Eastern health and social services board indicates that in general morbidity and mortality rates are higher among the population in north and west Belfast than in other parts of the city. Action is being taken on a number of fronts to tackle this problem. These include the allocation of special funds for health related projects in north and west Belfast as part of the "Making Belfast Work" initiative, which also aims to relieve social deprivation; the setting up of an action team to improve low immunisation uptake rates; and the participation of Belfast in the World Health Organisation's healthy cities project.

  Eastern Health and Social Services Board
  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action is to be taken on the Eastern health board's complementarity study on the Royal Victoria hospital, Belfast City hospital and Mater hospital; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  The recommendations of the complementarity study have recently been considered by the Eastern board and have now been included in the board's draft operational plan for 1989–90 as a basis for consultation. When this process has been completed I will wish to discuss with the chairman the board's conclusions.

  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the likely
  493
  costs and savings of the recommendations contained within the Eastern health board's complementarity study, giving details for each relevant recommendation.

  Mr. Needham
  Estimates of the costs and savings of the recommendations contained in the complementarity study report are not yet available.

  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the Eastern health board's proposal to close the Mater hospital's casualty unit at night and the likely impact on the population of north Belfast.

  Mr. Needham
  This proposal is one of the recommendations of the Eastern board's complementary study which are currently the subject of consultation as part of the board's draft operational plan for 1989–90. When the board reaches conclusions on the study I shall want to discuss with the chairman the implications for the Mater hospital and the population it serves.

  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the Eastern health board's proposal to close the Royal Victoria hospital's casualty service on certain nights and the impact on the population of north and west Belfast.

  Mr. Needham
  The proposal is one of the recommendations of the Eastern board's complementarityy study which is currently the subject of consultation as part of the board's draft operational plan for 1989–90. When the board reaches conclusions on the study I shall want to discuss with the chairman their implications, including the impact on the population served.

  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the Eastern health board's proposal to close the Royal College of Surgeons' recommended trauma unit on certain nights.

  Mr. Needham
  The proposal is one of the recommendations of the Eastern board's complementarity study which are currently the subject of consultation as part of the board's draft operational plan for 1989–90. When the board reaches conclusions on the study I shall want to discuss their implications with the chairman. In case of accident and emergency services I will take into account all the recommendations contained in the recent report by the Royal College of Surgeons on the management of patients with major injuries.

  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the Eastern health board's proposal to develop a unified management structure for the Royal Victoria, Mater and Belfast City hospitals and the budgetary implications.

  Mr. Needham
  I believe that it is essential to improved management and delivery of acute hospital services in Belfast to secure greater co-ordination and harmonisation between these three hospitals. I welcome the recommendation from the complementarity study for a unified management structure and I await with interest detailed proposals from the Eastern board to take this forward.

  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the number of gynaecology beds in the Royal Victoria, Mater and Belfast City 494
  hospitals in the years 1986, 1987 and 1988; and if he will make a statement on the Eastern health board's proposals for the future of gynaecological services for those three hospitals.

  Mr. Needham
  The information is as follows:

  1986

  1987

  1988

  Royal Victoria

  38

  38

  38

  Belfast City

  60

  60

  60

  Mater

  20

  20

  20

  The current proposals for rationalisation of gynaecology services in these hospitals stem from the Eastern board's complementarity study which is currently the subject of consultation as part of the board's draft operational plan for 1989–90. When the board reaches conclusions on the study I shall be discussing their implications with the chairman of the board.

  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the future of all specialties presently provided by the Royal Victoria hospital in the light of the Eastern health board's recent complementarity study.

  Mr. Needham
  The Eastern board has yet to reach decisions on the recommendations of the complementarity study, some of which relate to the Royal Victoria hospital. The hospital however is, and will continue to be, the major centre of excellence in Northern Ireland, providing the bulk of regional medical services to the population as a whole.

  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the number of gynaecology re-admissions at the Royal Victoria, Mater and Belfast City hospitals in the years 1986, 1987 and 1988; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  This information is not available.

  North and West Belfast Health District
  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the relocation of the salaries and wages department of the North and West Belfast health district.

  Mr. Needham
  In view of the poor standard of accommodation occupied by the salaries and wages office of the royal group of hospitals unit of management (formerly north and west Belfast district) the Eastern health and social services board decided to relocate the office in more suitable accommodation in the centre of Belfast. Staff were consulted about the move and agreed to it.

  Royal Victoria Hospital
  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on action being taken to upgrade the buildings of the Royal Victoria hospital.

  Mr. Needham
  Over the past few years there has been an extensive programme of works designed to improve and extend the buildings and facilities at the royal group of hospitals. This is in addition to routine or day-to-day
  495
  maintenance (including redecoration and repairs) undertaken by both directly employed maintenance staff and private contractors. The total cost of the programme of works carried out in the three financial years from 1985/86 was £8,839,550. Estimated expenditure on works in the current financial year, some of which will carry over into 1989–90, is £2,192,475, giving a total over the four years of £11,032,025. Details of the projects undertaken are available in the Library.

  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the number of patients not treated at the Royal Victoria hospital due to (i) lack of access, and (ii) security problems in each year since 1975.

  Mr. Needham
  This information is not available.

  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list staffing levels within the internal security work force of the Royal Victoria hospital in each year since 1975.

  Mr. Needham
  The number of staff engaged specifically on security duties at the royal group of hospitals, including the Royal Victoria hospital, at 30 September each year was as follows:

  Staff in post

  1975

  n/a

  1976

  n/a

  1977

  n/a

  1978

  48

  1979

  48

  1980

  48

  1981

  48

  1982

  47

  1983

  42

  1984

  43

  1985

  39

  1986

  37

  1987

  37

  1988

  39

  The figures for the years prior to 1985 relate to staff employed by the former north and west Belfast district, which included those hospitals forming the present royal group of hospitals unit of management.

  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on plans to remedy internal security problems within the Royal Victoria hospital.

  Mr. Needham
  Security at the Royal Victoria hospital site is primarily the responsibility of the Eastern health and social services board, which has recently spent £400,000 on security measures recommended by the Royal Ulster Constabulary. The board has now issued a consultative document proposing further measures aimed at reducing all crime on the site. I am satisfied that the board is taking seriously the problem of protecting the interests of patients, staff and visitors while, at the same time, preserving reasonable access to the hospital's services.

  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish the Royal Ulster Constabulary report on security at the Royal Victoria hospital; and if he will make a statement on the reasons for this report not being made available to the Health Service trade unions.
  496
  Mr. Needham
  For obvious reasons, reports by the crime prevention unit of the Royal Ulster Constabulary are confidential documents. However, the additional measures recommended by the RUC to combat crime and vandalism on the site are contained in a paper which has been issued to interested parties, including the trade unions, for comment.

  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on present negotiations between the Northern Ireland Office, the Eastern health board and Health Service trade unions on security at the Royal Victoria hospital.

  Mr. Needham
  I understand that the royal group of hospitals unit of management has recently invited interested parties, including the Health Service trade unions, to participate in discussions on its proposals for additional security measures to combat the level of crime and vandalism on the royal site. I welcome this initiative and hope that all concerned will react positively to t his invitation in the interest of providing the best possible protection to patients, staff and visitors using the hospitals.

  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the level of funding being made available in 1988–89 and 1989–90 for improving internal security at the Royal Victoria hospital.

  Mr. Needham
  I understand that in 1988–89 the Eastern health and social services board expects to spend some £580,000 on salaries and wages for security staff at the royal group of hospitals, including the Royal Victoria hospital. Expenditure on non-staff costs associated with security on the site is not separately identifiable. The budget for 1989–90 will be determined in the light of the outcome of the consultations with trade unions and other interests on the additional security measures which the board has now proposed.

  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has any plans for the use of a new site as part of the rebuilding plans for parts of the Royal Victoria hospital; and if he will make a statment.

  Mr. Needham
  Options for the use of the former Kelvin school site which adjoins the royal group of hospitals are currently being examined by the Eastern health and social services board. The board has recently approved a proposal by the unit of management group to use part of the site for additional car parking. This is an interim measure and does not prejudice continuing consideration of the best use of the Kelvin school site to meet the longer term development needs of the royal group of hospitals.

  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has any plans to carry out a study on the role of the Royal Victoria hospital as a district hospital serving north and west Belfast, as a general hospital serving the whole city and greater Belfast area and as the home of regional specialties; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  I have no plans to carry out such a study. The royal group of hospitals, including the Royal Victoria hospital, is the major centre of excellence with the bulk of regional specialties based there; it also provides acute
  497
  services for the Eastern board population. I intend that it will continue to fulfil these roles and as evidence of the Government's commitment I have recently announced that two capital schemes will proceed in 1989–90—the regional neonatal referral unit and expanded recovery facilities for cardiac surgery.

  Health Service (Staffing)
  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the number of senior management posts presently being filled by secondments within the royal group of hospitals.

  Mr. Needham
  The following three senior management posts are currently being filled by secondments within the royal group of hospitals:

  a. Group Administrator

  b.Catering Manager

  c.Senior Administrative Officer (Clinical Activity and Resource Analysis)

  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the operation of the secondment process for senior management positions in the Royal group of hospitals, detailing the steps taken to safeguard fair employment practices.

  Mr. Needham
  The use of secondments at the royal group of hospitals is a matter for the Eastern health and social services board. Currently three managerial positions are being filled on this basis at the royal group.

  Fair employment practices are safeguarded by the board's policy on equality of opportunity which provides for equal opportunity for all staff regardless of religious affiliation, sex or disability.

  Antrim Hospital
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has received from general practitioners in the Northern health and social services board area opposing the provision of the new Antrim hospital; and if he will make a statement on the reasons given for opposition.

  Mr. Needham
  I have received representations recently on behalf of a number of general practitioners in the Northern board area opposing the new Antrim hospital and questioning the underlying strategy for the development of acute hospital services in that board. I have indicated the Government's view that the project is essential to ensure that the population of the Northern board have in the future the high quality medical care to which they are entitled.

  Accidents (Donaghadee)
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many accidents have occurred, in each of the past 10 years, in the vicinity of the junction of Windmill road and Killaughey road, Donaghadee; what is the recorded number of injuries and fatalities; and if he will consider undertaking a scheme to improve road safety at this junction.

  Mr. Needham
  No statistical record of damage only accidents in this vicinity is kept, but the personal injury and fatal accident history over the past 10 years is as follows:498

  Number of personal injury/fatal accidents

  Year

  Number

  1979

  Nil

  1980

  1

  1981

  Nil

  1982

  11

  1983

  Nil

  1984

  1

  1985

  Nil

  1986

  1

  1987

  Nil

  1988

  Nil

  1 Fatal.

  The Department of the Environment's roads service is currently considering measures to improve this junction.

  Handyman's Course (Donaghadee Technical College)
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland why the handyman's course, due to commence on 10 January 1989 at Donaghadee technical college, has been withdrawn; and if arrangements are being made to offer this course later in the present academic year.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The organisation of courses is a matter for the South-Eastern education and library board.

  This course was withdrawn because potential participants were unable to obtain a training grant from the Department of Economic Development's action for community employment (ACE) programme as funds available had already been committed and applicants were not themselves prepared to pay the required tuition fees. If the necessary fees support can be provided it may be possible to mount the course later this year.

  Stalker-Sampson Inquiry
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many Royal Ulster Constabulary officers have been(a) the subject of disciplinary proceedings, (b) dismissed from the Royal Ulster Constabulary, (c) required to resign, (d) allowed to resign due to ill health, (e) permitted to take premature retirement, (f) demoted, (g) repremanded or (h) otherwise disciplined, following the events investigated by Mr. Stalker and Mr. Sampson.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  Disciplinary proceedings have not yet been concluded in respect of any of the 20 RUC officers referred to in the Chief Constable's statement of 4 July 1988. The answer to(b) (c) (e) (f) (g) (h) of the hon. Member's question is none. The two suspended officers to whom my right hon. Friend referred in his statement of 17 February 1988, at column 977, who have never been the subject of any disciplinary proceedings, have since been medically discharged under the RUC Pensions Regulations 1973 (as amended) because they were not fit to carry out the duties expected of them.

  Council Houses
  Mr. Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish a table in the Official Report to show the number of dwellings in each council area in Northern Ireland which have a net annual valuation below £60; how many of these in each council area are in (a) the public sector and (b) the private sector; in each sector how

  499
  many are owner-occupied; and what percentage of the dwellings in each council area such dwellings represent in each category of ownership and occupation, or as much of the information sought as is available to him.

  Mr. Needham
  The information requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Rates
  Mr. Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many domestic hereditaments for rating purposes there are in(a) Limavady council area, (b) Coleraine council area and (c) Magherafelt council area.

  Mr. Needham
  The information at 31 December 1988 is as follows:

  Council area

  Number of domestic hereditaments

  Limavady

  8,723

  Coleraine

  19,725

  Magherafelt

  11,245

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Ministerial Staff (Pay)
  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the number of staff in his Ministry, by grade, in receipt of local pay additions outside London and the south-east economic planning region; what are the different amounts paid to staff by grade; whether this figure varies due to location; what qualifying period of scale-related criteria is used; and whether this varies by location.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Outside London and the south-east economic planning region 52 administrative assistants in Ministry offices in Cambridge receive a local pay addition of £300 per annum. There is no qualifying period for receipt of the allowance.

  Meat Exports
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what volume of British meat exports to the United States of America has been debarred or delayed so far, as a result of United States retaliation against the European Economic Community ban on imports of hormone-treated meat.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  When the European Community banned imports from third countries of meat derived from animals treated with hormone growth promoters, the United States response was to impose penal levels of import duties—at 100 per cent.—on certain EC exports, rather than a complete ban. The list includes two meat items only: boneless beef and hams and shoulders. There were no United Kingdom exports to the United States of these products during the last 12 months for which statistics are available; the United States action is therefore most unlikely to affect United Kingdom meat exporters.

ENVIRONMENT

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish in the Official Report a list of all those categories of people who will (a) be excluded from liability to pay the community charge and (b) be entitled to a rebate on community charge payments; and what the scale of such rebates will be.

  Mr. Gummer
  The categories of people who will be exempt from liability to pay the personal community charge are listed in schedule 1 to the Local Government Finance Act 1988.

  People whose income is at or below the level of income support will receive rebates of 80 per cent., and income support will be increased to take account of the 20 per cent, liability. We estimate that there will be 5 million adults in this category, and that an additional 4½ million adults, whose income is above the level of income support, will receive rebates, on a sliding scale, of up to 80 per cent. In addition, ¼ million full-time students will pay only 20 per cent, of the full charge.

  Sir Eldon Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what savings in staff per thousand accounts he expects local authorities on average to achieve on the basis of the report he commissioned from Price Waterhouse on the costs of collection of the community charge.

  Mr. Gummer
  Price Waterhouse estimated that: if authorities maintained their existing performance levels on rate collection one employee would be required for every 1,700 community charge accounts. However, Price Waterhouse also estimated that if all authorities were: to work as efficiently as the most efficient in their category, one employee would be required for every 2,100 accounts. I would expect authorities to be working towards this higher productivity level, which could save nearly 5,000 staff.

  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the statutory instruments now being prepared connected with the preparation of poll tax registers in England and Wales and the likely dates of laying them; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 23 January 1989]There will be no statutory instruments dealing with poll tax registers, since the Government have no plans to introduce a poll tax. We intend to lay before the House in March one statutory instrument covering the administration and enforcement of the community charge, including the compilation of registers.

  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what replacement funding will be provided for fire, police and transport services on the advent of the poll tax; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 23 January 1989]The Government have no plans to introduce a poll tax. In metropolitan areas, joint police and joint fire and civil defence authorities will precept on the collection funds operated by each charging authority within their areas. Precepts on the collection fund will be met by income from
  501
  the community charge, needs grant and business rates. In addition, police authorities will continue to receive police grant from the Home Office. Passenger transport authorities will issue levies to their constituent district councils.

  In shire areas, these services are provided by county councils or district councils as appropriate. Their expenditure will also be supported by income from community charges, needs grant and business rates, and by police grant.

  Homeloan Scheme
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many first-time buyers received assistance under the homeloan scheme, in the latest year for which figures are available, in each of the regions of England.

  Mr. Trippier
  Information on the take-up of the homeloan scheme is not available for individual regions. The number of people receiving assistance in 1987–88, the last year for which figures are available, is estimated to be 2,580.

  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last reviewed the homeloan scheme of assistance for first-time home buyers.

  Mr. Trippier
  The homeloan scheme is reviewed from time to time, both with regard to its general effectiveness and to the price limits for the home purchased.

  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what criteria are used to upgrade the price limits on house purchases under the homeloan scheme; when these limits were last reviewed; and when they will next be reviewed.

  Mr. Trippier
  The price limits in the homeloan scheme are intended to allow about two thirds of first-time buyers to qualify for the scheme's benefits. They are based on the prices actually paid by first-time buyers borrowing from building societies, and are reviewed as often as changing house prices makes necessary. The present limits were introduced on 18 March 1988. They have been reviewed recently, and we shall be tabling an order shortly which proposes increases in all areas in Great Britain.

  Hedgerows
  Dame Janet Fookes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many miles of hedgerow have been destroyed in the last 20 years.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  There has been a certain amount of hedgerow removal in recent years as a result of changing agricultural circumstances and for other reasons. The current rate is not easy to establish. Estimates have been made for past periods, though none covers the last 20 years.

  A survey of landscape change in England and Wales carried out for the Department and the Countryside Commission by Hunting Surveys and Consultants Ltd. showed annual losses of some 2,900 miles of hedgerow between 1969 and 1980 and 4,000 miles between 1980 and 1985. A survey of environmental topics on farms carried out by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food showed annual losses of 500 miles between 1980 and 1985.
  502
  The two surveys were very different in approach and neither can be regarded as definitive. The Hunting survey used air photography covering 1·1 per cent, of England and Wales, backed up by ground survey. The MAFF survey used a postal questionnaire to some 6,000 farmers asking them to estimate changes in hedgerow lengths and covered approximately 6 per cent, of England and Wales. Work is continuing to improve information both on the rate of removal and on the extent of new planting.

  Dame Janet Fookes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many miles of hedgerow have been destroyed in Devon in the last 10 years.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The sample surveys of landscape change so far completed have not provided information at the level of individual counties.

  Dame Janet Fookes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps to stem the loss of hedgerows by the introduction of landscape conservation orders or by other means.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Hedgerows need positive management to keep them in good condition. The main priority is to ensure that farmers and other owners continue to maintain them voluntarily. Agricultural advisers from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food encourage farmers to retain hedgerows wherever possible and to manage them effectively. MAFF aids the planting of new hedgerows and hedgerow laying under the agriculture improvement scheme. It is anticipated that such grants will form part of the new farm and conservation grant scheme which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food announced last November. Where appropriate the Countryside Commission and the Nature Conservancy Council can also offer assistance.

  Ozone Layer
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps have been taken to implement the European Environmental Council directive about the Montreal protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The EC regulation to implement the Montreal protocol is directly applicable in all member states and therefore forms part of the law of each member state. The Department is considering whether any topping-up regulations may be required under the European Communities Act 1972.

  Local Authority Staff
  Mr. Kirk wood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list in the Official Report for each local authority the staff increases they have experienced in each of the last three years; and what estimates there are of any increases in future years.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Information on changes in local authority staff numbers in England is compiled by LACSAB on behalf of DOE and the local authority associations and published quarterly in a joint manpower watch press notice, tables D to M. Copies of the press notices containing mid-year figures have been placed in the Library of the House. Estimates of any future increases are not made centrally.

  Widdicombe Report
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he intends to seek to implement any of the recommendations of the Widdicombe report in the current parliamentary session.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Yes.

  Endangered Species (Control of Trade)
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many part-time and full-time staff have been assigned to implement the Control of Trade in Endangered Species (Enforcement) Regulations 1985 per month since enforcement of the regulations; and what is the cost to his Department.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Departmental staff have not been assigned exclusively to implement the Control of Trade in Endangered Species (Enforcement) Regulations 1985. In 1987-88 26 staff in the Department's wildlife division were involved on endangered species matters and were assisted, as required, by a panel of 90 fee-paid inspectors. The cost of the full-time staff involved was approximately ?465,000. Enforcement of the regulation is a matter for HM Customs and Excise and the police as appropriate.

  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many person hours have been spent implementing the Control of Trade in Endangered Species (Enforcement) Regulations 1985 per month since enforcement of the regulations; and what is the cost to his Department.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not available.

  Infractions
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 17 January to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington, Official Report, columns 154-55, what was the nature of the five infractions that have been referred to the enforcement authorities and of the two infractions at present under consideration by his Department.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  All possible infractions involve suggestions that CITES appendix I or EC Regulation 3626/82 annex C part 1 specimens were being offered for sale.

  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 17 January to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington, Official Report, columns 154-55, if he will specify the number and nature of any possible infractions which have been referred to his Department between April 1987 and October 1988; and what action his Department has taken on these.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not readily available, as the Department kept no central record of possible infractions during this period.

  Nitrogen Dioxide (Monitoring)
  Mr. Allan Roberts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the number of sites in London monitoring nitrogen dioxide levels under European Community directive 85/203; and where are those sites.
  504
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  There are two sites in London monitoring nitrogen dioxide levels in accordance with European Community directive 85/203/EEC; they are in Pembroke road, Kensington W8 and Vauxhall bridge road, Victoria SW I .

  Waste Treatment Works
  Mr. Allan Roberts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions the Government have held with United Nations environment programme and Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development on the subject of encouraging the establishment of waste treatment works in the countries of source to discourage the transfrontier shipment of such wastes.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Government are participating actively in discussions within the
  Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and United Nations environment programme to develop international controls on transfrontier shipment and supports the principle that countries should establish their own disposal facilities to reduce transfrontier shipment to a minimum compatible with environmentally sound and efficient management.

  Litter Collections
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will estimate the spending on litter collection for 1988-89 and for each of the next three years.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Details of local authority expenditure on litter collection are not available centrally.

  Council House Sales
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his latest estimate of capital receipts from the right to buy for 1988-89 and his forecasts for the coming three years.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Estimates and plans for local authorities' initial capital receipts from the sale of dwellings in England, both under the right-to-buy and on
  a voluntary basis are given in the table. Figures are not
  available for right-to-buy receipts alone.

  Local authorities initial capital receipts from sale of dwellings

  Initial receipts

  £ million

  1988–89 (estimate)

  2,555

  1989–90 (plan)

  2·915

  1990–91 (plan)

  2,525

  1991–92 (plan)

  2,440

  Keep Britain Tidy Campaign
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the Government budget for the Keep Britain Tidy campaign for each year since 1979 and for the next three years at current prices and at constant 1987-88 prices.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Government's grant aid to the Tidy Britain Group (formerly Keep Britain Tidy Group) since 1979 at current prices and at 1987-88 prices is as follows:
  505

  Year

  Current

  At 1987–88

  prices £000

  prices £000

  1979–80

  275

  477

  1980–81

  250

  366

  1981–82

  275

  367

  1982–83

  292

  363

  1983–84

  525

  624

  1984–85

  510

  581

  1985–86

  547

  587

  1986–87

  554

  577

  1987–88

  568

  568

  1988–89

  1,254

  1,194

  1989–90

  3,000

  2,773

  Decisions on the future level of grant aid have yet to be made. A review of the programme of pilot projects being carried out by the group will be undertaken later in the year.

  Street Cleaners
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the number of street cleaners in 1979, and today.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Details of the number of street cleaners employed by local authorities are not held centrally.

  Water Privatisation
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how the Government propose to safeguard the countryside and the public's access to it, after privatisation of the water authorities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  In the last decade, the water authorities have shown a growing appreciation of the importance of furthering conservation, maintaining public access to their land and water, and promoting recreation. This is something we wish to continue and build upon for in many of its operations, such as the construction and maintenance of reservoirs, the protection of water catchment areas and the abstraction of water from rivers, the water industry has a unique, profound and continuous impact on the environment.

  That is why the Water Bill currently being considered by Parliament would impose on all the water and sewerage companies, the National Rivers Authority and certain other water bodies a duty to carry out their functions in a way that furthers conservation, preserves public rights of access and promotes recreation.

  In enforcing these duties on the new water plcs the Secretary of State would take into account the extent to which they have followed the terms of statutory codes of practice giving practical guidance in relation to these duties. These new codes will give added emphasis to these important duties.

  I have today published a draft of the code of practice on conservation, access and recreation and have invited the NRA and the water authorities and statutory water companies to comment on these draft guidelines. I have placed a copy of the draft code, with a summary of its contents, in the Library of the House.
  506

  Housebuilding(Rentals)
  Mr. Patnick
  To ask Secretary of State for the Environment how many houses were built to be rented in the public sector in each successive year since 1974.

  Mr. Trippier
  The information requested listed below. Over 1 million dwelling were built for rent by the public sector England between 1974 and 1987. In addition over 1 million renovations would in many cases have provided additional dwelling for rent.

  New Public Sector Housebuilding completions for Rent: England, in thousands

  (Figures exclude new build for sale and shared ownership)

  Year

  1974

  1104·9

  1975

  1127·9

  1976

  1130·3

  1977

  1138·0

  1978

  1112·4

  1979

  89·3

  1980

  91·8

  1981

  70·5

  1982

  39·3

  1983

  37·7

  1984

  36·6

  1985

  29·7

  1986

  25·7

  1987

  23·2

  1estimate.

  Public sector here consists of local authorities, new towns and housing associations.

  Waste Disposal
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish the additional consultation paper on waste disposal law amendments as announced on 29 June, Official Report, column 254.

  Mr. Ridley
  [pursuant to the reply, 23 November 1988, c. 4]The Government are concerned about criticisms of the regulation of waste disposal, exemplifed in the reports of the former hazardous waste inspectorate (now part of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution). My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I have accordingly reviewed existing arrangements in England and Wales and have today published a consultation paper with proposals for reform. Copies of the paper have been deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Our proposals are aimed at securing high national standards of waste management which are consistently and fairly enforced at local level. They build on the arrangements established under the Control of Pollution Act 1974 but address weaknesses and criticisms which have emerged in the light of experience.

  National standards, applicable to both public and private sector operations, will be achieved by requiring regulation authorities to have regard to waste management papers prepared by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution in carrying out its functions. The regulatory and operational functions of waste disposal authorities will be separated by organising operational functions into arm's-length local authority disposal companies. Disposal authorities will be retitled waste regulation authorities and will be required to publish annual reports on their regulatory performance to strengthen public accountability.
  507
  Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution will be given statutory powers to examine and report on the regulatory performance of waste regulation authorities, with rights of access to documents and land. There will be more finely targeted default powers for the Secretaries of State with regard to authorities which consistently fail to exercise their regulatory duties properly.

  Waste collection authorities will have a duty to arrange for the disposal of waste they have collected. They will be required to seek competitive tenders which both local authority waste disposal companies and private sector companies will be eligible to submit. In assessing tenders, waste collection authorities will be required to have regard to the environmental effects of the proposed method of disposal.

  These proposals complement the measures to strengthen controls on waste disposal announced on 29 June last and the proposals announced in the House on 23 November. Together they form a package which will be the subject of early legislation.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Betting and Gaming
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will give consideration to the case for increased financial support to national hunt racing when determining the 28th levy scheme for 1989-90 in addition to the need to improve the conditions of a substantial number of those employed in racing.

  Mr. John Patten
  Yes. These matters are referred to in submissions to my right hon. Friend which he is taking into account in determining the 28th horseracing betting levy scheme.

  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has received a memorandum from the three Government appointed members of the Horserace Betting Levy Board on the 28th levy scheme 1989-90; and whether he will implement their recommendation that serious consideration should be given to raising levy rates to a level designed to give British racing a fairer return from the large volume of betting turnover and that as an interim move the 28th levy scheme should be based on a return to racing of at least 1 per cent. of leviable betting turnover.

  Mr. John Patten
  My right hon. Friend has received the memorandum and is considering all the recommendations in it in determining the 28th horserace betting levy scheme.

  Race Relations
  Ms. Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make breaches of the prison department's race relations policy a disciplinary offence; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  It is already possible to bring disciplinary proceedings against a member of staff who behaves in a racially prejudiced or discriminatory manner.

  Ms. Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce a system of rewards to encourage all prison department staff to act in a professional and non-discriminatory way; and if he will make a statement.
  508
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  All staff are under a specific duty to act in a professional and non-discriminatory way, and are rewarded accordingly. We see no need for a special system of the kind suggested by the hon. Member, which might give the impression that professional behaviour was optional.

  Ms. Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will ensure that proven commitment to the goals of the prison department's race relations policy is a factor which is taken into account when considering a prison officer's prospects for promotion; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The prison service race relations policy statement defines the standard of professional behaviour required of staff and helps to inform the annual assessment of an officer's working relationships with inmates and others. Those considering candidates for promotion give significant weight to that aspect of performance.

  Animal Experiments
  Dame Janet Fookes
  To ask the Secretary of State far the Home Department how much of the ?60,000 allocated for the refinement, reduction and replacement of animal use in experiments in the last 12 months for which records are available was allocated to the development and validation of alternatives to tests used for cosmetic safety and efficacy.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  About ?13,000; of the four projects which have been grant-aided, one should have direct applicability to the irritancy testing of cosmetic substances.

  Dame Janet Fookes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many project licences have been granted under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 for safety and efficacy testing of cosmetics and toiletries.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Six project licences have been granted for the safety testing of cosmetic substances.

  Dame Janet Fookes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for each project licence for cosmetics tests granted under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, what species and how many animals are to be used.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The use of animals in cosmetics testing for the last available year is given in table 3 of the "Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals 1987" (Cm. 515). It is not our practice to reveal details of individual projects.

  Dame Janet Fookes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what additional restraints the animals procedures committee has imposed on project licence applications for cosmetics tests.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  As the APC has revealed in its annual report (HC 36, para 3.6), it has identified a number of common requirements for cosmetic testing licences and these have been incorporated in the guidance notes for applicants. I have accepted the committee's recommendation that licensees should make a detailed statistical return for the APC's use.
  509
  Dame Janet Fookes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any licences have been issued for cosmetics testing that go beyond the mild severity category in the project licence.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  A minority of the project licences for the testing of cosmetic substances have been assessed as "moderate", the remainder as "mild". This reflects the range of procedures used and the types of substances required to be tested by individual companies.

  Local Pay Additions
  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the number of staff in his Department, by grade, in receipt of local pay additions outside London and the south-east economic planning region; what are the different amounts paid to staff by grade; whether this figure varies due to location; what qualifying period of scale-related criteria is used; and whether this varies by location.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  There are no Home Office staff outside London and the south-east region in receipt of local pay additions.

  Trevi Group
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many meetings he has attended with ministers in the Trevi group in each year from 1985 to 1988; and what subjects he has discussed.

  Mr. Hurd
  Since I became Home Secretary in September 1985 I have attended three Trevi ministerial meetings in 1986 (two of which I chaired), two in 1987 and two in 1988. The main subject of discussion has been co-operation in counter-terrorism matters but we have also dealt with a variety of other topics including football hooliganism, drug trafficking and other serious organised international crime.

  In the second half of 1986, on my initiative, complementary meetings of Ministers were also established to consider immigration matters. I chaired the first meeting of this group in October 1986 and have attended the two meetings held each year subsequently.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultations he has had in connection with subjects discussed with the Trevi group of ministers; and with which organisations he has discussed matters raised at Trevi meetings.

  Mr. Hurd
  I do not discuss Trevi matters in specific terms with other organisations because much of. Trevi's work and its proceedings, especially on terrorism, is classified. Some of the general subject areas with which Trevi is concerned also feature in other fora, in bilateral contacts with other countries at both ministerial and official level and in discussions with various organisations and individuals as appropriate.

  Table 1: Firearms surrendered to the police during the firearms amnesty September 1988 by police force area

  England and Wales

  Number of items surrendered

  Police force area

  Fully automatic

  Self-loading

  Rifles Manual

  All

  Pistols and revolvers

  Total firearms

  Avon and Somerset

  4

  37

  161

  198

  630

  832

  Bedfordshire

  1

  4

  80

  84

  128

  213

  Cambridgeshire

  1

  9

  63

  72

  211

  284

  510

  Entry Policy (EC)
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultations he has held and proposes to hold in connection with proposals to operate a common policy of entry at all European Economic Community ports of entry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hurd
  I have attended a series of meetings of Trevi Ministers and European Community Immigration Ministers in which these and related issues have been extensively discussed. For information about the most recent of these meetings in Athens, and about future work to be undertaken by the supporting meetings of officials, I refer the hon. Member to my answers to questions from my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) on 14 December at columns 576-77 and 15 December 1988 at column 709. These consultations will continue.

  Waterloo-South Bank (Incidents)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will request from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis a list of incidents reported or investigated by the Metropolitan police that occurred during the past year in the area between the south bank centre and British Rail's Waterloo station in the evening hours.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand from the commissioner that such a list is not readily available and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost. If the hon. Member has a specific problem in mind he is welcome to write to my right hon. and noble Friend about it.

  Firearms Amnesty
  Mr. Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how the weapons handed in during the recent amnesty were disposed of; and whether any effort was made to realise their cash value.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Weapons surrendered under the recent firearms amnesty were destroyed, save for those of historical significance which, under special arrangements, were acquired by museums. None was offered for sale.

  Mr. Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish a table in the Official Report to show how many of the firearms and other weapons listed in his reply to the hon. Member for Londonderry, East of 13 December 1988 Official Report, columns 509-510, were handed in to each police force; and if he will list them as in his reply of 13 December.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The information is as follows:
  511

  Rifles

  Police force area

  Fully automatic

  Self-loading

  Manual

  All

  Pistols and revolvers

  Total firearms

  Cheshire

  1

  2

  105

  107

  384

  492

  Cleveland

  —

  —

  34

  34

  130

  164

  Cumbria

  —

  —

  83

  83

  208

  291

  Derbyshire

  4

  1

  72

  73

  268

  345

  Devon and Cornwall

  21

  26

  232

  258

  1,005

  1,284

  Dorset

  1

  5

  140

  145

  540

  686

  Durham

  2

  —

  47

  47

  167

  216

  Essex

  5

  7

  152

  159

  512

  676

  Gloucestershire

  32

  6

  84

  90

  259

  381

  Greater Manchester

  3

  14

  101

  115

  585

  703

  Hampshire

  4

  3

  261

  264

  951

  1,219

  Hertfordshire

  3

  13

  146

  159

  256

  418

  Humberside

  6

  1

  71

  72

  224

  302

  Kent

  1

  —

  193

  193

  618

  812

  Lancaster

  16

  6

  121

  127

  438

  581

  Leicestershire

  1

  5

  115

  120

  334

  455

  Lincolnshire

  2

  12

  126

  138

  280

  420

  London, City of

  1

  —

  3

  3

  19

  23

  Merseyside

  8

  1

  89

  90

  465

  563

  Metropolitan Police District

  12

  15

  337

  352

  1,728

  2,092

  Norfolk

  1

  9

  105

  114

  304

  419

  Northamptonshire

  —

  9

  73

  82

  167

  249

  Northumbria

  2

  27

  127

  154

  493

  649

  North Yorkshire

  —

  1

  106

  107

  364

  471

  Nottinghamshire

  —

  7

  62

  69

  348

  417

  South Yorkshire

  —

  4

  41

  45

  297

  342

  Staffordshire

  2

  1

  65

  66

  246

  314

  Suffolk

  3

  12

  118

  130

  285

  418

  Surrey

  2

  3

  152

  155

  524

  681

  Sussex

  3

  12

  182

  194

  846

  1,043

  Thames Valley

  11

  36

  143

  179

  703

  893

  Warwickshire

  2

  —

  51

  51

  180

  233

  West Mercia

  3

  4

  127

  131

  522

  656

  West Midlands

  5

  6

  127

  133

  570

  708

  West Yorkshire

  2

  —

  99

  99

  506

  607

  Wiltshire

  2

  1

  119

  120

  262

  384

  Dyfed Powys

  4

  6

  76

  82

  236

  322

  Gwent

  1

  —

  54

  54

  150

  205

  North Wales

  3

  6

  93

  99

  257

  359

  South Wales

  3

  4

  120

  124

  405

  532

  All forces

  178

  315

  4,856

  5,171

  18,005

  23,354

  Table 2

  Shotguns surrendered to the police during the firearms amnesty September 1988 by police force area England and Wales

  Number of items surrendered

  Long barrelled shotguns

  Short barrelled shotguns

  Total

  Police force area

  Traditional

  Other

  All

  Traditional

  Other

  All

  shotguns

  Avon and Somerset

  358

  8

  366

  7

  5

  12

  378

  Bedfordshire

  281

  —

  281

  4

  —

  4

  285

  Cambridgeshire

  188

  —

  188

  10

  3

  13

  201

  Cheshire

  205

  8

  213

  1

  —

  1

  214

  Cleveland

  87

  1

  88

  2

  —

  2

  90

  Cumbria

  243

  —

  243

  1

  5

  6

  249

  Derbyshire

  159

  5

  164

  8

  —

  8

  172

  Devon and Cornwall

  766

  6

  772

  33

  3

  36

  808

  Dorset

  342

  —

  342

  7

  —

  7

  349

  Durham

  77

  —

  77

  2

  —

  2

  79

  Essex

  376

  16

  392

  2

  3

  5

  397

  Gloucestershire

  194

  4

  198

  5

  —

  5

  203

  Greater Manchester

  156

  2

  158

  34

  6

  40

  198

  Hampshire

  556

  7

  563

  3

  —

  3

  566

  Hertfordshire

  130

  1

  131

  4

  —

  4

  135

  Humberside

  137

  1

  138

  3

  —

  3

  141

  Kent

  346

  4

  350

  15

  4

  19

  369

  Lancashire

  276

  13

  289

  6

  4

  10

  299

  Leicestershire

  188

  1

  189

  19

  —

  19

  208

  Lincolnshire

  255

  1

  256

  18

  —

  18

  274

  London, City of

  2

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Merseyside

  157

  2

  159

  13

  —

  13

  172

  Metropolitan Police District

  526

  13

  539

  5

  1

  6

  545

  Norfolk

  302

  5

  307

  35

  6

  41

  348

  512 513

  Number of items surrendered

  Long barrelled shotguns

  Short barrelled shotguns

  Total

  Police force area

  Traditional

  Other

  All

  Traditional

  Other

  All

  shotguns

  Northamptonshire

  120

  3

  123

  1

  —

  1

  124

  Northumbria

  176

  2

  178

  10

  —

  10

  188

  North Yorkshire

  337

  19

  356

  —

  —

  —

  356

  Nottinghamshire

  167

  5

  172

  3

  —

  3

  175

  South Yorkshire

  114

  1

  115

  —

  1

  1

  116

  Staffordshire

  178

  3

  181

  14

  2

  16

  197

  Suffolk

  320

  —

  320

  24

  3

  27

  347

  Surrey

  265

  —

  265

  —

  4

  4

  269

  Sussex

  378

  4

  382

  25

  10

  35

  417

  Thames Valley

  379

  13

  392

  29

  8

  37

  429

  Warwickshire

  122

  I

  123

  2

  —

  2

  125

  West Mercia

  337

  3

  340

  42

  1

  43

  383

  West Midlands

  224

  6

  230

  6

  —

  6

  236

  West Yorkshire

  192

  —

  192

  6

  —

  6

  198

  Wiltshire

  202

  —

  202

  —

  2

  2

  204

  Dyfed Powys

  244

  1

  245

  1

  —

  1

  246

  Gwent

  95

  3

  98

  —

  2

  2

  100

  North Wales

  240

  5

  245

  2

  —

  2

  247

  South Wales

  204

  4

  208

  2

  5

  7

  215

  ALL FORCES

  10,601

  171

  10,772

  404

  78

  482

  11,254

  Table 3

  Other firearms surrendered to the police during the firearms amnesty September 1988 by police force area

  England and Wales

  Number of items surrendered

  Police force area

  Prohibited

  Air rifles and air pistols

  Others including imitations

  Total other firearms

  Avon and Somerset

  3

  211

  25

  239

  Bedfordshire

  —

  86

  14

  100

  Cambridgeshire

  5

  70

  11

  86

  Cheshire

  8

  151

  19

  178

  Cleveland

  —

  59

  27

  86

  Cumbria

  2

  60

  —

  62

  Derbyshire

  1

  85

  14

  100

  Devon and Cornwall

  2

  219

  100

  321

  Dorset

  1

  169

  86

  256

  Durham

  —

  63

  21

  84

  Essex

  2

  170

  18

  190

  Gloucestershire

  —

  69

  11

  80

  Greater Manchester

  2

  331

  177

  510

  Hampshire

  2

  319

  83

  404

  Hertfordshire

  1

  165

  —

  166

  Humberside

  —

  107

  11

  118

  Kent

  1

  166

  34

  201

  Lancashire

  12

  172

  69

  253

  Leicestershire

  1

  100

  37

  138

  Lincolnshire

  —

  98

  44

  142

  London, City of

  1

  2

  1

  4

  Merseyside

  1

  208

  101

  310

  Metropolitan Police District

  1

  576

  320

  897

  Norfolk

  —

  106

  4

  110

  Northamptonshire

  —

  83

  39

  122

  Northumbria

  1

  169

  31

  201

  North Yorkshire

  —

  93

  13

  106

  Nottinghamshire

  —

  148

  23

  171

  South Yorkshire

  —

  94

  2

  96

  Staffordshire

  —

  102

  43

  145

  Suffolk

  3

  81

  27

  111

  Surrey

  1

  144

  4

  149

  Sussex

  8

  253

  134

  395

  Thames Valley

  7

  203

  38

  248

  Warwickshire

  —

  54

  5

  59

  West Mercia

  —

  124

  45

  169

  West Midlands

  —

  247

  82

  329

  West Yorkshire

  —

  228

  124

  352

  Wiltshire

  3

  104

  20

  127

  Dyfed Powys

  —

  27

  —

  27

  Gwent

  —

  41

  11

  52

  North Wales

  —

  67

  19

  86

  South Wales

  —

  102

  35

  137

  All forces

  69

  6,126

  1,922

  8,117

  514 515
  Mr. Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, further to his answer to the hon. Member for Londonderry, East Official Report, columns 509-10, 13 December, if he will publish a table in the Official Report to show how many of the firearms listed in each category in the reply were (a) held illegally, (b) held previously and (c) currently held on (i) firearms certificates, (ii) shotgun certificates and (iii) did not require any certificate, or as much of such information as is available to him.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  This information was not collected, since there was no obligation on those in legal possession of firearms to hand them in, most of those surrendered are thought to have been held illegally.

  Mr. Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information is (a) collected by the police, and (b) sent or held by his Department, in relation to (i) firearms and (ii) shotguns held on certificates; and whether such information was collected on each firearm, shotgun and other weapon handed in during the recent firearms amnesty.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  In addition to an applicant's personal details, information relating to the type, calibre, maker's name and serial number of weapons held on a firearm certificate is collected by the police. This information is not held by the Home Office. Corresponding information about weapons held on a shotgun certificate will not be collected by the police until the provisions of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 relating to notification of transactions involving shotguns are introduced later this year.

  Under the arrangements for the amnesty there was no obligation on any person surrendering a weapon to provide details of this kind but, where available, information on the calibre, type, maker's name and identification of weapons was recorded, for purposes of description and categorisation.

  Breath Tests
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner), 18 January, Official Report, column 202, whether he will give the number of positive breath tests for each police force area together with the number of (a) fatal and (b) other personal injury accidents in the period 19 December 1988 to 1 January 1989.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The official breath test and road accident statistics for 1988 will not be available until later this year. The Association of Chief Police Officers has, however, collected provisional figures for the number of positive breath tests and accidents involving personal injury (including fatalities) in each police force area between 19 December 1988 and 1 January 1989. These are given in the table:

  Police force area

  Number of positive

  Number of injury

  breath tests

  accidents

  Avon and Somerset

  113

  145

  Bedfordshire

  45

  50

  Cambridgeshire

  47

  73

  Cheshire

  93

  11l

  City of London

  15

  9

  Cleveland

  51

  53

  Cumbria

  45

  34

  516

  Police force area

  Number of positive

  Number of injury

  breath tests

  accidents

  Derbyshire

  78

  88

  Devon and Cornwall

  142

  146

  Dorset

  57

  20

  Durham

  72

  54

  Dyfed-Powys

  45

  51

  Essex

  149

  223

  Gloucestershire

  50

  64

  Greater Manchester

  422

  272

  Gwent

  58

  57

  Hampshire

  170

  114

  Hertfordshire

  84

  108

  Humberside

  81

  69

  Kent

  130

  110

  Lancashire

  139

  205

  Leicestershire

  79

  70

  Lincolnshire

  62

  90

  Merseyside

  135

  175

  Metropolitan

  980

  387

  Norfolk

  33

  58

  Northamptonshire

  45

  63

  Northumbria

  137

  112

  North Wales

  92

  43

  North Yorkshire

  71

  97

  Nottinghamshire

  101

  90

  South Wales

  108

  132

  South Yorkshire

  120

  75

  Staffordshire

  121

  115

  Suffolk

  43

  69

  Surrey

  76

  97

  Sussex

  81

  88

  Thames Valley

  213

  169

  Warwickshire

  43

  36

  West Mercia

  121

  92

  West Midlands

  259

  310

  West Yorkshire

  182

  194

  Wiltshire

  73

  41

  Total

  5,261

  4,272

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set out the grounds on which a police officer may require a motorist to take a breath test; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The current police powers to require breath tests are contained in the Road Traffic Act 1972 (as amended by the Transport Act 1981). Under section 159, a police constable in uniform has the power to stop any vehicle; and under section 7 to require a breath test:

  (a) where there is reasonable cause to suspect that the
  driver has alcohol in his body; or

  (b) where there is reasonable cause to suspect that the
  driver has committed a moving traffic offence; or

  (c) where there is reasonable cause to believe that the
  driver has been involved in an accident.

  Viraj Mendis
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimates he has as to the total costs to date to his Department of the Viraj Mendis case.

  Mr. Renton
  It is unfortunately not practicable to identify the staffing and other resources spent by the Department in connection with the case, but they were considerable.

  Women Prisoners
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of females
  517
  sentenced to a period of imprisonment during 1987 and 1988 in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The information requested for 1987 can be found in table 7.15 "Criminal Statistics, England and Wales, 1987" (Cm. 498), copies of which are in the Library of the House. Information for 1988 is not yet available.

  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the female prison population in England and Wales at the most recent date available.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  At unlocking on Friday 20 January, 1,765 female inmates were held in prison service establishments in England and Wales

  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many females with dependent children under the age of five years were sentenced to a period of imprisonment in England and Wales during 1987; and if he will make a statement

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The information requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. A census on 11 August 1986 revealed that 340 females in custody were known to be the mothers of 455 children aged five years or under.

  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the number of places available in prison establishments for female detainees with dependent children and babies in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Three female prison establishments provide a total of 39 places for mothers with babies up to the age of 18 months.

  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many females gave birth during the currency of a prison sentence during 1987 and 1988 in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Information for calendar years is not readily available. Between 1 April 1986 and 31 March 1987, 55 sentenced females gave birth during their sentences. Between 1 April 1987 and 31 March 1988, 64 did so.

  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the total number of females currently serving a prison sentence in England and Wales; what is the proportion and number of such females who have committed an offence involving robbery or violence; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The information is published annually in "Prison Statistics, England and Wales" (table 1.8 of the latest issue, for 1987). I shall reply as soon as possible giving provisional information for 1988.
  518

  Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the statement by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis on his strategy for 1989.

  Mr. Hurd
  I am placing copies of the commissioner's strategy statement for 1989 in the Library of the House today. I am also sending copies to all right hon. and hon. Members whose constituencies fall wholly or partly within the Metropolitan police district. I hope to meet London Members soon to discuss the strategy.

  Prisons
  Mr. Summerson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what changes he intends to make in the rules governing the conduct of adjudications within prisons; and if he has decided to accept the recommendation of Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons, in his report on grievance procedures, that the offences of making a false and malicious allegation against an officer and of repeatedly making groundless complaints should be abolished.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Revised prison rules, which will be laid before the House shortly, will simplify and clarify the code of offences in the current prison rule 47 under which prisoners may be charged. Many of the changes are designed to give effect to the Government's response to the Prior committee report, contained in a White Paper published in October 1986.

  It has been decided, in the context of these changes, to abolish the current offences under rule 47(12), of making a false and malicious allegation against an officer, and prison rule 47(16), of repeatedly making groundless complaints. The so-called "simultaneous ventilation" rule, contained in prison standing orders, is also to be abolished.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Incomes
  Mr. Lester
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish figures showing the weekly disposable incomes of a married couple and a lone parent, each with two children aged four and six years and each paying average local authority rents and rates, in each of the following circumstances(a) out of work on income support, (b) participating in the new employment training scheme, (c) in part-time work earning £25 and (d) in full-time work earning £150.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information is set out in the table. The results are arbitrary. They cannot reflect, except by chance, the actual circumstances of particular people. The use of average rent and local authority rates means these illustrations do not reflect the full range of housing costs which people can pay.
  519

  Current benefit system: average local authority rent and rates. Married couple with two children aged 4 and 6

  (a) Not working

  Earnings

  Tax

  NI

  Rent

  Rates

  Housing benefit

  CHB

  FSM

  FWM

  Net income after housing costs

  Income support

  64·60

  —

  —

  —

  19·90

  8·20

  26·46

  14·50

  2·55

  1·83

  81·84

  (b) On the new employment training scheme

  Training allowance plus income support1

  74·60

  —

  —

  —

  19·90

  8·20

  26·46

  14·50

  2·55

  1·83

  91·84

  (c) Working part-time—earning £25 Income support2

  44·60

  25·00

  0·00

  0·00

  19·90

  8·20

  26·46

  14·50

  2·55

  1·83

  86·84

  1Assumes previously in receipt of basic rate of Income Support.

  2 Assumes receipt of Supplementary Benefit/Income Support for less than two years.

  Earnings

  Tax

  NI

  Take home pay

  Family credit

  Rent

  Rates

  Housing benefit

  CHB

  Total net income

  Net income after housing costs

  (d) Working full-time earnings £150

  150·00

  17·81

  13·50

  118·69

  0·00

  19·90

  8·20

  0·00

  14·50

  133·19

  105·09

  Current benefit system: average local authority rent and rates.

  Lone mother with two children aged 4 and 6

  Earnings

  Tax

  NI

  Rent

  Rates

  Housing benefit

  CHB

  FSM

  FWM

  Net income after housing costs

  (a) Not working Income support

  45·35

  —

  —

  —

  19·90

  8·20

  26·46

  19·40

  2·55

  1·83

  67·49

  (h) Working part-time-earning £25 Income support

  35·35

  25·00

  0·00

  0·00

  19·90

  8·20

  26·46

  19·40

  2·55

  1·83

  82·49

  (c) On the new Employment Training Scheme.

  Training allowance plus income support

  55·35

  —

  —

  —

  19·90

  8·20

  26·46

  19·40

  2·55

  1·83

  77·49

  Notes:

  1Lone mother assumed to be over 25 years.

  2Lone mother assumed to have been on basic rate of Income Support prior to acceptance on Employment Training Scheme.

  (d) Working full-time

  Tax

  NI

  Take home pay

  Family benefit

  Child benefit

  Rent

  Rent rebates

  Rates

  Rates rebates

  Total net income

  Net income after housing costs

  Earnings head

  150·00

  17·81

  13·50

  118·69

  0·00

  19·40

  19·90

  0·0

  8·20

  0·00

  138·09

  109·99

  Mentally Handicapped Persons
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the cost falling to the social security budget resulting from the transfer of care for mentally handicapped persons in Bexley from the local authority to a private company.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I regret that the information requested could not be obtained without disproportionate expense.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the overall spending on the social fund during each month in 1985, 1986 and 1987.
  520
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The first part of the social fund, relating to regulated payments for maternity and funeral expenses came into operation on 6 April 1987. Discretionary payments under the social fund for community care grants, budgeting and crisis loans, came into operation on 11 April 1988. Expenditure for calendar months in 1987 was as follows:

  £

  April

  935,565

  May

  2,087,250

  June

  2,829,890

  July

  2,569,383

  August

  2,867,333

  September

  2,363,906

  October

  2,409,383

  November

  2,976,350

  December

  1,648,302

  521

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many oral parliamentary questions he has answered by written reply because the question was not reached at Question Time for the most recent year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  From January 1988 until 25 July, when the Department of Health and Social Security was divided into two separate Departments of State, 611 of the 748 oral questions tabled to the Secretary of State for Social Services received a written reply. From 25 July to the end of the year 132 oral questions were tabled to the Secretary of State for Social Security, 114 of which received a written reply.

  These figures do not include oral questions which were subsequently withdrawn, unstarred or transferred to other Departments.

  YTS
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what evaluations or research his Department has commissioned into the operation of YTS since the introduction of benefit changes in September 1989; and when the results will be available.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  None. We are, however, closely watching the impact of the reformed social security system on all client groups, including 16 and 17-year-olds.

  Month ending

  30 April

  31 May

  30 June

  31 July

  31

  30

  31 October

  30

  31

  1988

  1988

  1988

  1988

  August

  September

  1988

  November

  December

  1988

  1988

  1988

  1988

  Oldham ILO

  Income support

  Claims

  Intake

  690

  1,181

  1,152

  1,361

  1,260

  1,217

  1,098

  1,147

  856

  Processed

  503

  1,241

  1,080

  1,402

  1,301

  1,160

  1,131

  1,157

  816

  Outstanding

  187

  127

  199

  158

  117

  174

  141

  131

  171

  Assessment review

  outstanding

  46

  38

  19

  20

  59

  10

  79

  3

  70

  Unlinked post

  19

  13

  7

  11

  12

  8

  10

  10

  17

  Live load

  16,197

  15,854

  Supplementary benefit work outstanding

  Claims

  86

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Single payments

  3,500

  2,690

  1,218

  585

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Additional requirements

  2,200

  1,911

  932

  193

  40

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Failsworth ILO

  Income support

  Claims

  Intake

  479

  591

  690

  804

  742

  761

  745

  639

  484

  Processed

  388

  595

  674

  812

  757

  728

  769

  645

  494

  Outstanding

  91

  87

  103

  95

  80

  113

  89

  83

  73

  Assessment review

  outstanding

  42

  36

  30

  41

  12

  25

  34

  36

  40

  Unlinked post

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  2

  1

  34

  Live load

  12,247

  11,855

  Supplementary benefit work outstanding

  Claims

  44

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Single payments

  1,081

  277

  127

  36

  20

  6

  2

  1

  2

  Additional requirements

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many social fund applications were made each month since 11 April 1988 at the Oldham and Failsworth offices of his Department for(a) budget loans,

  Oldham and Failsworth Local Offices
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many new claims for income support were made each month since 11 April 1988 at the Oldham and Failsworth offices 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 Oldham and Failsworth 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 items of unlinked correspondence were recorded each month since 11 April 1988 at the Oldham and Failsworth offices of his Department;
  (4) what load of current cases have the Oldham and Failsworth offices of his Department carried in the past six months.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information available is set out in the tables.

  The figures on unlinked post are supplied from local office records. The source of the live load figure is the 100 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 actually in receipt of benefit.

  (b) crisis loans, and (c) community care grants; and how many applications in each of these categories were determined in each month.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Information on the numbers of applications for social fund loans and grants processed
  523
  and awarded, listed by local office, including information on budget allocations and expenditure, is available from the details held in the Library.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give for Oldham and Failsworth offices of his Department the current staffing complement, broken down by staffing grades of(a) how many permanent staff are currently in post; (b) how many temporary staff are currently in post; (c) how many staff members are currently being trained; and (d)
  the annual turnover of permanent staff.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information requested is as follows:

  Permanent Staff

  Oldham ILO

  Failsworth ILO

  Grade 7

  1·0

  1·00

  SEO

  1·0

  1·00

  HEO

  9·5

  9·00

  LO1

  55·0

  42·50

  LO2

  102·5

  77·50

  AA

  25·0

  18·00

  Typing Manager

  1·0

  —

  Typist

  4·0

  3·00

  Security Guard

  —

  2·00

  Messenger

  3·0

  1·00

  Telephonist

  2·0

  1·00

  204·0

  156·00

  Temporary Staff

  —

  12·00

  Total Staff

  204·0

  158·00

  Annual Turnover

  8·9

  6·94

  Staff Under Training

  0·0

  0·00

  1 AA Grade.

  Note: ILO-Integrated Local Office.

  Mr. Viraj Mendis
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what information he has as to the total amount of social security benefits paid to Mr. Viraj Mendis since 1973.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  It is not the Department's policy to release information from social security records of individuals, which is obtained and held in confidence, without the individual's approval.

  Pensions
  Mr. John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security by what percentage the basic state pension has been increased since May 1979; and what was the percentage increase in the retail price index inflation to the latest month for which figures are available.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The basic state pension has been increased from £19·50 in November 19781 to £41·15 in April 19882, representing an increase of 111 per cent. The corresponding percentage increase in the retail price index was 106 per cent.

  1 The level of pension in payment in May 1979 came into force in November 1978.

  2The level of pension currently in payment came into force in April 1988.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what estimates he has as to the number 524
  of women aged (a) 60 to 62½ years and (b) 621½ to 65 years in the United Kingdom; and how many are in receipt of state retirement pensions;

  (2) what estimates he has as to the number of men aged (a) 60 to 62½ years and (b) 62½ to 65 years in the United Kingdom; and how many are in receipt of state retirement pensions.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Actual population figures for 1988 are not available. Projected population figures1 for that year for Great Britain indicate that there were approximately 893,000 women and 837,000 men aged 60–62, and 934,000 women and 808,000 men aged 63–65. The Department's records show that, as at March 31 1988, 590,000 women aged 60–62 and 811,000 women aged 63–65 were in receipt of retirement pension. Retirement pension is paid to men aged 65 and over.

  Source: Government Actuary's Department. 1Based on mid-1985 data.

  Note: information provided is for Great Britain.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received concerning the possibility of reducing the retirement age for men to(a) 60 years or (b) 62½ years and increasing the retirement age for women to that age; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Between 13 January 1988 and 10 January 1989 we received a total of 364 representations about state pension age. Records do not indicate the precise ages about which correspondents wrote.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimates he has as to the cost to public funds of(a) reducing the retirement age for men to 60 years and (b) reducing the retirement age for men to 62½ years and raising the retirement age for women to 62½ years.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information is not available in the form requested. The most recent estimates, which are based on 1985–86 benefit rates, are that the net annual cost to public funds of equalising state pension age at 60 years would be approximately £3,000 million, and at 63 years the net costs would be approximately £800 million.

  Benefits and Allowances
  Mrs. Beckett: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people in Great Britain were receiving (a) attendance allowance at (i) the higher rate, and (ii) the lower rate, (b) invalid care allowance, (c) mobility allowance, (d) invalidity benefit, (e) severe disablement allowance, (f) industrial disablement pension, (g) war disablement pension, (h) retirement pension, (i) income support, and (j) supplementary benefit at the latest dates for which figures are available; and what are those dates.
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information requested is as follows:

  Benefit

  Number of recipients

  Date

  Attendance allowance

  (i) higher rate

  287,000

  March 1988

  (ii) lower rate

  425,000

  March 1988

  Invalid care allowance

  109,000

  January 1989

  Mobility allowance

  557,000

  January 1989

  525

  Benefit

  Number of recipients

  Date

  Invalidity benefit

  967,900

  April 1987

  Severe disablement allowance

  260,200

  April 1987

  Industrial injuries disablement pension

  183,000

  April 1988

  War disablement pension

  197,800

  December 1988

  Retirement pension1

  9,300,000

  March 1988

  Income support2

  4,354,000

  May 1988

  Supplementary benefit2

  4,834,000

  November 1987

  1Excludes cases where graduated pension only is payable.

  2Source: Quarterly Statistical Enquiries

  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what benefits are available to an employed person who has to be admitted to hospital for a serious illness or operation; for how long such benefits are paid; and if he will give similar information for a self-employed man or woman.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  An employed person who is sick and incapable of work will usually qualify for statutory sick pay (SSP) from his employer. SSP is payable for up to 28 weeks of incapacity, providing the contract of employment continues. If there is no title to SSP or entitlement ends before 28 weeks, state sickness benefit is payable, subject to the satisfaction of the relevant contribution conditions. Sickness benefit and/or SSP is replaced by invalidity benefit after incapacity has lasted 28 weeks. SSP sickness and invalidity benefits continue in payment whilst the claimant is in hospital, but sickness and invalidity benefit are reduced after six weeks free in-patient treatment. A further reduction is made at the 12 months stage.

  A self-employed person is not entitled to SSP, but qualifies for sickness and invalidity benefit on the same basis as an employed person.

  There may be other social security benefits payable while a person is in hospital, depending on his particular circumstances. If my hon. Friend has a specific case in mind, I should be happy to look at it.

  Cold Weather Payments
  Mr. Barry Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claimants in Wales were paid

  Current benefit system: average local authority rent and rates Lone mother with two children aged three and five

  Income support

  Earnings

  Tax

  NI

  Fares to work

  Rent

  Rates

  Housing benefit

  CHB

  FSM

  FWM

  Net weekly spending power

  (a) Not working

  45·35

  —

  —

  —

  —

  19·90

  8·20

  26·46

  19·40

  2·55

  1·83

  67·49

  (b) (i) Working part-time—earning £15 and £5·00 fares to work

  45·35

  15·00

  0·00

  0·00

  5·00

  19·90

  8·20

  26·46

  19·40

  2·55

  1·83

  77·49

  (b) (ii) Working part-time—earning £25 and £5·00 fares to work

  35·35

  25·00

  0·00

  0·00

  5·00

  19·90

  8·20

  26·46

  19·40

  2·55

  1·83

  77·49

  (b)(iii) Working part-time—earnings £40 and£5·00 fares to work

  20·35

  40·00

  0·00

  0·00

  5·00

  19·90

  8·20

  26·46

  19·40

  2·55

  1·83

  77·49

  Training allowance plus income support

  Fares to work

  Rent

  Rates

  Housing benefit

  CHB

  FSM

  FWM

  Net weekly spending power

  (c) On the new employment training scheme with £5·00 fares to work and £50·00 child care costs

  55·35

  5·00

  19·90

  8·20

  26·46

  19·40

  2·55

  1·83

  72·49

  under the cold weather payments scheme for the last five years; how much benefit has been paid in each of the last five years; and how many claims were refused.
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The available information is as follows:

  Winter

  Number of claimants paid

  Amount paid £

  Number of claims refused

  1984–85

  11,494

  92,679

  Not known

  1985–86

  38,769

  1,039,294

  Not known

  1986–87

  161,000

  640,295

  31,592

  1987–88

  1,735

  8,675

  697

  21988–89

  nil

  nil

  5

  1 Estimate based on the number of £5 payments made.

  2 To date.

  Detailed information as above not collected before 1984–85.

  Lone Parents (Spending Power)
  Sir Ian Gilmour
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish figures showing the net spending power of a lone mother with two children aged three and five years, paying average local authority rent and rates, who is(a) not working, (b) working part-time earning £15, £25 and £40 a week, and paying £5 for travel costs to work, (c) in the new employment training scheme, and (d) working full-time, earning £100, £150 and £200 a
  week, and paying £55 for travel to work and child minding
  costs.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 6 December 1988]: The information is set out in the table.

  As specified in the question, net weekly spending is assumed to be benefits plus earnings less housing costs and other identified expenditures. The results are arbitrary. They cannot reflect, except by chance, the actual circumstances of particular people. The use of average rent and local authority rates means the answers do not reflect the full range of housing costs which people can actually pay.
  527
  Notes:

  1.£50·0 child care costs are paid by Department of Employment direct to the childminder.

  2.Lone mother assumed to be over 25 years.

  3.Lone mother assumed to have been on basic rate of Income Support prior to acceptance on Employment Training scheme.

  Earnings head

  Tax

  NI

  Family credit

  Child benefit

  Rent

  Rent rebate

  Rates

  Rate rebate

  Fares to work

  Child care costs

  Net weekly spending power

  (d) Working full-time with £5·00 fares to work and £50 child care costs

  100·00

  5·31

  7·00

  18·83

  19·40

  19·90

  0·00

  8·20

  0·00

  5·00

  50·00

  42·82

  150·00

  17·81

  13·50

  0·00

  19·40

  19·90

  0·00

  8·20

  0·00

  5·00

  50·00

  54·99

  200·00

  30·31

  18·00

  0·00

  19·40

  19·90

  0·00

  8·20

  0·00

  5·00

  50·00

  87·99

HEALTH

  King's College Hospital
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will pay an official visit to King's College hospital, Denmark Hill, to discuss the funding of services.

  Mr. Freeman
  The South East Thames regional health authority is currently having discussions with Camberwell health authority about its financial allocation for 1989–90. It would not therefore be right for me to visit the hospital specifically to discuss funding at this time.

  Junior Doctors
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has had with representatives of hospital consultants about the hours worked by junior doctors.

  Mr. Mellor
  There were detailed discussions between the Health Departments and the profession's representatives, including hospital consultants, before the Government asked health authorities in June 1988 to work towards a reduction in junior doctors' rota commitments.I met representatives of the British Medical Association, including hospital consultants, on 9 January and plan to meet them again next month.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he has taken to obtain opinions concerning the maximum number of hours which should be worked by junior hospital doctors in any one working week, or continuously; and if he will publish the responses he receives.

  Mr. Mellor
  In June 1988, following agreement with doctors' representatives, we asked health authorities to work towards the elimination of rotas requiring a junior doctor to be on duty on average more than one night and one weekend in three. We discussed junior doctors' hours at a meeting with representatives of the British Medical Association on 9 January; and we plan to meet them again next month.

  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he possesses concerning the number of hours worked by junior hospital doctors, additional to their contracted hours.

  Mr. Mellor
  In 1985, when average weekly contracted hours of junior hospital doctors were 86, the average weekly hours worked when off duty was one, compared with three in 1981, when average weekly contracted hours were 89.
  528
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the specific proposals and resources offered by his Department to enable health authorities to reduce the hours worked by junior doctors on call in hospitals.

  Mr. Mellor
  In June 1988 we announced a scheme to reduce the hours of work of junior hospital doctors and dentists. Details were set out in circular EL(88) P82, a copy of which was placed in the Library. I have asked regional health authorities to report to me by 20 January as to the progress being made.

  Needle Exchange Scheme
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his policy towards the establishment of needle exchange schemes to reduce the spread of HIV among injecting drug users; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  We have now received the final report of the evaluation of exchange schemes and are urgently considering its implications. We have already issued guidance to health authorities on establishing syringe exchange schemes and estimate that there are currently some 60 to 100 schemes operating in England.

  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress he has made in reducing hospital waiting
  lists in the Mersey region.

  Mr. Freeman
  Waiting lists in the Mersey region are some 10,000 lower than at March 1979. The number of patients waiting over one year is now down to 6,300–4,000 lower than at March 1979.

  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the latest figures for change in throughput of patients in National Health Service hospitals.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information is given in the table.

  In-patient cases treated per available bed per annum (throughput), NHS hospitals, England, 1978, 1986 and 1987–88

  Percentage changes between:-

  Throughput

  1978

  14·5

  1986

  20·3

  1987–88

  22·3

  1978 and

  1987–88

  53·4

  1986 and

  1987–88

  9·8

  529
  Over the period since 1978 increased throughput has been possible, not only because of greater health authority efficiency, but because new treatments and techniques have meant that stays in hospital are now shorter.

  Community Care
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he now expects to make a statement on his Department's plans for implementation of the proposals contained in the Griffiths report on community care.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  We are actively engaged at present in working up our own proposals for the future of community care. I hope to be in a position to bring forward our plans in the near future.

  Health Authorities
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will supply his latest estimate of the projected budget deficit in(a) the current financial year and (b) the next financial year of (i) London health authorities and (ii) health authorities.

  Mr. Mellor
  Health authorities report on their income and expenditure position as part of quarterly monitoring introduced in 1988–89. At the half-year stage, the projected income and expenditure deficit for 1988–89 of the four Thames regional health authorities, together with the eight postgraduate special health authorities, was £23· 5 million. The deficit projection for all English health authorities was £59· 9 million.

  The information relating to the rest of the United Kingdom is a matter for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales, Northern Ireland and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. Projections of the income and expenditure position for the next financial year will be provided by health authorities in their short-term programmes.

  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he has taken to promote flexible employment conditions in health authorities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  This is one of the key aims of our personnel policies and we have in particular encouraged health authorities to offer more opportunities for flexible working arrangements, part-time working and job sharing.

  We have commissioned a senior National Health Service personnel officer to carry out a comprehensive review of conditions of service, including the scope for greater decentralisation. This is now nearing completion and we shall be making full use of the findings in deciding on further action in this field.

  Nurses (Pay)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his Department's evidence to the pay review body on plans for regional variations in nurses' pay.

  Mr. Mellor
  The Health Department's written evidence to the review body which we published in October says that there is scope for a more flexible system of pay to respond to geographical and skill shortages. We have since asked the Review Body to consider setting aside around £5530
  million within their overall recommendations for a pilot exercise in supplementing national rates of basic pay where this is deemed appropriate on recruitment and retention grounds.

  Staff Regrading
  Mrs. Maureen Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many clinical regrading appeals have been considered to date; and what percentage of those have been regraded as a result.

  Mr. Mellor
  We do not hold this information centrally.

  Dr. Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the total number of nurse regrading appeals which have been made.

  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many appeals against nurses' gradings have been heard by health authorities; and how many appeals remain to be considered.

  Mr. Mellor
  We do not hold this information centrally.

  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many representations he has received about midwives' pay since the new pay structure was introduced.

  Mr. Mellor
  The Department has received some 400 written representations since the implementation process was completed. In addition, my right hon. and learned Friend met the president and the general secretary of the Royal College of Midwives on 7 December and had a friendly and useful discussion with them.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the progress being made on nurses' appeals over their recent regrading.

  Mr. Mellor
  I refer the hon. Member to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State's reply to the hon. Member for Ynys Mon (Mr. Jones) earlier today.

  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many representations he has received concerning the nurses' regrading review.

  Mr. Mellor
  The Department has received some 2,300 written representations since the implementation process was completed. In addition, we had friendly and constructive meetings with the president and the general secretary of the Royal College of Nursing on 5 December, and the president and general secretary of the Royal College of Midwives on 7 December.

  Hospital Doctors
  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospital doctors there were in 1978 and in 1986; and what proportion of them in each year were women.

  Mr. Mellor
  In 1978 and 1986 there were 38,527 and 43,992 hospital doctors respectively in England. Of these, 19· 4 per cent. in 1978 and 24·8 per cent. in 1986 were women.

  Coventry and Warwickshire Hospital
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health why letters from general practitioners referring
  531
  patients with non-urgent surgical conditions are presently being stockpiled by the medical records officer at the Coventry and Warwickshire hospital; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  With the help of central funding under our waiting list initiative in 1987–88, Coventry reduced the number of patients who had waited more than a year for general surgery from 355 in March 1987 to 217 in March 1988. Provisional data indicated a further reduction by September 1988 to 146, but this put pressure on the hospital's budget. Combined with the pressure on beds from urgent medical conditions over winter and high staff sickness particularly among nurses, this has led to a reduction in activity since October, and some 200 non-urgent out-patient cases referred by general practitioners to surgeons—5 per cent. of their normal workload—have not yet been given appointments. The district general manager is discussing with the surgeons how best to schedule appointments for all patients who have not yet been seen.

  NHS Review
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement concerning his plans to extend the mechanism of the internal market in the National Health Service.

  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to announce the results of the review of the National Health Service.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to allow hospitals to opt out of the present National Health Service management structure.

  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to make an announcement on the Government's review of the National Health Service.

  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to publish his White Paper on the future of the National Health Service; and if he will make a statement.

  Ms. Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will provide details of proposals currently being considered which would have the effect of some district general and other hospitals opting out of the structure of the National Health Service.

  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the implications for the distribution of hospitals in the National Health Service of measures to promote increased competition.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to publish the findings of the review of the National Health Service.

  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he intends to publish the results of the current review of the National Health Service; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has for experiments in the delivery of health care to National Health Service customers.
  532
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to publish the results of the National Health Service review.

  Mr. Roger King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the National Health Service review.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to publish his White Paper on the future of the National Health Service; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor:
  I refer my hon. Friends and the hon. Members to the reply given by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State to the hon. Members for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), for Western Isles (Mr. MacDonald), for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire), for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Blunkett) and for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo) earlier today.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has for ensuring greater cost-effectiveness in the National Health Service.

  Mr. Mellor
  The NHS is not a business, but it has to be more business-like. There is still a huge gulf between the best and the worst in terms of efficiency, customer choice, standards, good management and clear decision-taking. The Government intend to spread the best qualities of the enterprise economy more widely throughout the NHS, and we shall be bringing forward proposals to this end shortly.

  Abortions
  Mr. Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to instruct health authorities to take disciplinary action against staff who do not take all possible actions to preserve the life of foetuses born alive after attempted abortion operations.

  Mr. Mellor
  It is for health authorities to determine within well-established disciplinary procedures action to be taken in cases involving professional misconduct or incompetence.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of abortions performed in England in the latest year for which figures are available were performed because the child was likely to have been born severely handicapped.

  Mr. Freeman
  There were 170,197 notifications of abortions which were carried out in England in 1987 under the Abortion Act 1967, of which 1,826 (1·07 per cent.) mentioned ground 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).

  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he has any plans to seek to amend the Abortion Act 1967.

  Mr. Freeman
  Like their predecessors of both parties, the Government consider that amendments to the 1967 Act are a matter for private Members' legislation

  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on how many occasions during the last 12 months, for which figures are available, officials of his Department
  533
  have visited private abortion clinics licensed by his Department in order to monitor the implementation of the Abortion Act 1967.

  Mr. Freeman
  In 1988 the Department's medical, nursing and administrative officers made 79 visits of inspection to places approved under the Abortion Act 1967.

  Mr. Ashby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many recent representations he has received from right hon. and hon. Members urging more thorough monitoring of the Infant Life (Preservation) Act.

  Mr. Freeman
  We have had no such representations.

  Mr. Ken Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has as to the numbers of abortions performed by individual doctors; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  I regret that this information is not available centrally.

  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the most common technique for performing abortions after 18 weeks currently used in National Health Service abortion centres; and what that technique involves.

  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the most common technique for performing abortions after 18 weeks currently used in private abortion clinics.

  Mr. Freeman
  The most common technique for performing abortions carried out under the Abortion Act 1967 after 18 completed weeks gestation in both NHS and non-NHS premises in England and Wales is the use of prostaglandins, either alone or with other agents. This technique involves the introduction of prostaglandins within the uterus.

  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he has yet taken any steps to implement the 1973 recommendation of the Select Committee on Abortion that there should be no financial links between doctors and agencies who counsel women in difficult pregnancies and the centres in which abortions may subsequently be performed upon those women.

  Mr. Freeman
  We have no plans to alter the long-standing administrative conditions governing financial links between doctors and agencies who refer women for abortions and the private sector clinics in which such abortions are performed.

  Mr. Dickens
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has as to how many foetuses born alive following abortion operations survived in the latest year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  No information is collected at birth registration which distinguishes between foetuses born alive following abortion operations and other live births. Hence, no information would be available on the survival of such foetuses. The notification of abortions carried out under the Abortion Act 1967 does not require information about the outcome of the aborted foetus to be recorded.
  534
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many abortions were carried out in the United Kingdom in 1988; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  Complete statistics are not yet available for abortions performed in the United Kingdom for 1988. The table shows the latest figures for England and Wales for half of 1988, and figures for the constituent parts of the United Kingdom for the whole of 1987. The Abortion Act 1967 does not apply in Northern Ireland.

  Notifications of abortions carried out under the Abortion Act 1967 in the United Kingdom and its constituents parts 1987, 1988

  Area

  1987

  March and June quarters 19881

  England and Wales

  174,276

  92,715

  Scotland

  9,351

  n/a

  United Kingdom

  183,627

  n/a

  1Provisional—includes notifications received by end of August.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of all abortions performed under the terms of the Abortion Act 1967 have been performed(a) in the case of a pregnancy resulting from rape or (b) in emergency to save the life of the mother.

  Mr. Freeman
  The total number of notifications of legal abortions, to resident and non-resident women, carried out under the Abortion Act 1967, from 27 April 1968 to 30 June 1988, is 2,899,4051. Of these, 1301 (0·004 per cent.) were performed in an emergency in order to save the life of the pregnant woman.

  As rape is not in itself a statutory ground for performing an abortion under the 1967 Act, and is not required to be specified on the notification form by the certifying doctor, the exact number of notifications of abortions associated with rape is not known. However, in some cases the information is volunteered, and arrangements have been made to code separately and analyse all notifications forms which mention rape from 1 January 1987. Of the 266,991 notifications received for the period January 1987 to June 1988 inclusive, 45 (0·02 per cent.) mentioned rape. Earlier, but non-comparable, data were collected clerically and published for the years 1968–73, in table 12 of the Registrar General's "Statistical Review, Supplement on Abortion", copies of which are in the Library. The reliability of these earlier data is uncertain.

  1 The total number of abortions is based on notifications received (1968 to 1980) and on occurrences (1981 to 1986). Data for 1988 are provisional.

  Hospices
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the number is of terminally ill patients now being cared for in hospices; what the figure was for five years ago; and what has been the change in Government funding for hospice projects over the same period.

  Mr. Freeman
  Information is not available in the form requested. We are, however, currently collecting information from health authorities on the estimated demand for specialist services for the terminally ill and on their arrangements for the financial support of voluntary hospices.
  535

  Smoking (Health Warnings)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will provide details of the options considered by his Department for changing the wording of Government health warnings in relation to smoking and health.

  Mr. Freeman
  Health warnings are included on some tobacco products in the United Kingdom by virtue of a voluntary agreement with the tobacco industry. We will seek renegotiation of this agreement and new health warnings will be considered. The Commission of the European Communities has also brought forward proposals on tobacco labelling including health warnings, which are at present under discussion.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his proposals for strengthening Government health warnings on cigarette packets.

  Mr. Freeman
  Health warnings are included on packets of cigarettes and hand rolling tobacco by virtue of a voluntary agreement with the tobacco industry. That agreement will stand at least until 31 October 1989. We intend to seek renegotiation of the agreement and new health warnings will be one of the matters which will be considered.

  Cancer Screening
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will report on progress in setting up the breast cancer screening programme.

  Mr. Freeman
  I am pleased to announce the arrangements for the provision of breast cancer screening services to all district health authorities in England. The service will provide routine screening for women aged 50 to 64 and for older women on request. The list shows both the first regional centres which were established early last year and the further centres and consortia which regions plan to set up by 1990 to serve the remaining population, although these may be subject to slight alteration as proposals are finalised. Against each name is a list of the district health authorities which it will serve. In some cases more than one unit will operate from the base named. Those centres which to date have become operational are marked with an asterisk. Equitable access to services will be ensured by the provision, where appropriate, of a combination of static and mobile facilities. Detailed information about local arrangements can be obtained through regional health authorities.

  We are very pleased with the commitment which health authorities and their staff are showing towards this programme which will make a significant contribution to the health of the women in this country.

  Breast cancer screening service

  Screening centre or consortium

  Districts served

  Northern Regional Health Authority

  Gateshead *

  Gateshead

  Durham

  South Tyneside

  Sunderland

  Newcastle

  Newcastle

  North Tyneside

  536

  Screening centre or consortium

  Districts served

  Northumberland

  North West Durham

  North Tees

  North Tees

  South Tees

  Darlington

  Hartlepool

  South West Durham

  West Cumbria

  West Cumbria

  South Cumbria

  East Cumbria

  Yorkshire Regional Health Authority

  Huddersfield*

  Huddersfield

  Calderdale

  Dewsbury

  Hull

  Hull

  East Yorkshire

  Grimsby

  Scunthorpe

  York

  York

  Scarborough

  Northallerton

  Bradford

  Airedale

  Leeds

  Bradford Leeds Eastern

  Leeds Western

  Pontefract

  Wakefield

  Harrogate

  Trent Regional Health Authority

  Nottingham*

  Nottingham

  Central Nottinghamshire

  Bassetlaw

  Leicester

  Leicestershire

  Lincolnshire*

  North Lincolnshire

  South Lincolnshire

  South Yorkshire

  Barnsley

  Doncaster

  Rotherham

  Derbyshire

  North Derbyshire

  Southern Derbyshire

  Sheffield

  Sheffield

  East Anglian Regional Health Authority

  Peterborough

  West Norfolk and Wisbech

  and West Norfolk*

  Peterborough

  Suffolk

  East Suffolk

  West Suffolk

  Great Yarmouth

  and Waveney (part)

  Norwich

  Norwich

  Great Yarmouth

  and Waveney (part)

  Cambridge and Huntingdon

  Cambridge

  Huntingdon

  North West Thames Regional Health Authority

  Charing Cross Hospital

  Riverside

  Hounslow and Spelthorne

  Ealing

  Hillingdon

  537

  Screening centre or consortium

  Districts served

  Edgware General Hospital*

  Barnet

  Harrow

  Parkside

  South West Hertfordshire

  Luton and Dunstable Hospital

  North West Hertfordshire

  North Bedfordshire

  South Bedfordshire

  North Hertfordshire

  East Hertfordshire

  North East Thames Regional Health Authority

  Epping*

  West Essex

  Redbridge

  Bloomsbury*

  Bloomsbury

  Hampstead

  Islington

  East London

  City and Hackney

  Newham

  Tower Hamlets

  Chelmsford and Colchester

  North East Essex

  Mid Essex

  Whipps Cross

  Waltham Forrest

  Barking,

  Barking,

  Havering and Brentwood

  Havering and Brentwood

  North Middlesex

  Enfield

  Haringey

  South Essex

  Southend Basildon and Thurrock

  South East Thames Regional Health Authority

  Camberwell*

  Camberwell

  West Lambeth

  Lewisham

  and North Southwark

  Greenwich

  Bexley

  Bromley

  Canterbury

  Canterbury and Thanet

  South East Kent

  Maidstone

  Tunbridge Wells

  Medway

  Dartford and Gravesham

  East Sussex

  Brighton

  Eastbourne

  Hastings

  South West Thames Regional Health Authority

  Guildford (1)*

  Mid Surrey

  North West Surrey

  South West Surrey

  (2)*

  West Surrey

  and North East Hants.

  East Surrey

  Worthing

  Worthing

  Chichester

  Mid Downs

  Wandsworth (1)

  Wandsworth

  Croydon

  Kingston and Esher

  Merton and Sutton

  (2)

  Richmond, Twickenham

  and Roehampton

  538

  Screening centre or consortium

  Districts served

  Wessex Regional Health Authority

  Southampton*

  Southampton

  and South West Hampshire

  Salisbury

  Isle of Wight*

  Isle of Wight

  Portsmouth*

  Portsmouth

  and South East Hampshire

  Dorset

  East Dorset

  West Dorset

  Bath/Swindon

  Bath

  Swindon

  Winchester/Basingstoke

  Winchester

  Basingstoke

  and North Hampshire

  Oxford Regional Health Authority

  Aylesbury*

  Aylesbury Vale

  Northampton

  Northampton

  Wycombe

  Wycombe

  Milton Keynes

  Milton Keynes

  Kettering

  Kettering

  Reading*

  West Berkshire

  Windsor

  East Berkshire

  Oxford/Banbury

  Oxfordshire

  South Western Regional Health Authority

  Cornwall*

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  West Devon

  Plymouth

  North Devon

  East Devon

  Exeter

  Torbay

  Somerset

  Somerset

  Avon

  Bristol and Weston

  Frenchay

  Southmead

  Gloucestershire

  Gloucester

  Cheltenham and District

  West Midlands Regional Health Authority

  Stoke-on-Trent (1)*'

  North Staffordshire

  (2)

  Mid Staffordshire

  South East Staffordshire

  Coventry (1)

  Coventry

  North Warwickshire

  (2)

  Rugby

  South Warwickshire

  Solihull

  Dudley

  Dudley

  Wolverhampton

  Walsall

  Walsall

  Sandwell

  Birmingham (1)

  North Birmingham

  East Birmingham

  West Birmingham

  Birmingham (2)

  Central Birmingham

  South Birmingham

  539

  Screening centre or consortium

  Districts served

  Bromsgrove General Community

  Hospital

  Worcester

  Hereford

  Kidderminster and District

  Bromsgrove and Redditch

  Shrewsbury

  Shropshire

  Mersey Regional Health Authority

  Liverpool (1)*

  Liverpool

  (2)

  Southport and Formby

  South Sefton

  St. Helen's and Knowsley (part)

  Warrington

  Warrington

  Halton

  St. Helen's and Knowsley (part)

  Crewe

  Crewe

  Macclesfield

  Macclesfield

  Wirral

  Wirral

  Chester

  Chester

  North Western Regional Health Authority

  South Manchester*

  North Manchester

  Central Manchester

  South Manchester

  Stockport1

  Tameside and Glossop

  Oldham

  Trafford

  Salford

  Wigan*

  Wigan

  West Lancashire

  Chorley and South Ribble

  Bolton*

  Bolton

  Bury

  Rochdale

  North East Sector

  Blackburn, Hyndburn

  and Ribble Valley

  Burnley, Pendle

  and Rossendale

  North West Sector

  Preston

  Blackpool, Wyre and Fylde

  Lancaster

  Dental Treatment
  Mr. Janman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many courses of dental treatment were carried out in 1978 and in 1986; and how many dentists there were in each year.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested is set out in the table.

  General dental services—England

  Year

  Number of courses of treatment 000s

  Number of dentists

  1978

  27,105

  11,919

  1986

  32,279

  14,516

  Hepatitis B
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received for additional funds to meet the cost to district health authorities of funding of vaccination of National Health Service employees against Hepatitis B.

  Mr. Freeman
  Written representations on behalf of Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale community health council have been received from three hon. Members, including one from the hon. Member himself. I have replied in writing to the hon. Member.

  In-patients
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people were treated as in-patients in 1978 and how many in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Freeman
  In the financial year 1987–88, 6,619,354 in-patient cases were treated in England. This was 23 per cent. more than the 5,370,319 cases treated in 1978.

  Family Practitioner Committee
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the powers and responsibilities of family practitioner committees.

  Mr. Mellor
  The present statutory powers and responsibilities of family practitioner committees are set out in the following statutes:

  National Health Service Act 1987 Chapter 49

  Health and Social Security Act 1984 Chapter 48

  NHS Functions (Directions to Authorities and
  Administration Arrangements) Regulations 1989.
  SI 1989 No. 51

  NHS England and Wales. The Family Practitioner
  Committees (Membership and Procedure) Regulations
  1985. SI1985 No. 213

  NHS (General Medical and Pharmaceutical Services)
  Regulations 1974. SI 1974 No. 160,

  NHS (Family Practitioner Committees Supply of Goods)
  Regulations 1974. SI 1974 No. 191

  NHS (Service Committees and Tribunals) Regulations
  1974. SI 1974 No. 455

  NHS (Charges for Drugs and Appliances) Regulations
  1980. SI 1980 No. 1503

  NHS (General Dental Services) Regulations 1973. SI1973
  No. 1468

  NHS (General Ophthalmic Services) Regulations 1936.
  SI1986 No. 975

  NHS (Payment for Optical Appliances) Regulations 1936.
  SI1986 No. 976

  These are augmented by administrative circulars from time to time issued by my Department.

  Competitive Tendering
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his Department's record in encouraging local health authorities to put their services out to tender.

  Mr. Freeman
  The competitive tendering initiative launched five years ago concentrated on domestic, catering and laundry services. Virtually all these services have now been subjected to the tendering process. The initiative has generated not only substantial annual savings (almost £110 million) but has provided improved specification of services, more flexible provision, tighter budgetary control
  541
  and improved productivity. In the light of these perceived benefits a number of health authorities have extended, or are planning to extend, the range of services subject to the tendering process, for example portering and security services, estate services, computer services and supplies distribution. Over £1·2 billion of National Health Service services are now subject to routine competition. We shall continue to encourage health authorities to consider competitive tendering as a means of improving efficiency in the way services are delivered thus maximising the resources available for patient care.

  Rural Maternity Units
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what response he has made to the representations which he received regarding the proposals of the Leicestershire health authority to close rural maternity units; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  This is at present a matter for the district health authority with the region following consultations on the proposals issued last September. The standard procedure in relation to the closure of health facilities requires Ministers to make the final decision if agreement cannot be reached locally among the community health council and the health authorities. My hon. Friend will appreciate that it would be inappropriate for me to comment at this stage.

  Hospital Consultants
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to increase the number of hospital consultants; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  Health authorities are responsible for determining the number of consultants they require to meet service needs. Their strategic plans indicate an annual increase in the number of consultants which averages 2 per cent. per annum and regions will be held to account for achieving these plans. In addition to this, "Achieving a Balance", a 10-year plan to reform hospital medical staffing, introduced specific measures to give a further boost to the number of consultant posts.

  Community Care
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to complete his consideration of the recommendations of the Griffiths report on community care; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he now expects to make a statement on implementation of the recommendations of the Griffiths report.

  Mr. Mellor
  We are actively engaged at present in working up our own proposals for the future of community care. I am mindful of concern that we should reach a conclusion as soon as possible. We hope to be in a position to bring forward our plans in the near future.

  Food Quality
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received from consumer health organisations about the impact on health of the quality or contents of food available in the United Kingdom.
  542
  Mr. Freeman
  We have not received any such representations. The Secretary of State for Health and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food jointly consider all proposals for regulations under the Food Act and are required to consult widely before making such regulations. The consumer organisations are among those whose views are sought and our officials have frequent contacts with these organisations.

  NHS Patients (Private Hospitals)
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the cost to the National Health Service of paying private hospitals to treat National Health Service patients in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Mellor
  The summarised accounts of health authorities for 1987–88 record total expenditure on contractual hospitals and homes of £52·4 million. At this stage the figure is provisional as it is subject to audit.

  Hospitals (Resource Management)
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the results of the pilot projects on resource management in hospitals.

  Mr. Mellor
  The resource management experiments will be formally evaluated by the Joint Consultants Committee and the NHS Management Board, the joint sponsors of the initiative, in October 1989.

  Piloting at the reference sites is still continuing. The work to date has already demonstrated the significance of a number of elements. These include the importance of good quality medical records data; the value associated with involving doctors and nurses in decision making and giving them a sense of ownership of their data; the importance of involving all staff in the projects and of good quality local management; the desirability of introducing nurse management and other information systems and the feeding back to managers and clinicians of existing information. These and other issues were discussed at a meeting with RHA chairmen on 18 January.

  Wheelchairs
  Mr. Flannery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has received any representations during the past year for more battery powered wheelchairs for the chronically disabled.

  Mr. Mellor
  These are matters for the Disablement Services Authority, to which the hon. Member should address questions.

  Sex-change Operations
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give the number of sex-change operations performed by the National Health Service, both male to female and female to male, for each of the last 20 years, giving the cost to the Exchequer in each case.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) on 1 March 1988, at column 557.

  Wessex Regional Health Authority
  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he plans next to meet the chairman of the Wessex regional health authority.

  Mr. Mellor
  I met the Wessex chairman at the region's ministerial review on 10 January. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and I saw all chairmen on 18 January and will expect to meet Mr. Buchanan again at our next regular meeting with regional chairmen on 14–15 March.

  NHS Expenditure
  Mr. David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health by what proportion spending on the National Health Service has increased above the rate of inflation since 1979; and what is his estimate of the likely figure when the additional resources he has announced for the coming year are taken into account.

  Mr. Mellor
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) on 14 December 1988, at column 597.

  Cook-chill Catering
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he intends to make available the amended recommendations concerning the introduction of the cook-chill meals system into hospitals under the charge of the Wakefield district health authority; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Wakefield district health authority is responsible for arrangements for the introduction of the cook-chill meals system in hospitals under its charge and there is no reason why it should not introduce the system forthwith provided it ensures that the existing departmental guidelines on pre-cooked chilled foods are followed. Updated guidelines are nearly ready for publication, but there is no reason to delay the use of cook-chill equipment while we are waiting for publication.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to be in a position to publish his Department's revised guidelines on pre-cooked meals in catering, chilled and frozen.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The updated guidelines are nearly ready for publication.

  Hospitals (Staffing Review)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will state the number of regional steering groups, concerned with the safety net review of hospital medical staffing, which have issued guidance to their respective district working parties in accordance with his suggested timetable, or later, respectively.

  Mr. Mellor
  We do not hold this information centrally. We have requested an interim report on progress in carrying out the review of juniors' hours and the safety-net from health authorities by later this month.

  Hypothermia
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give the latest estimate of the number 544
  of deaths in the United Kingdom from hypothermia and cold-related diseases in the last winter period for which figures are available.

  Mr. Freeman
  The latest complete winter period for which figures are available is the winter of 1987–88. The provisional number of deaths registered in the United Kingdom with any mention of hypothermia on the death certificate, irrespective of whether it appeared as the underlying cause of death or did not, for the period October 1987 to March 1988 inclusive, is 449.

  Transplants
  Mr. Richard Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what is being done to improve the supply of donor organs for transplants.

  Mr. Freeman
  We have recently issued detailed guidance to health authorities on this subject. For further information, I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) on 13 December, at column 555.

  We are also carrying out a continuing publicity programme. My reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) today gives further details.

  Mr. Curry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will report progress on the current campaign on donor cards.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Department's donor card campaign is continuing to progress well. The range of outlets where the cards are available has been expanded and there has been a substantial increase in the number of cards distributed compared with last year.

  "Readers Digest" is producing and distributing over 5 million donor cards in its February issue at no cost to the Department.

  A video for transplant co-ordinators displays and a new range of leaflets will be launched in the spring.

  Norwich Health Authority
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what extra funds have been made available to the Norwich health authority during the past year.

  Mr. Mellor
  Allocations to district health authorities are a matter for the regional health authorities concerned. However, I understand that in 1988–89 the East Anglian regional health authority made available an additional £6,145,000 to the Norwich health authority. Norwich health authority is also to receive a further sum of about £1·4 million to meet the cost of the nurses regrading exercise.

  "Look After Your Heart"
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he has plans for a media campaign on "Look after your Heart".

  Mr. Freeman
  A major publicity campaign began at the end of December and is planned to continue throughout 1989. It includes national and regional television advertising, and a series of advertisements in the national press. The campaign will complement a comprehensive
  545
  programme of activity involving industry and commerce, local groups, primary health care activity and special promotions.

  North-West Region
  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what additional resources have been provided to health authorities in the north-west over the past 18 months.

  Mr. Mellor
  Gross revenue expenditure in North Western regional health authority increased in 1987–88 by 8·7 per cent. in cash and 3·2 per cent. in real terms over the previous year. The region's initial revenue cash limit for 1988–89 was £1,038·8 million. Subsequent in-year additions have been made for:

  £ million

  Review Body pay awards

  53·5

  Waiting lists

  2·6

  AIDS

  0·5

  Other services

  0·4

  As a result expenditure this year is expected to rise by over 9 per cent. compared with 1987–88, a real terms increase of some 3 per cent.

  The allocation of funds to districts within the region is a matter for the regional health authority.

  Yorkshire Regional Health Authority
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he next intends to meet the chairman of the Yorkshire regional health authority; and what he expects to discuss.

  Mr. Mellor
  I last met him on Wednesday 18 January and I expect to do so again shortly. A wide range of issues were discussed.

  Mr. Kirkhope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made on major hospital building schemes costing more than £1 million in the Yorkshire regional health authority area.

  Mr. Freeman
  Information held centrally shows that last year six schemes, each costing more than £1 million, were completed by the Yorkshire regional health authority, including phase 1 of the redevelopment of Staincliffe district general hospital. A further 42 schemes are at various stages of planning, design and construction including major developments at Scunthorpe, St. James hospital, Leeds and St. Lukes hospital, Bradford.

  Health Education Authority
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last met the director of the Health Education Authority; and what subjects were discussed.

  Mr. Freeman
  My right hon. and learned Friend, the Secretary of State and my predecessor the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) last met the chief executive of the Health Education Authority on 8 December 1988 to discuss the "Look After Your Heart" campaign.

  Abortions and Infertility Treatment
  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to require health 546
  authorities to provide separate facilities for women having abortions and those receiving infertility treatment in National Health Service hospitals; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  Provision of health services is a matter for individual health authorities in the light of local needs and priorities. We would, however, expect health authorities to consider the individual needs of patients, in this respect, as far as is possible.

  Nurses (Training)
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will make a statement on post-registration training courses for nurses.

  Mr. Mellor
  The chief executive of the National Health Service Management Board will be writing shortly to health authority general managers asking them to submit bids for pump-priming new developments in post-registration nurse training in the high technology specialties.

  This follows a survey by the management board of training and development in the high technology specialties. The results of the survey are being sent to health authorities and a copy will be placed in the Library. In addition, the English National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting has been asked to draw up proposals to review the structure of post-registration training in order to widen access and reduce any duplication or overlap between different courses.

  Some £4 million will be available in 1989–90 for these complementary activities. This demonstrates the importance we attach to equipping nurses with the skills they need in an increasingly complex health care environment.

  Royal College of Midwives
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he next expects to meet officers of the Royal College of Midwives.

  Mr. Mellor
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State had a friendly and useful discussion with the president and the general secretary of the Royal College of Midwives on 7 December. No date was set for a future meeting, but we have regular meetings with the royal college to discuss a wide range of issues and I would expect and hope that this practice will continue.

  Drugs Campaign
  Mr. Franks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will report on progress on the current campaign against drugs.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health to my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Stevens) on 13 December 1988, at column 550.

  Stillborn Children (Parents)
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what attention is given to the emotional needs of the parents of stillborn children.

  Mr. Freeman
  The 1985 Maternity Services Advisory Committee report "Maternity Care In Action", which was
  547
  commended to all health authorities in England and Wales, emphasises the crucial importance of helping parents of stillborn children to come to terms with their loss and grief. It gives detailed guidance on the ways in which this can be done. A copy of the report is available in the Library.

  The Stillbirth and Neonatal Death Society (SANDS), which has received £75,000 in funding from the Department in the last three years, also makes a valuable contribution by raising awareness of the needs of parents.

  Mentally Handicapped Persons
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received concerning the transfer of control of care for mentally handicapped persons in Bexley to Social Policy Management Services Ltd.

  Mr. Freeman
  None.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what guidance he issues to local authorities concerning the transfer of responsibility for care of mentally handicapped persons to private companies;
  (2) what is his policy on the privatisation of local authority services for the care of mentally handicapped persons.

  Mr. Freeman
  No specific guidance has been issued. The Department encourages local and health authorities, which have statutory responsibility for providing care for mentally handicapped people, to work closely together with the private and voluntary sectors to develop a fully integrated range of services tailored to the specific needs of mentally handicapped people in the most cost-effective way.

  Docklands
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of extra demand for health care consequent upon the development of the docklands area of the London borough of Newham.

  Mr. Mellor
  It is for health authorities to plan local health services in the light of changing local needs and circumstances.

  We understand that Newham health authority and the City and East London FPCs, which are responsible for health provision in the docklands area of the London borough of Newham, are working with the London docklands development corporation to ensure that it is able to take account of future demand for health care. The hon. Member may wish to approach the chairmen of Newham health authority and City and East London FPCs for further information.

  NHS Property
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what basis National Health Service land was valued before and after the two dates given in his reply to the hon. Member for Norfolk, North Official Report, 16 November 1987, column 441, 27 November 1987, columns 319–21 and 19 April 1988, column 382, and upon whose advice; and what would be the notional value of this National Health Service estate with planning consent.
  548
  Mr. Freeman
  My predecessor's reply of 16 November 1987, at column 439, gave the 1985 existing use value of the NHS estate (£12·7 billion). The existing use value is the summation of the depreciated replacement cost of the buildings and the value of the land on which they stand. The 1987 revaluation increased this figure to £18·1 billion.

  My predecessor's reply of 19 April 1988, at column 382 gave the provisional open market value of the estate following the 1987 revaluation. The final calculation of this value gave a figure of £7·4 billion. The open market value, which assumes the most likely planning consent, represents the opportunity cost of the land and buildings.

  All valuations are carried out by the chief valuers office of the Inland Revenue.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, if he will list the receipts from the sales of National Health Service mental hospital property and land since 1979 by regional health authorities in relation to the total receipt of sales of National Health Service property and land, by region, giving anticipated receipts similarly classified for future years.

  Mr. Freeman
  The most recent information on receipts from sales of surplus NHS property and land by regional health authority was given by my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State for Health to the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) on 19 December 1988. Information is not routinely collected on sales of surplus NHS property and land defined by functional group and to collect it by means of a special exercise would involve disproportionate cost. Regional health authorities' forecasts of sales proceeds for the current and next three years are set out in the table.

  Forecast-receipts from the sale of NHS properties and land

  £ million

  Region

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  Northern

  5·3

  2·2

  1·3

  0·8

  Yorkshire

  13·5

  14·0

  0·9

  4·2

  Trent

  17·2

  11·0

  3·6

  2·9

  East Anglian

  11·0

  3·0

  3·1

  2·5

  North West Thames

  45·2

  54·0

  37·2

  50·0

  North East Thames

  71·0

  58·0

  22·0

  44·8

  South East Thames

  40·7

  28·0

  21·0

  21·0

  South West Thames

  25·0

  1

  1

  1

  Wessex

  20·5

  10·0

  5·0

  5·0

  Oxford

  17·6

  1·0

  3·2

  0·1

  South Western

  21·0

  19·7

  3·0

  4·4

  West Midlands

  11·3

  3·0

  5·7

  5·2

  Mersey

  8·8

  6·7

  3·6

  1·6

  North Western

  24·7

  2·5

  0·7

  1

  SHAs

  4·2

  22·5

  nil

  nil

  England

  337·0

  2235·6

  2110·3

  2142·5

  1Not available.

  2Provisional figure.

  Departmental Staff (Pay)
  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the number of staff in his Department, by grade, in receipt of local pay additions outside London and the south-east economic planning region; what are the different amounts paid to staff by grade; whether this figure varies due to location; what qualifying period of scale-related criteria is used; and whether this varies by location.
  549
  Mr. Mellor
  There are no Department of Health staff in receipt of local pay additions outside London and the south-east economic planning region.

  Adverse Drug Reaction
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many doctors and dentists used the yellow card adverse reaction reporting procedure on(a) one occasion,(b) two occasions, (c) three occasions, (d) four occasions and (e) five occasions or more in each of the years between 1985 and 1988;
  (2) how many doctors and dentists made adverse drug reaction reports to the Committee on Safety of Medicines in each of the years between 1985 and 1988, inclusive;
  (3) how many adverse drug reaction reports from doctors and dentists were received by the Committee on Safety of Medicines in each of the years 1985 to 1988.

  Mr. Mellor
  The total number of adverse drug reaction reports received by the Committee on Safety of Medicines in each of the years 1985–88 was as follows:

  Number

  1985

  12,652

  1986

  15,527

  1987

  16,431

  1988

  19,022

  We do not record the numbers of individual doctors and dentists who report adverse drug reactions to the CSM and this information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Malignant Neoplasms
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the reply of 17 January to the hon. Member for Southend East,Official Report, columns 114–15, why no figures on newly diagnosed cases of malignant neoplasms in persons under 15 years of age are available since the year 1984; and when he expects the figures for 1985 and later years to be available.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Office of Population Censuses and Surveys publishes annual cancer statistics using data collected by 12 regional registries which are funded by the regional health authorities.

  The target for the publication of data for individuals diagnosed in 1985 was the middle of 1988. In practice the timing of publication is largely governed by when the slowest regional cancer registry provided OPCS with data. It should be borne in mind that regional registries exist to produce data for local management and research purposes as well as supplying data for the national cancer scheme. They sometimes have local priorities which conflict with the timely supply of data to OPCS.

  OPCS is currently waiting for data from two registries on approximately 8,000 individuals diagnosed with cancer in 1985. Information on these cases is expected to be received by the end of February and we plan to publish the 1985 cancer registration volume in the summer of this year.

  Doctors (Complaints)
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations he has received about the procedures available to investigate complaints against doctors; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Government's proposals for changing the complaints procedures for the family practitioner services were published in the White Paper "Promoting Better Health". The aim of the proposals is to simplify and streamline procedures and to recast the governing regulations as a whole in simpler and plainer language. Consultations with interested bodies have not yet been completed.

  Directions on the procedures for complaints by hospital patients were issued to health authorities in June 1988. No representations have been received.

  Osteoporosis
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has any plans to introduce a national screening programme for women at risk from osteoporosis.

  Mr. Freeman
  There are at present no plans to introduce a national screening programme for women at risk from osteoporosis. Further research is required on the appropriate techniques to use for screening and which criteria should be used to identify those at highest risk. The Medical Research Council, which receives its grant-in-aid from the Department of Education and Science, has set up a specialist group which is considering this question and we shall keep developments under review.

  Imported Food
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many prosecutions have been made for breaches of the Imported Food Regulations 1984.

  Mr. Freeman
  This information is not collected centrally.

EMPLOYMENT

  Earnings
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many weekly or monthly paid people in the United Kingdom are estimated to earn in excess of(a) £20,000, (b) £25,000 and (c) £50,000 per annum.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The latest estimates available from the Inland Revenue's survey of personal incomes for the tax year 1986 –87 are as follows:

  Income from employment in excess of £

  Numbers (thousands)

  20,000

  347

  25,000

  298

  50,000

  38

  Staff (Pay)
  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) what is the number of staff in the Training
  551
  Agency, by grade, in receipt of local pay additions outside London and the south-east economic planning region; what are the different amounts paid to staff, by grade; whether this figure varies due to location; what qualifying period of scale-related criteria is used; and whether this varies by location;

  (2) what is the number of staff in his Department, by grade, in receipt of local pay additions outside London and the south-east economic planning region; what are the different amounts paid to staff, by grade; whether this figure varies due to location; what qualifying period of scale-related criteria is used; and whether this varies by location.

  Mr. Cope
  Neither the Employment Department nor the Training Agency make any local pay additions to staff outside London and the south-east planning region.

  Employment Training
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will extend the employment training scheme to include the sponsorship of young persons wishing to become commercial airline pilots.

  Mr. Nicholls
  There are no plans to make commercial pilot training available in employment training. The Air Transport Industry Training Association already carries out comprehensive training to meet its own requirements, including a thorough selection and assessment process.

  Opencast Mining
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when the code of practice setting out national standards for opencast mining in the vicinity of water courses will be published.

  Mr. Nicholls
  It is not possible to give a final date for the publication of the code of practice on the stability of excavated slopes at opencast coal sites, but it is expected this summer.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what measures he is taking to ensure that small businesses are well managed and that, where appropriate, managers employed in large businesses are encouraged to join small businesses.

  Mr. Lee
  The Training Agency currently supports a wide range of programmes aimed at improving the business and management skills of small firms and the small firms service offers advice to large numbers of owner/managers. In the White Paper "Employment for the 1990s" published last month, I announced plans to bring these together under the Training Agency and to establish training and enterprise councils. These developments will ensure that advice and training are closely linked, relevant to the business objectives of owner/ managers and reflect local needs.

  Managers in large businesses may be encouraged to join small firms by the strength of the small firms sector and the range of encouragement to enterprise that we have introduced.

  Viraj Mendis
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information he has as to any claims by, and payments made to, Mr. Viraj Mendis for unemployment benefit since 1973.

  Mr. Lee
  My officials are unable to trace records of Mr. Mendis's benefit claims before December 1980. I can confirm that although Mr. Mendis made a number of claims for unemployment benefit after this date, no unemployment benefit was paid.

  Business Growth Training
  Mr. Roger King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement about his plans for the business growth through training programme, announced in the White Paper entitled "Employment for the 1990s", Cm. 540

  Mr. Fowler
  I can now announce that the programme, "Business Growth Training" will start on 1 April and that expenditure on it will be £55 million in a full year. The programme is designed to help the smaller business in particular and it will have four major components:help for smaller firms with fewer than 500 employees to obtain outside advice to improve their performance through better training. Up to £15,000 will be available to meet up to half the costs of professional assistance to plan for the training of their employees as part of a strategy for managing change; associated training of managers and supervisors; purchase of open learning materials, and other forms of training new to the firm;
  training of owners and managers of very small businesses in better management and business skills in order to help them run and develop their business;
  projects to demonstrate how new approaches to training and development can help employers meet their business needs more effectively. Selected firms will be given up to half of the agreed costs, up to a maximum of £60,000, to mount the projects and to disseminate the results to other employers;
  projects to help to start up partnerships between businesses on a national sectoral basis or locally, to define needs for training in key skills, and to develop a long-term strategy for improving the supply of those skills. Funding will be limited to a maximum of £60,000, up to half the costs. The Training Agency will draw up priorities for responding to applications for this pump-priming funding.

  With the introduction of these new arrangements on 1
  April, the local grants for employers scheme, local collaborative projects and national priority skills scheme will end. Existing commitments will of course be honoured. Those elements of the former training for enterprise programme which do not form part of employment training (the private enterprise programme, graduate enterprise programme, firmstart and growth programmes) will continue under business growth training.

  Transfer of Undertakings Regulations
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans to amend(a) the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 or (b) the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) (Amendment) Regulations 1987.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 23 January 1989]: My right hon. Friend has no such plans.

  Graduates
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment with whom he has discussed the graduates in employment statistics outlined in the January 1989 edition of the Employment Gazette, at pages 22 and 23;

  (2) if he has any plans to discuss the graduate in employment statistics outlined in the January 1989 edition of the Employment Gazette at pages 22 and 23 with the Confederation of British Industry and the Scottish Council (Development and Industry).

  Mr. Lee
  [holding answer 19 January 1989]: We have no plans to initiate discussions on the information in the article.

  The article itself was based on a paper prepared for the Department of Education and Science-led review of the demand for graduates, which in turn was based on information extracted from the labour force survey.

  The Confederation of British Industry is represented on the review's working groups, which also include officials from relevant Departments, including the Scottish Office, and representatives from the Council for Industry and Higher Education. The Scottish Council for Development and Industry is not a member.

  Departmental Advertising
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how much he has spent on advertising in each of the last three years, and what was the breakdown of expenditure on advertising in each of these years.

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 20 January 1989]: The amount spent by the Department of Employment on advertising during the financial years 1985–86, 1986–87 and 1987–88, broken down by media category was as follows:

  £million

  Year

  Television

  Press/Radio

  Posters

  Total

  1985–86

  Nil

  0·1

  Nil

  0·1

  1986–87

  9·3

  3·0

  0·4

  12·7

  1987–88

  3·0

  0·5

  2·6

  6·1

  These figures include production costs and VAT.

  HSE (Prosecutions)
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what criteria are used by the Health and Safety Executive when deciding if a prosecution should go on indictment to the Crown court.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 23 January 1989]: It is a decision for magistrates courts, and not for the Health and Safety Executive, whether particular cases should be taken on indictment to the Crown court.

  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment on how many occasions in 1988 private solicitors were instructed to conduct prosecutions on behalf of the Health and Safety Executive; and if he will consider transferring all prosecution work under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act and associated legislation to the Crown Prosecution Service.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 23 January 1989]: In England and Wales in 1987–88, the latest years for which
  554
  figures are available, 234 cases were conducted by private solicitors on behalf of the Health and Safety Executive. My right hon. Friend has no plans to transfer prosecution work in the highly technical and specialised field of health and safety law to the Crown Prosecution Service,

  Hantergantick Quarry (Fatalities)
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many informations were laid before Bodmin magistrates by the Health and Safety Executive in respect of the double fatality at Hantergantick quarry on 25 August 1987; and to what breaches of statutory provisions each of these informations related.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 23 January 1989): A total of two informations were laid: one under section 2(1) of the health and Safety At Work, etc. Act. 1974, and another under section 109 of the Mines and Quarries Act 1954.

  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment why all informations laid before Bodmin magistrates in connection with the double fatality at Hantergantick quarry of 25 August 1987 were not proceeded with.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 23 January 1989]: The section of statute under which the successful prosecution proceeded was the result of the considered advice of solicitors and counsel.

  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether the prosecution relating to the double fatality at Hantergantick quarry on 25 August 1987 was conducted by the Health and Safety Executive's own staff, or whether outside solicitors were instructed.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 23 January 1989]: The prosecution was undertaken by a local firm of solicitors, under the instructions from HSE legal division.

  Safety at Work
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has made an assessment of the service provided by the procurator fiscal's department in conducting all prosecutions in Scotland under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 23 January 1989]: No.

  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps are taken to ensure that all inspectors authorised to conduct legal proceedings under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 have received sufficient training and have a sufficient knowledge of magistrates courts proceedings to enable them to conduct the proceedings correctly; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 23 January 1989]: All newly appointed Health and Safety Executive inspectors who will be required to conduct legal proceedings attend, as part of their training, a course on magistrates court procedures, collection of evidence, presentation of cases and the conduct of proceedings in court. Further courses covering the same material are provided for inspectors in mid career either to update their skills and knowledge or before they are likely to conduct legal proceedings in a magistrates court.
  555
  HSE's inspectors are also provided with comprehensive written guidance on magistrates court procedures and the conduct of proceedings in court.

  Summerwest World (Injury)
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what action was undertaken by the Health and Safety Executive following the injury to a small boy at Butlins Summerwest World, Minehead in September 1988 on the water slide; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 23 January 1989]: In accordance with the Health and Safety (Enforcing Authority) Regulations 1977, enforcement of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 at Butlins Summerwest World, Minehead is carried out by West Somerset district council, and consequently the Health and Safety Executive has no information about this incident.

DEFENCE

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many oral parliamentary questions he has answered by written reply because the question was not reached at Question Time, for the most recent year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Younger
  In 1988, 721 oral parliamentary questions were answered by written reply owing to the question not being reached at Question Time.

  Royal Air Force Officer and Aircrew Selection Centre
  Mr. John Hunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimates his Department has made of the expected revenue savings from the transfer of the RAF officer and aircrew selection centre from Biggin hill to Cranwell.

  Mr. Neubert
  Some £10 million in running costs will be saved over the next 10 years. Once the move has been completed running cost savings of more than £2 million per annum at current prices are expected to accrue.

  Mr. John Hunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimates his Department has made of the expected level of capital receipts following disposal of the existing RAF officer and aircrew selection centre site at Biggin hill.

  Mr. Neubert
  Following the closure announcement discussions are now being held with Bromley council to consider the future uses for the site of the officers and aircrew selection centre. This will assist us to determine the capital value of the site. The final estimate will however be a matter of commercial confidentiality and it would not be our normal practice to disclose it.

  Mr. John Hunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what expenditure is envisaged to accommodate the RAF officer and aircrew selection centre following its proposed transfer from Biggin hill to Cranwell, including provision for the selection centre itself and the residential accommodation required for the personnel.

  Mr. Neubert
  The estimated cost of the facilities concerned, including extensions to existing facilities, is some £5½million at current prices.

  Woolwich Arsenal West
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to release the area of surplus land at Woolwich Arsenal west; how the developer is to be selected; what form the development is likely to take; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neubert
  The Woolwich Arsenal west site including the riverside area is owned jointly by the Ministry of Defence and the Crown Estate Commissioners with whom discussions are already in progress on disposal arrangements. We are also in informal consultation with the local planning authority, Greenwich borough council, to establish potential uses for the surplus land which will protect and be compatible with the many listed buildings on site.

  It is our normal practice to select a developer through open market competition.

  Radioactivity
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer,Official Report, column 280, to the hon. Member for Dumbarton of Thursday 19 January, if he will specify the document covering United States practice in United Kingdom waters which embodies standard and international standards on the release of radioactivity.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  United States practice is consistent with the recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). The commission adopted its most recent recommendations on 17 January 1977, and these are contained in ICRP publication 26.

  PUBSAFF
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Dumbarton of Thursday 19 January; if he will summarise the changes required by the local authorities and emergency services during the consultation process on Clyde PUBSAFE.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Clyde public safety scheme is currently under review, in consultation with local authorities and emergency services. It would not be appropriate to release details of any proposed changes before the revision is issued.

  Nuclear Accident Exercises
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Dumbarton of Thursday 19 January,Official Report, column 280, how many exercises in each of the past five years have been carried out under the existing scheme.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  In the Clyde area, there were seven nuclear accident exercises in 1985, six in 1986, five in 1987 and six in 1988. In Rosyth, there has been one exercise during each of the last five years, and practice evacuations of part of the naval base in 1984, 1986, 1987 and 1988.

  Radioactivity (Submarines)
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for
  557
  Dumbarton of Thursday 19 January,Official Report, column 280, what levels of radioactive material Royal Navy submarines are authorised to discharge.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Releases of radioactivity from United Kingdom nuclear-powered submarines are strictly controlled within the established national and international standards, as recommended by the International Commission on radiological protection.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Dumbarton of Thursday 19 January,Official Report, columns 279–80, if he has been informed by the United States Navy of the maximum level of radioactivity in waste discharged into United Kingdom waters by their submarines; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Her Majesty's Government are satisfied that any releases of radioactivity have not breached established national and international standards. Early United States operations in Holy Loch did lead in the 1960s to the detection of some Cobalt 60 in harbour sediment samples. This radioactivity was well below the internationally agreed public safety levels at the time, and was also below the much more stringent levels which apply now. Since then, the United States has made technical advances and has instituted even more rigorous control over discharges.

  I also refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) to the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) on 23 January 1989 at column 407.

  Aircraft (Urban Areas)
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence at what height military aircraft are permitted to fly over urban areas which are not located within one of the avoidance areas or transit areas marked on the Civil Aviation Authority chart of United Kingdom areas of intense aerial activity, aerial tactics areas and military low flying system.

  Mr. Neubert
  [holding answer 16 December 1988]: Military fast jet aircraft are instructed not to fly over the centres of major conurbations and built up areas below 2,000 feet, whilst the limit for light propeller driven aircraft and helicopters is 1,000 feet. However, we cannot guarantee to avoid overflying the outskirts of major towns or smaller communities. Nevertheless pilots will make every effort to avoid populated areas wherever possible.

  Low-level Flying (Morocco)
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress in talks with the Government of Morocco on the use of facilities in Morocco for low-level training by the Royal Air Force.

  Mr. Neubert
  [holding answer 16 December 1988]: I have nothing further to add to the answer given by my predecessor, the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman), on 10 May 1988 at column 104. The details of discussions of this sort is confidential.

  Low Flying
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if normal low-flying training sorties down to 250 ft are permitted within the three tactical training areas at the same time as operational low-flying training down to 100 ft.

  Mr. Neubert
  [holding answer 16 December 1988]: Low flying training sorties down to 250 ft by non-operational low flying units are not permitted within the three tactical training areas when operational low flying is taking place except under special arrangements and with special approval.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence over what proportion of the land surface of the United Kingdom military low flying is permitted.

  Mr. Neubert
  [holding answer 16 December 1988]: In principle military low flying is permitted over the whole of the United Kingdom landmass except for main conurbations, danger areas and certain other areas such as civil air traffic zones, airports, glider sites, and nuclear power stations.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many times the military low flying management group met in 1987 to consider proposals for changes to the United Kingdom low flying system.

  Mr. Neubert
  [holding answer 16 December 1988]: The Military low flying management group met on three occasions in 1987 to consider and discuss a variety of matters concerning the United Kingdom low flying system including proposals for minor changes to the system.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many Royal Air Force police personnel are currently employed on surveying potential new areas for low flying;
  (2) if he will make a statement on the criteria and methods used by the Royal Air Force when surveying potential new areas for low flying.

  Mr. Neubert
  [holding answer 16 December 1988]: There are currently no plans to change the basic structure of the United Kingdom low flying system implemented in 1979 although, as part of the continuous review of the system, two RAF police senior NCOs are occupied full time in the tasks referred to in my predecessor's answer to the hon. Member of 19 November 1987 at column 453, working according to the criteria set out in that answer.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the approximate current land area covered by low flying area 7(T); and if he will list any changes made to the boundaries of this area since 1979.

  Mr. Neubert
  [holding answer 16 December 1988]: Low flying area 7(T) covers the south west portion of the constituency of Montgomery, the north west quarter of Brecon and Radnor, the north east corner of Carmarthen and the eastern part of Ceredigion and Pembroke north. There have not been any changes to the boundaries of this area since 1979.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence under what conditions fixed-wing military aircraft not operating from local bases are permitted to use those low-flying areas dedicated to local users.
  559
  Mr. Neubert
  [holding answer 16 December 1988]: Pilots are required to obtain clearance from a co-ordinating authority before flight in a low flying area dedicated to local users.
  560

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

Housing and Interest Rates
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
What effect current interest rates are having on the housing situation.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, the increase in house prices has slowed down, to an extent that varies between different parts of the country. The number of houses being sold appears to have fallen, and there are no definite signs as yet of a fall in house building.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I appreciate that Answer, but I am not surprised that the Minister made no reference to mortgage payments. Is he aware, when talking of mortgage payments, that a person receiving a £20,000 discount on purchasing his council house—there are now quite a large number of such people—receives the equivalent of a £50 payment per week towards his mortgage? At the same time people in the same income group who happen to be unfortunate enough to be owner occupiers have faced an increase of £40 to £50 a month. When will the Government have the same sympathy for owner occupiers as they appear to show readily to people receiving these discounts on council houses?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, of course we encourage owner occupation. I am pleased with the way the right to buy provisions have progressed.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there have been a few thousand incidents where folk on the point of buying their own homes find that because of these steady increases in interest rates they cannot afford to do so and foreclosure takes place? That means that a house becomes empty and someone else becomes homeless. Do the Government not take those kind of things into consideration?
The Earl of Caithness: Yes, my Lords, of course the Government consider that aspect. But if the noble Lord refers to the Answer that I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, on 11 th October, he will see that I covered the point very clearly then.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, is there not some contradiction in the Government's policy, which is encouraging home ownership at the same time as putting up mortgages? That has resulted in a dramatic fall in mortgage lending in the past month. The figure stands at about half that of the previous month.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I do not have the figure for last month, but the figures that I have show that on average in the first quarter of last year 109,000 mortgages were taken out per month. In October, which is the latest month for which figures are available, that figure was 81,000.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that considered opinion everywhere is unanimous on the fact that the Government should retain the containing of inflation as their number one priority?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I hope the opinion is unanimous. From some of the remarks I have heard recently, I think some people would prefer inflation to go up.
Lord Jacques: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the policy of the Government apparently has been to control inflation, but that their first priority has been the reduction of direct taxation regardless of the effect upon inflation? One can go back to the increase in VAT and the reduction in direct taxation to support that point of view.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, indeed it is of vital importance to the whole country and to everybody in it that inflation is kept down.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, is not the answer to the original Question—the effect of interest rates on the current housing situation—the fact that 450 people per week are having their homes repossessed because of mortgage default? That figure is expected to rise very shortly to about 700 people. Those people are joining ever lengthening queues for non-existent public housing. In 1987, the latest figures that I can find, 370,000 people were accepted as homeless by authorities on the authorities' own criteria. Is that not the real answer as regards the situation that currently exists as a result of government policy on housing?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, if one compares the figures for the first half of 1987 with those for the first half of 1988, one will see that repossessions are down, overdue loans are down and the proportion of homeless as a result of this is also down.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, until recently was it not the policy of the Labour Party to stop people buying their houses at all?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, it is sometimes very difficult to keep up with the policy of the Opposition.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Earl a very simple question: are the Government really suggesting that it does not matter how many people are made homeless as long as they continue with a particular policy?—because that is what the Answer suggests. Is the Minister aware that there is increasing homelessness because people who have bought their houses are unable to continue with their mortgage payments? That is the problem that

591
we are asking the Minister to address himself to. Will he say what the Government will do about it?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I do not agree that there is the link that the noble Lord has suggested. There was a long discussion yesterday at Question Time about the homeless, in response to a Question by the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick. There are a number of other reasons such as, alas! the break-up of marriages, which cause people to give up their houses.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, I accept what the Government say about inflation being the number one enemy. That is a view with which I concur absolutely and in my view there is no argument against it. However, is there not an irony in the situation? A young married couple, for example, to take a simple case, buy their own home. They are very excited and pleased. Their repayments are £250 a month. Before they move in the repayments have risen to £350 a month, and they are now asked to pay £400 a month. Is it not ironic that, as a result, the Government's policy with regard to inflation will be destroyed, because the first thing that that young man will do is demand an increase in wages?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord and the Government are in agreement that it is of primary importance that inflation is kept down. There have been high interest rates before, but as I said in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, on llth October, the building societies and mortgage lenders will look at every case in order to minimise their impact.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, will the Minister take on board the fact that, while part of the nexus of housing is mortgage payments, it must also be recognised that for many of us it is adequate housing for those in need which counts? Will the Minister tell us what the Government are doing to encourage councils to build houses at affordable rents?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we touched on that issue yesterday. I should remind the noble Lord that it is not only local councils which are involved. Provision for the funding of housing associations will go up by 80 per cent. in the next three years, and there is also the private sector.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that to some extent the building societies are responsible for the problems in which many young people find themselves, because they let them take on too large a mortgage while interest rates are low without anticipating what happens when interest rates rise?
The Earl of Caithness: No, my Lords, I do not think that one can blame the building societies in that respect.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, the Minister is usually most sympathetic in his answers towards
592
people who are receiving rough treatment in the housing sector. It is sad that he does not appear to have expressed any sympathy whatsoever today for people whose mortgages have risen excessively as a result of government policy. Is the Minister satisfied that owner occupiers ought to be the chief victims of the blundering of the Chancellor of the Exchequer? And when is it going to stop?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I should seriously contest that my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has blundered. There is a very positive incentive for people to own their homes. That is what people want to do. All of us who have mortgages would obviously prefer interest rates to be lower. However, I know that all those who pay mortgages would prefer slightly higher interest rates now than higher inflation in due course.

Energy Efficiency Office
2.45 p.m.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the activities of the Energy Efficiency Office will be substantially reduced in the financial year 1989-90.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, the activities of the Energy Efficiency Office will not be substantially reduced in 1989–90. Due to the success of the initial general phase of the EEO's programmes we are now able to enter a fresh phase of activity. We shall be targeting our activities more selectively on key areas of energy use and on the work of the regional energy efficiency officers at local level. We are preparing a new best practice programme which will give consumers authoritative and independent advice and information.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that considerable confusion has been caused by the severe reduction in the funding of the Energy Efficiency Office proposed for next year from £24-5 million to £15 million at the very time when the Government are putting so much emphasis on the environmental aspects of the way in which we live? Does she not agree that improving energy efficiency is one of the most effective ways of achieving the containment of the greenhouse effect?
Baroness Hooper: Yes, my Lords. The reduction proposed in the Energy Efficiency Office's programme for the coming year is a direct result of the successes achieved in the earlier campaign. I am sure that your Lordships will all agree that the object of a campaign is to have some effect, and when one has a successful campaign one acts accordingly. However, it is precisely because of the greenhouse effect to which the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, referred that we are taking energy efficiency just as seriously as we did before and making it an essential part of our programme and plans.
Viscount Hood: My Lords, will my noble friend say what allowance for improved energy efficiency has been assumed in the government requirement for 15 gigawatts of additional generating capacity by the end of the century?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, in the Government's privatisation proposals we take into account the role of energy efficiency. We are breaking new ground in promoting energy efficiency within the industry and by customers. For example, the director general and the Secretary of State will both be required and have a duty placed upon them to promote efficiency, and suppliers will be required to provide consumers with guidance on efficient energy use.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that there is some confusion about present government proposals in the Electricity Bill concerning ressponsibility for energy conservation, because a number of different versions have been produced in another place? Will she confirm that the privatised area electricity boards will themselves in future be responsible for encouraging and promoting the conservation of energy in households? Will the noble Baroness also consider the possibility that the generating authorities may also have that duty placed upon them, and thus encourage the area boards to do the same?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I believe that in responding to the previous question I answered the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. The distribution companies are the suppliers. A duty will be placed upon them to provide consumers with guidance on the efficient use of electricity. In the climate of competition which privatisation will engender with other forms of energy there will be competition between suppliers of energy in other fields as well. The duty placed on the director general and the Secretary of State will ensure that the generation side of the equation is also covered.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, will the Minister kindly confirm that in the Government's plans there is no duty laid directly on the privatised generating companies?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the whole purpose of the regulation is to ensure that the generation of electricity will be carried out according to certain requirements that are felt necessary, and it is the regulatory scheme which will ensure efficient generation.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, will my noble friend tell the House when the Government expect to publish this huge complex of regulations from which so much is expected and on which so much reliance is placed?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I fear that my noble friend has been straying slightly from the Question on the Order Paper. That is also true of some of the previous questions. However, the licences dealing
594
with a great deal of the regulation have already been published.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that the outlines of these licences have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament?
Baroness Hooper: Yes, my Lords; I believe that is the case. They are available.

Nuclear Accidents: Reporting Procedures
2.52 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby Lord Hatch of Lusby asked Her Majesty's Government:
On what occasions since the nuclear accident at Windscale in 1957 other nuclear accidents have been concealed from the public.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the fire which occurred in October 1957 in a nuclear pile at Windscale was not concealed from the public. Indeed, a detailed White Paper on the accident was published within a month and a further three White Papers within a year of the fire. No comparable accident has since occurred at a nuclear plant in this country.
Reporting procedures ensure that any incidents at nuclear sites which might be of safety significance are reported in site newsletters, each of which is placed in the Libraries of the House of Commons and the House of Lords.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there were two accidents at Windscale in 1957? The one to which I referred—if the noble Baroness has read the Macmillan papers which were released at the beginning of the year she will know of it—was an accident that happened before the fire occurred. It was an accident that infected over 800 farms which were supplying milk that was drunk by members of the public while the Medical Advisory Council was reducing the limit on Strontium 90 in milk. This was concealed from the public. How many more times have such accidents been concealed from the public, especially in view of the fact that there is a widespread belief that over the past two years, since the Chernobyl disaster, the public have consumed a great deal of lamb that has been contaminated by nuclear fallout?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the incident to which the noble Lord refers was an unplanned release of Strontium 90 earlier in 1957. The fire accident took place in October 1957. This was reported. The release of the papers on 1st January this year was by no means the first report of that incident.
I can assure your Lordships that all information on radioactive discharges has been given to either the Black Committee or the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment. Both of those committees have looked at the possible effects on health of the fire and other incidents, and indeed,

595
at the whole of the site's operations through the years.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, I was Lord President of the Council at that time in 1957. Will my noble friend confirm that twice in the course of two confused and rambling questions the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, has seriously misled the House? Quantities of milk had to be destroyed and that would not have been possible without the fullest publicity—which was given. Can my noble friend confirm that?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for clarifying the record.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be very grateful to the Minister for her Answer to my noble friend. Is it the case that the convention on nuclear accidents, to which the Government are a signatory, does not provide for any dissemination of information to the public about accidents that may take place and that this issue was the object of our attention at the Second Reading of the Atomic Energy Bill? Will she confirm her view that such accidents are reported and therefore that information about them is available to the public? At this point will she indicate her acceptance of an amendment to that effect to the Atomic Energy Bill?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I must not pre-empt the discussions and decisions of your Lordships' House. However, the independent Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, which was set up as a consequence of the Windscale fire, has proved that valuable lessons have been learnt as a result of that accident and has formed the basis of today's safety culture. We believe that the United Kingdom's nuclear industry has a safety record that is second to none.
As I indicated in my original response, all incidents and matters concerning safety are reported to the public through the site newsletter system in various ways—through the local liaison committees and local newspapers as well as via the medium of the Houses of Parliament. So there is very little risk of any incident which would not come immediately to the notice of the wider public.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the Question she has just answered implies that terrifying information was deliberately concealed from the public? Since noble Lords are responsible for the accuracy of any Questions tabled on the Order Paper, is it in order for the country to be disquieted by a Question which carries an implication that has such a possible consequence?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for raising that point. There can be no doubt that in the 1950s there was a level of secrecy surrounding nuclear matters that would be quite inappropriate for today's civil nuclear programme.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, will the Minister pay tribute to the work that is now being done at Windscale to make the public more informed about what goes on? The new large public information centre was visited last year by tens of thousands of people who now know very much more about nuclear energy than they did previously. Does she agree that this example could be followed more widely?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, today the industry makes enormous efforts to inform the public about nuclear matters through publications and allowing site visits. When I visited Sellafield last year I was informed that it was the fastest growing tourist attraction in the country.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is the Minister aware that all the information to which I referred in my supplementary question as well as in my original Question is drawn directly from the Macmillan papers that were released at the beginning of this year? Is she further aware that it is stated in those papers that the object of the Government was to prevent a public panic and outcry against the use of nuclear energy and that a proposal by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, who was then Lord President of the Council, to hold a debate in the House of Lords on the effect of radioactivity on the environment was blocked? And that—
Noble Lords: Question! Order!
Lord Hatch of Lusby: And, my Lords, that the then Home Secretary, Rab Butler, wrote on one of the minutes of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham—and this is a quotation:
"What is clear is that we certainly don't want such a debate in the Commons; ergo we don't want to encourage a debate in the Lords".
Is she aware of that?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I suspect that the information of the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, comes not so much from the Macmillan papers as from an article in the Observer which appeared on 1st January this year. I can only reaffirm that the present Government are committed to openness in the nuclear industry.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, is it not time that we had a close season until 1st January 1990 for this Question? We shall then know whether the government indulged in any skulduggery during 1960. If the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, will wait patiently year by year until something positive emerges, we can be spared this kind of thing at Question Time.
A noble Lord: My Lords, make it 1st April!

>ConsGold Takeover Bid: Report
3 p.m.
Lord Morris Lord Morris asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they expect to receive the report of the inspectors appointed by virtue of Section 442 of the

597
Companies Act 1985 in the matter of the Minorco/Consolidated Gold-fields takeover bid.
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Lord Young of Graham): My Lords, I have asked the inspectors to give these inquiries top priority. They have made a good start but their inquiries are at an early stage and I cannot say when their final report will be submitted.
Lord Morris: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for that Answer. Is my noble friend aware how puzzling it must be even to his most fervent admirers that Her Majesty's Government could contemplate acting upon the advice of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission alone prior to it, and indeed he himself, having sight of the report of the inspectors he had appointed to investigate matters directly affecting not only the bid but the public interest which could result in consideration of criminal proceedings?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I should explain to my noble friend that these are two entirely separate matters. Inspectors have been appointed under the Companies Act and the Financial Services Act to look at the occurrence of certain matters prior to the bid. The bid was referred by me to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on the advice of the Director General of Fair Trading. The inspectors have indeed let the Monopolies and Mergers Commission have an interim report which has been studied and is contained in its report to me.
However, these are two separate matters. I believe that they should be kept as such.
Lord Erroll of Hale: My Lords, as to my noble friend's reply, these are not two separate matters. Is it not absolutely central to the public interest to ensure that those who seek control of British companies should be seen to be, if I may use the current colloquialism, squeaky clean before any bid is approved by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and you, the Secretary of State?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, no. The Government are devoting considerable resources to upholding the integrity of the market. We have had the Companies Act and the Financial Services Act. Investigations play a major part in this process. It would be quite wrong to delay the decision on commercial issues until investigations on other matters of this kind have been completed.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, we are all anxious to avoid the embarrassment of the Lonrho affair. Will the Secretary of State give an unequivocal assurance that the report of the inspectors will be published?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I should say to the noble Lord that I cannot detect any embarrassment whatever in the Lonrho affair. Of course, it is the general practice to publish reports on public companies unless there happen to be strong reasons to the contrary. Obviously, I cannot give an
598
undertaking before I have received the report but in the normal way we would tend to publish it.
The Viscount of Oxfuird: My Lords, does the Secretary of State recall the report of the Department of Trade inspectors of July 1980 which clearly demonstrated that the companies associated with the Anglo American group deliberately avoided the disclosures duties of the Companies Act? Why was it considered impolitic to publish the 1986 report of the Department of Trade inspectors?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, these are two separate matters. With regard to the 1980 report, no criminal proceedings followed that investigation. But the law on disclosure of interest and securities was strengthened in the Companies Act 1981. We have also had some modifications to strengthen that aspect in the recent Bill before your Lordships' House.
On the 1986 report—which has no bearing whatever on the monopolies and merger issues—it would be my wish to publish this as soon as possible. However, it would not be appropriate to do so until the issues raised by the report have been fully considered.

Business of the House
3.4 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the motion in the name of the Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos set down for 1st February shall be limited to 5 hours and that Standing Order 35 and paragraphs 10 to 13 of the Rules for the Conduct of Short Debates shall apply to the debate with the substitution of "5 hours" for "2½ hours" and "25 minutes" for "20 minutes".—(Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Civil Aviation (Air Navigation Charges) Bill [H.L.]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill [H.L.]
3.5 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill he now read

599
a second time. The Bill makes changes of a minor but useful nature to three areas of law; the law relating to deeds, the law relating to formalities for contracts for the sale or other disposition of land, and the rule in Bain v. Fothergill. The three substantive clauses in the Bill derive from recommendations made by the Law Commission in three separate reports: Deeds and Escrows, Formalities for Contracts for the sale or other disposition of land and The Rule in Bain v. Fothergill.
Clause 1 of the Bill makes changes to the law relating to deeds. At present, if an individual needs to execute a deed, he must sign, seal and deliver it. Sealing is, for most people, a meaningless formality. They do not have a seal, and the deed is sealed by sticking a small circle of red paper on it, or simply by drawing a circle. Not only is the requirement meaningless; it has also given rise to argument in the courts as to precisely what it is necessary to do in order to seal a deed. The Law Commission has recommended that for individuals, sealing should no longer be a requirement. Corporate seals are not affected by this change.
The commission considered that signing and delivery alone would not be sufficient formalities to ensure that a person executing a deed was aware of the importance of what he was doing. It therefore recommended, and the clause gives effect to this recommendation, that the signature of the person making the deed should have to be witnessed and attested. This is in fact the usual practice now. Generally, only one witness is to be required; however, where the person making the deed does not sign it himself but, perhaps because of physical incapacity, he asks someone else to sign it at his direction, two witnesses will be required. The second additional formality is that it should be clear on the face of it that the document is intended to be a deed.
The fact that a document is a deed can have important consequences. For example, in English law a promise to make a gift is normally unenforceable, but it becomes enforceable if made by deed. The Bill does not lay down any prescribed manner of making it clear that a document is intended to be a deed but it does suggest various ways of doing this. It is undesirable to lay down just one method because to do so would invalidate what would otherwise be perfectly acceptable deeds merely for failure to include one vital word.
Clause 1 also abolishes the rule that a deed must be written on paper or parchment. The Law Commission considered that this rule was unnecessary and might inhibit the development of new substances. It considered recommending a rule that deeds should be made on a durable substance, but this goes further than the present law since paper is clearly not necessarily durable and, again, such a rule might invalidate what would otherwise be a perfectly acceptable deed.
Delivery is another aspect of the law relating to deeds which has given rise to confusion."Delivery" does not necessarily involve the physical handing over of the deed. Delivery takes place when the person making the deed by his act or word makes it
600
clear that he regards it as binding on him. Although recognising the difficulties caused by delivery, the Law Commission did not recommend any major changes to it, and the clause leaves untouched the law as to what constitutes delivery.
The clause does however make two changes to the law of delivery. It abolishes the rule of law that for a person to deliver a deed on behalf of another he must be given authority by deed. This does not mean that in future the person delivering the deed need not be given proper authority. It simply removes the requirement that the authority be given by deed. This has proved to be an inconvenient rule which serves little purpose. Its effect is that if, at present, a person signs and seals a deed and gives it to his solicitor to await completion of some transaction he has in fact delivered it, at the latest, when he gives it to his solicitor. His solicitor cannot deliver it for him, unless authorised by deed to do so. It, therefore, at that point becomes binding on him, even if it does not take effect until the completion of the transaction.
The removal of the rule will enable the person to sign and seal a deed and hand it to his solicitor for delivery at a later date without having to execute a further deed giving his solicitor authority to deliver. This provision in the clause is complemented by a further provision that, where an instrument is delivered as a deed in the course of, or in connection with, a conveyancing transaction, the solicitor or licensed conveyancer who delivers it shall be conclusively presumed, in favour of the purchaser, to have authority to deliver the instrument.
None of these changes affects instruments delivered as deeds before the section comes into force. It is necessary to consider whether certain forms of deeds prescribed by statute will require alteration before this section comes into force, so the Bill provides that it will not come into force until I make a commencement order. I do not expect a long delay before commencement.
Clause 2 makes changes to the law relating to formalities for contracts for the sale or other disposition of land. At present the requirements are contained in Section 40 of the Law of Property Act 1925. This states that contracts must either be made in writing or, if made orally, must be evidenced in writing. The writing must be signed by the person to be sued. The requirements for writing do not apply if the contract has been partly performed. This provision has given rise to considerable difficulties. Its effect is that oral contracts for the sale of land are binding but unenforceable by action. They may be enforceable by other methods, for example, forfeiture of a deposit. Further, the party who has not signed the necessary writing may be safe from being sued upon the contract while at the same time retaining the option of suing the other person who has signed the writing.
The Law Commission recommended that contracts for the sale or other disposition of land should not be valid unless they are made in writing and that writing is signed by all the parties to the contract. The clause gives effect to that recommendation. It was made after wide-ranging consultation by the commission. It seems right that

601
contracts as important as contracts for the sale or other disposition of land be in writing. The clause removes the possibility of an oral, binding, but unenforceable contract. It ensures that all the parties to a contract must sign it. The clause has been drafted so as not to interfere with the usual practice of exchanging contracts.
Clause 3 abolishes the rule of law known as the rule in Bain v. Fothergill. This rule, which dates from the 19th century, limits the damages that a purchaser can obtain if a vendor is in breach of his contract to give a good title to land either because he has no title or because his title is defective. The rule dates from a time when proving title to land was extremely difficult and it was thought unfair to impose upon a vendor the burden of paying substantial damages when he failed to prove a good title to the land. The rule has been much criticised and the courts have developed many exceptions to it. After the Law Commission published a working paper which suggested its abolition, the Court of Appeal expressly approved the suggestion. Now that registration of title is widespread, and, where title to land is unregistered, the vendor has only to prove title by going back to a good root of title at least 15 years old, there is no good reason why a purchaser should suffer the loss if a vendor enters into a contract to sell land with good title and then cannot prove that he has such a title.
The clause therefore abolishes the rule. It does not prevent the vendor from including express provisions in a contract to limit his liability if he cannot prove his title. It may be that in certain very rare cases a vendor will not be willing or able to contract to sell a good title. However, he will have to make express provision to that effect and the purchaser will thereby be warned and advised about the dangers of entering into such a contract.
Clause 4 deals with repeals of a consequential nature. Clause 5 deals with commencement provisions. The provisions relating to deeds, for reasons I have explained, are subject to a commencement order. The other provisions are to come into force at the end of the period of two months from Royal Assent. Clause 6 as usual, contains the Short Title and extent.
This Bill contains three useful and uncontroversial measures of law reform, all of which I believe, have attracted the support of the legal profession. We are all grateful to the Law Commission for the careful work which went into the preparation of the reports on which the Bill is based. I accordingly ask the House to give the measure a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—[The Lord Chancellor].
3.15 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for taking us through the provisions of this short Bill. We hear a great deal about the need to simplify documents relating to the sale of land and houses. Although the Bill, as the Lord Chancellor has explained, is not confined to deeds relating to the sale of land it will help in a small way to achieve the
602
well-supported objective of simplifying such documents.
The noble and learned Lord has explained that the Bill enshrines the recommendations of the Law Commission. We too thank the Law Commission for its excellent work. I believe that the recommendations of the Law Commission have taken into account some of the criticisms of the commission's working papers, but I have not been able to obtain the views of the relevant professional bodies on the contents of the Bill and I do not know whether all of its provisions are wholly to the commission's satisfaction.
The Bill widens the substances on which deeds may be written. That will be a useful provision, particularly if new substances are discovered which may prevent deeds from being damaged or destroyed by fire or floods. That will be useful. Sealing will no longer be necessary. Although that will make no practical difference to the professional world, it may simplify matters if individuals wish to draw up their own deeds.
Delivery will be retained. There are two views about whether it should be retained. On balance I believe it is right that it should be retained; otherwise a document would bind the signing party immediately he signs the document although that was not his intention. I accept that there is another view. I accept also that some charities are concerned that delivery has been retained.
I am sure that your Lordships will be greatly relieved by the Lord Chancellor's assurance that a signature remains a requirement. But as the Bill stands that signature will have to be witnessed as and from the commencement day or the appointment day. That is new. Under existing law, attestation is not strictly necessary. I understand through my noble friend Lord Mishcon that this matter is of some concern to the charities.
I am grateful that the noble and learned Lord has drawn particular attention to the new provision in Clause 1(3) which permits an individual to direct someone else to sign on his behalf provided that two witnesses are present to attest the document. This, in our view, is a change of significance. I have a feeling that there may be an issue here. Should not the witnesses be independent and not related to the individual who is directed to sign the deed? How great is the risk of this method of execution of documents being abused or exploited?
I shall trespass for half a minute and no more to remind the House that the Bill comes here at a time when there is a large and continuing growth in the number of very elderly and frail persons, some of whom may be suffering from memory loss or a degree of dementia but are not wards of the Court of Protection, even though they own their own homes. The question of how that considerable section of the community—and a growing section—is to be protected against exploitation when dealing with their homes raises a significant and worrying issue. The Bill was not addressed to that problem but we believe that it is one which departments must face.
I return to the Bill. The need for a Section 40 memorandum agreement in respect of the sale of land

603
to be signed by the party to be charged has been much criticised. We are glad that the section is to be repealed. Henceforth, there must be a document signed by all the parties to the transaction, thus avoiding the unfair result that where only one party has signed only that party is bound by the agreement.
According to the Bill that document may refer to another document. We wonder whether it may refer to more than one document. It is clear from the Bill that the doctrine of part performance will no longer apply, but we assume that the doctrine of estoppel will still be available where appropriate.
I turn to deal briefly with the rule in Bain v. Fothergill. It was formulated under another name about two centuries ago because of the then difficulty of proving title of land, land being the oldest thing on earth. Although the ancient rule is not without its modern defenders, we believe that its repeal will be widely welcomed. It is out of date.
I must consult my noble friends on the Front Bench in order to consider whether abolishing the rule provides a wholly satisfactory solution where there is a chain of vendor, purchaser and sub-purchaser. If the vendor's title is defective, will he henceforth be liable for damages right down the line? That is a point on which this one-time solicitor would be grateful for guidance.
It is also for consideration whether the Bill should have enshrined in statute the current conveyancing practice of deducing title at the same time as the draft contract is being sent to the purchaser. That would enable the purchaser adequately to investigate the title and raise all inquiries before committing himself. If that were acceptable it would reduce the delays, which is another important objective. However, I must consult my noble friends about whether to press the matter on your Lordships.
We welcome the Bill in general. Plainly the professional bodies must give the fullest publicity to its provisions so that their members should be in no doubt as to the correct advice which they must give when the Bill is enacted. It may also be necessary for charities to consider some of the changes which the Bill will effect.
With those few words, I am pleased to support and welcome the Bill in principle.
3.24 p.m.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, I also welcome the Bill. It is another example of the debt which we owe to the Law Commission. The setting up of the Law Commissions in this country and in Scotland was one of the greatest steps in legal reform in the history of our country. Last evening I read through the three short reports which are the foundation of the Bill. As it is not within my sphere of the law I had forgotten about the rule of Bain v. Fothergill until I revised my recollection last evening.
The arguments are set out in the reports. The footnotes indicate all the consultations that have taken place and the bodies which have been consulted. The whole process of law reform has been radically changed by the method of the Law
604
Commission. For example, the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, referred to a question which might be controversial. It is whether attestation was required for the signature on a deed. At paragraph 2.12 of its report (No. 163) the Law Commission dealt with the matter in this way:
"Almost all of those who responded to the working paper were in favour of obligatory attestation of deeds. The imposition of this requirement will not in fact be a change in present practice, as deeds are nearly always attested now".
The commission goes on to state that it endeavoured to formalise the present practice. In an economical way it dealt in detail with the argument which was advanced today by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies.
It occurred to me that because we set up the Law Commission we should change our procedure in this House, and they could change it in another place, in order to deal particularly with Bills that have been carefully researched and prepared and where soundings have been taken by the Law Commission. They appear to be in a different category from Bills that normally come before your Lordships' House. Perhaps that is a subject for another debate at another time.
The first report is the foundation for Clause 1. It is right—and the arguments have been expressly set out in the report—that delivery should remain one of the essential formalities for the execution of a deed. Often people sign a document and do not intend it to be effective until it is delivered. I believe that the Law Commission was right in coming down in favour of retaining delivery.
It is interesting to note that the drafting of Clause 1 of the Bill follows closely the draft of the Law Commission. Clause 2 is probably in practice the most far-reaching reform in the Bill. All noble Lords have been acquainted with the litigation which has been such a good source of remuneration to the legal profession over the years and which arises from the provisions of Section 40 of the Law of Property Act 1925. For many years there has been pressure for reform and change of the provisions contained in that section.
A simple repeal of Section 40 has been considered. In its report the Law Commission sets out its reasons for rejecting the suggestion of simple abolition, attractive though it may have been on the surface. The reform abolishes the notion with which we have always lived: of a binding contract for the sale of land but unenforceable. I believe that the reform will simplify the law. It is a proper provision that all the terms must be in writing. There ought to be formality in the law so that when somebody is entering into a contract for the sale of land they are entitled to have the terms set out in writing. I believe that to be essential. It is interesting to note that the drafting of Clause 2 is different from the draft in the Law Commission's report.
The last provision of the Bill deals with the abolition of the rule in Bain v. Fothergill. I was not aware of the fact that there was a modern school of thought in favour of the retention of that rule. Perhaps there will be a discussion on the subject. The Law Commission sounded out the professions about

605
the matter and had extensive consultations. When there is a scheme of composite reform, such as that put forward by the Law Commission after proper consultations, it would be wrong for us to interfere by means of a chance amendment which may enjoy favour at a certain stage of the Bill in your Lordships' House.
Again, the draft of the Bill was somewhat different to the Bill which your Lordships' House is considering today. For personal reasons, I prefer the draft Bill because that sets out what is the rule in Bain v. Fothergill. I can imagine in future generations, when Bain v. Fothergill has largely disappeared from the law books, that it would be helpful to have the first clause of the draft Bill which states:
"There is hereby abolished the rule of law (known as the rule in Bain v. Fothergill) restricting the damages recoverable for breaches of contract occasioned by defects in title to land".
It sets out what it was and states that it is to be abolished, which seems to me to be an advantage.
However, these are obviously very desirable reforms and I hope that this Bill ends its journey through your Lordships' House unamended.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, I wish to say quite a few words about two matters before us this afternoon; namely, the sealing of deeds and the abolition of the rule of law known as the rule in Bain v. Fothergill.
Perhaps I may associate myself with the words of the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, in complimenting the Law Commission on all the work it has done over the years. However, I wonder whether or not the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, recognises that what he has said about the changes in the Bill between the time when they left the Law Commission and today rather suggests that, however worthy the Bill may be, a Bill which comes from the Law Commission should not be treated as though it had arrived as a tablet of stone, but should be given all the scrutiny which your Lordships' House and the other place give to Bills before them.
On the question of the sealing of deeds, I altogether agree that the affixing or non-affixing of a wafer seal to a document which, by legal fiction, represents sealing and is one ingredient of the deed, at present is now so little regarded as to have brought the law into disrepute. It is widely seen as so much legal mummery and has caused great difficulties for judges who have wanted, on the one hand, to give effect to deeds which they considered worthy and to set aside other less worthy unsealed transactions in cases where evidence that a document was ever sealed is lacking.
Nevertheless, I hope that my noble and learned friend will not be so quick as he suggested to bring this Bill into force. The Law Commission has done a good hatchet job—if I may put it that way— on sealing in its report No. 163. However, I draw attention to paragraph 1.2 of the report which states:
"This report does not consider the need for deeds either generally or for particular transactions. It is confined to the formalities for deeds".
It seems to me that that is an unsatisfactory confession. The Law Commission should have considered what deeds do, and then whether the
606
ingredients of deed which will be left when this Bill is brought into effect will provide enougih legal magic to draw attention to the very real distinction which should exist between a deed and a document which is merely signed under hand. The Law Commission should have looked at the question of whether all or any of the distinctions in terms of effect or consequence which distinguish deeds from other documents should be maintained.
There are two particularly significant consequences which follow from the signing of a deed and which distinguish deeds from other documents. My noble and learned friend has drawn attention to the fact that a promise in a deed, unsupported by consideration, that is to say, a gratuitous and voluntary undertaking, may be enforced against the promisor by legal action. Also, under the statutes of limitation, the time to bring proceedings for breach of contract contained in the deed will generally be 12 rather than six years.
If that distinction between deeds and other documents is to continue, there must be some formal dignity attached to the making of a deed, otherwise we shall continue to meet difficult cases, and the need to decide whether a deed has in fact been made, just as now. Although in formal terms under this Bill the deed seems to have gained something in the need for witnessing and lost something by the abolition of sealing, I believe that on balance the loss will far exceed the gain because it has always been the recommended practice that deeds should be witnessed. One will also have to answer the man in the street who will ask, "What! Am I still liable after 10 years just because I put my name to a dirty scrap of paper rather than to another one almost like it?"
I hope that my noble and learned friend will give some thought to the question as to whether or not the substantive law should be reformed before these clauses are brought into operation. If it is decided that no reform or only partial reform is called for, perhaps I might suggest that additional formality for all or some deeds might be provided by the introduction to this country of some witnessing equivalent to notarial witnessing.
Signatures, including witnesses signatures, are sometimes forged, which presents real problems. It will be no bad thing if some deeds have to be witnessed by someone who is obliged to be satisfied as to the identity of the person signing, and there must be clear records to show how and the extent to which he is satisfied. I appreciate that that will create further red tape but, nevertheless, if special consequences are to follow the making of a deed it is surely right that we should consider whether or not special formalities should attend their creation.
The rule in Bain v. Fothergill has bothered me for 35 years. I welcome this chance to renew my acquaintance with it through reading the Law Commission report, and I am glad that it is to be abolished. Mr. Fothergill knew perfectly well that the lessors' consent to assign Miss Walter's royalty was needed and had not been obtained when he contracted to sell the royalty to Mr. Bain. He never bothered to tell Mr. Bain that. It has always seemed to me somewhat shocking that when, subsequently,

607
the lessors' refused consent Mr. Bain could not recover damages for the loss of his bargain. He was merely entitled to the return of his deposit, interest and expenses.
The rule meant that where it was necessary for a vendor to obtain a lessor's consent to an assignment to a purchaser, it was possible for a vendor who had repented his bargain when he realised he could get a better bargain, to persuade his lessor to refuse consent and thus to escape practically unscathed from his agreement.
It always seemed simple to me. A contract to sell land should be treated like any other contract. If the vendor knew that consent to the assignment was required and had not been obtained, he should provide in the contract for what would happen in the event of consent to the assignment never being given. That should be agreed with the purchaser. Then all would be well. There was no reason in those circumstances why a vendor in breach of contract should not pay full damages for the purchaser's loss of bargain, should the point arise.
I say that 35 years ago the rule in Bain v. Fothergill should have been abolished. The rule was born in earlier days, when title had to be shown for at least 60 years to unregistered land, as against the minimum of 15 years in the case of unregistered land today and no time at all in the case of registered land. There were also problems in the proof and examination of title which have gradually been swept away by a long series of land law reforms, culminating in the 1925 Law of Property Act. The rule was originally handed down by the judges in order to deal with conveyancing problems and defecting titles which arose in title deeds which were, in words attributed to Lord Westbury:
"difficult to read, disgusting to touch and impossible to understand".
The rule reflected the need of conveyancers and their clients in those days.
Therefore, as I understand it, conveyancing was altogether a different practice then. The contract was not what it became many years ago. It was a somewhat provisional agreement to sell and to buy, but always subject to what would now seem the curious proviso that the contract would be all right so long as, after contracts were exchanged, it was possible to prove the title.That rule was founded not on absolute principles, but it was a rule of convenience based on conveyancing conditions which have long since passed away.
The statement of noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, on a judicial precedent in the House of Lords was in 1966. The appellate Committee recognised that,
"too rigid adherence to precedent may lead to injustice in a particular case".
Since then the House of Lords has been able, in the exceptional case,
"to depart from decisions when it appears right to do so".
I submit that a case turning on the rule in Bain v. Fothergill should have been before the Appellate Committee years ago to give the Law Lords a chance to overturn the rule. It is very much to be regretted
608
that during the past 21 years no case has been dragged from the courts of first instance to the Appellate Committee for that very purpose.
I have to tell the House that I note that even the rule in Bain v. Fothergill started in the Court of Exchequer. It was then affirmed without argument in the Exchequer Chamber so that the matter might be brought directly to your Lordships' House. However, I have to say that the original judgment in the Exchequer Court was on 15th November 1870 and the speeches of the Lords of Appeal were delivered three and a half years later on 22nd June 1874. 1 might also add that Mr. Fothergill exchanged contracts for the purchase of Miss Walter's Royalty and other properties in August 1863 and that the purchase had not been completed on 17th October 1867, four years later, when Fothergill entered into his contract with Bain.
It is not just that the Appellate Committee, following the statement of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, could have disposed of Bain v. Fothergill the sooner. It would have enabled the old monster to be disposed by reasoned speeches within the courts of the common law. That would have laid down precedent to assist in the understanding of the decision and the further development of the law.
To legislate simply in the terms of Clause 3 of the Bill—
"The rule of law known as the rule in Bain v. Fothergill is abolished"—
may be economical in words, and for that we should be grateful, but it may create its own chaos if there is question as to what exactly it is that has been abolished, and there will be no speeches of Law Lords to assist future judges in their interpretation of the bald words of statute.
I know what the rule is which is known as the rule in Bain v. Fothergill. It is a rule which prohibits an award of damages for loss of bargain in contracts for disposals of land. For the future, a court which on general principles awards such damages will not need to withhold them because of the rule. That is clear and I do not wish to cast doubt on the effectiveness of the legislation we are considering. I want merely to draw attention to the fact that difficulty of interpretation may result from this type of legislation. The rule known as the rule in Bain v. Fothergill is not in fact the rule in Bain v. Fothergill; it is a rule derived from the 1776 case of Flureau v. Thornhill and has been subsequently mulled over by academics and pulled about in a number of cases ending with a mauling in the maggot farm case heard by the Court of Appeal two years ago, to which my noble and learned friend referred.
In Bath v. Fothergill itself there are 40 pages of speeches. Paragraph 4.1 of the Law Commission Working Paper says that the rule is uncertain both in its scope and in its application. There has been uncertainty as to the wording of the clause in this Bill, to which the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, referred, because in the draft Bill as appended to the Law Commission report additional words, which are not now before us, described the rule as,
"restricting the damages recoverable for breaches of contract occasioned by defects in title to land".

609
I wonder whether the draftsman eventually decided that the words were too broad, too restrictive, or both; or simply too dangerous to entrust to the courts to interpret.
It may be that there is an actual rule to be found in the speeches in Bain v. Fothergill. The special circumstances of that case were that the vendor was aware of the defect of title. Can it not be argued that we are now abolishing a limited rule which provides that damages for loss of bargain are not to be awarded where the vendor is aware of the defect of title?
This is not merely a debating point. There is a case for arguing—your Lordships have heard it referred to—that Bain v. Fothergill should not be entirely disregarded and that this is as far as we should go. It can be argued that where some totally unforeseen and unforeseeable defect of title is turned up there should be no damages for loss of bargain but merely a return of the parties, so far as possible, to where they were before contracts were exchanged. After all, the standard printed contracts for the sale of land, which are generally used or adapated for most sales and are designed to strike a fair balance between vendor and purchaser, provide for a vendor to have the right to rescind the contract if the purchaser persists in an objection to the title which the vendor shall be unable or unwilling, on reasonable grounds, to remove; and in the case of such a rescission the vendor is to return the deposit—no more—and the purchaser is to return the papers and the abstract.
It is clear to me that the effect of abolishing the rule must in general in future include the need for lawyers to devote much more time before contract to consideration of title, possible defects of title and what to do about them. I do not suggest that that will be a bad thing—quite the contrary—but it will tend to lengthen the time between agreement in principle for the sale of land and the exchange of contracts. I am sure that we are all agreed that it is in this period that the speeding up of conveyancing practices is required.
In my view this points to the absolute need for house owners to instruct their solicitors immediately they have decided to sell their properties. They should not leave it so that the first a solicitor learns of an impending sale is when he receives a memorandum of the agreed terms from the estate agent.
Purchasers too should learn new disciplines. This is not yet well recognised, but when a purchaser is pleased by a house he should at once instruct his solicitor. He should ask the agents whether a contract would be ready to sign, should price be agreed, whether a copy of the lease can be inspected at once and, indeed, who will be acting for the vendor in a sale: will it be solicitors, licensed conveyancers, the vendor himself, or perhaps in the future some other Tom Noddy?
Incompetence by conveyancing practitioners other than one's own can be extremely damaging. Here I mention the words of the learned Vice-Chancellor, Sir Nicolas Browne-Wilkinson, in the recent case of Hall v. Eade which was reported in The Times only last Thursday. A purchaser had not been represented by a lawyer. Difficulties had arisen and a lawyer had
610
not been consulted in time. The purchaser had become involved in a substantial liability for costs. The Vice-Chancellor is reported as saying that it was important that the public should appreciate that when matters got into the realm of dispute it was not always appropriate to be advised otherwise than by a solicitor. The point I particularly make here in concluding is that undoubtedly not just the purchaser but the vendor also suffered (anyone involved in litigation suffers) because his purchaser was not advised by a lawyer.
3.49 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful for the general reception accorded the Bill and for the acknowledgment of the work carried out by the Law Commission including the method by which it works which, I agree, has very much changed this particular approach to law reform. Governments also have learned from the techniques of the Law Commission on how to proceed in such matters.
I wish to refer briefly to one or two topics that have been raised. The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, mentioned the point about elderly and infirm persons executing deeds and asked whether some protection is required. My noble friend Lord Coleraine mentioned the possibility of material execution in this context. In this country so far that system has not been invoked. I believe it is thought that reliance on the law as regards undue influence and fraud is probably sufficient protection.
The next question to be raised was whether the provision that enables reference to be made to another document would allow reference to more than one. I believe that the Interpretation Act would apply to this. Accordingly, it will be possible to have the necessary words in more than one other document.
I believe that there is nothing in the Bill to affect the operation of the doctrine of estoppel. I believe that if one had a succession of contracts all in terms that did not in any way exclude liability for defect in title, then there would be a liability right down the line. It would be a condition of each of these contracts in the line that the title passing should be good. If that was breached by the first vendor then his purchaser would have an action against him and so on down the line. I believe that to be just. If someone down the line was anxious about the matter, perhaps concerning the solvency of someone further up the line, then under the rules now proposed it would be open to make some exception or provision in the contractual arrangements to cover that.
The general view that the Law Commission proposals should receive a speedy passage is an interesting one. I believe that I have heard the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, propose previously that there might be a special parliamentary system for dealing with Law Commission Bills. Having regard to the amount of consultation that goes into these matters, it is a very reasonable suggestion. However, as my noble friend Lord Coleraine said, Parliament likes to scrutinise for itself and not delegate these responsibilities to any other. I fear therefore that it may be some little time before the noble Lord's proposals come into effect.

611
As regards the clause dealing with the rule in Bain v. Fothergill, if there was real doubt as to what the rule was and one is abolishing it, there is not much harm in not trying to specify it. I believe this to be perhaps the wiser course. There may be matters for further consideration at later stages of the Bill. In the meantime I believe that your Lordships are very strongly of the view that the Bill should be given a Second Reading. Therefore it is with some confidence that I put the question.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Road Traffic (Driver Licensing and Information Systems) Bill [H.L.]
3.53 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Abolition of special licences for driving HGVs and PSVs]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 23, at end insert—
("(2A) Any of the following proceedings pending at the appointed day, that is to say—

(a) any application questioning the conduct of a test of competence to drive under section 115 of the 1988 Act. and

(b) any reconsideration by, or appeal from, a licensing authority under section 116 of the 1988 Act or section 23 of the 1981 Act,

may be continued and, as the case may be, any order relative to the test (of fees) made or licence issued notwithstanding the repeals made by this Act and any order of eligibility to take a test so made shall be treated as relating to a corresponding test and any heavy goods vehicle or public service vehicle driver's licence so issued shall be treated as an existing licence.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is needed to enable proceedings that are pending when the legislation comes into force to continue notwithstanding the fact that the provisions on which the proceedings are founded have been repealed. The provision will allow the proceedings to continue and the final decision to be implemented. Licences issued by virtue of this amendment will be treated as existing licences even though they may be issued after the provisions of the Bill come into force. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Existing HGV and PSV Drivers' Licences]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 2:
>Page 21, line 6, at end insert—
612
("(4) Before making any regulations under this paragraph the Secretary of State must consult with such representative organisations as he thinks fit.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment inserts the statutory requirement that interested organisations be consulted before any regulations relating to existing licences are made. 1 beg to move.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: It is a small point and I do not remember noticing it in legislation before. The amendment says,
"Before making any regulations under this paragraph the Secretary of State must consult with such representative organisations as he thinks fit.".
The Minister may believe that there are no organisations that he wishes to consult with. Therefore it seems illogical that one must consult with an organisation if he chooses none. I wonder whether the Minister will look at this point? The phraseology seems rather odd.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I am not sure I can envisage the situation where my right honourable friend would find no-one with whom he would need to consult on this kind of matter. This same requirement applies already to regulations made under the Road Traffic Act 1988. We believe it appropriate that similar arrangements should be made in this Bill.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 21, line 25, leave out ("driving").
The noble Lord said: This is a technical amendment. The reference to "driving" is superfluous. The correct reference is simply to,
"an existing Northern Ireland licence"
as defined in paragraph (1) and used elsewhere in this provision. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Provisions inserted in Road Traffic Act 1988]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 25. line 28, leave out ("that section") and insert ("section 116 of this Act").
The noble Lord said: The reference in Section 118(2)(a) to Section 115 of the Act is inaccurate. The amendment substitutes the correct reference. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 [Exceptions to prohibition on driving without a licence]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 4. line 29, at end insert—
("but a disqualification which does not prevent the person disqualified from obtaining a provisional licence or, as the case may be, a licence corresponding to a provisional licence is relevant to a full licence but not to a provisional licence.").

613
The noble Lord said: This amendment to Clause 3 clarifies the circumstances in which a licence disqualification is relevant to an application for a licence. It ensures that a disqualified driver is not able to obtain a full licence on the strength of a provisional licence obtained while disqualified from obtaining a full licence. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
4 p.m.
Clause 4[Tests of competence and related conditions of entitlement to driving licence]:
Lord Teviot Lord Teviot moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 8, line 22, at end insert:
("Immediate authorisation to drive of persons who have passed a passenger-carrying vehicle test.
(5) After section 89 of the 1988 Act there shall he inserted the following section which shall come into force at the end of the period of one month beginning with the day on which this Act is passed—
89B—(1) Any person who has passed a test of competence to drive a passenger-carrying vehicle shall be issued with a written authorisation in the form prescribed permitting him to drive a passenger-carrying vehicle on a road for the purposes of carrying passengers for hire or reward.
(2) The written authorisation referred to in subsection (1) above shall be issued by the person conducting the test immediately after the completion of the test.").
The noble Lord said: 1 should like at the same time to speak to Amendment No. 59. I must claim a small, long-standing interest in the bus industry. The object of the amendment is simple. It seeks to put a driver who has passed a passenger service vehicle driving test in just the same position as any other driver who has passed his driving test. If a person passes an ordinary driving test he is given a written authorisation to drive immediately. This is not so with a PSV test, where one has to wait for one's licence to come through from the traffic commissioners. Unfortunately operators all over the country are experiencing considerable delays in trained drivers receiving their licences. At best it is about four weeks. A most extreme example was eight weeks. Let us say that four weeks to six weeks is the norm. These drivers then have to be found other work to do during this waiting period.
One example of where problems can be caused is when an operator wins a large batch of tender services from a county council or a passenger transport executive. The operator has sufficient vehicles and an adequate operator's licence but needs PSV drivers. It is often the case that a large operator trains as full PSV drivers existing employees who are minibus drivers but then cannot meet the deadline for the start of his contract because of the delays in his drivers receiving their licences.
The Committee may recall that I referred to this problem during the Bill's Second Reading debate. My noble friend Lord Brabazon indicated that the point would be satisfied by the Bill by amending Part III of the Road Traffic Act 1988. My understanding of the position is that the provisions of the Bill will not come into effect until 1991. I received this impression during an extremely interesting visit with other noble Lords to the Driving and Vehicle
614
Licensing Centre at Swansea. The visit, arranged by my noble friend, was a breath of fresh air. I mean no disrespect to the traffic commissioners who are probably still operating on the steam-driven system. The DVLC has an efficient and competent computer system. We were all very impressed by the visit.
While the weather was perfectly filthy in London, somewhere between Swansea and Bridgend the clouds broke and we were then in absolute sunshine, which I believe is rather rare for Wales. We were looked after very well. The people we saw were keen and we had every confidence that the HGV and PSV licensing would be well looked after there. Previous thoughts of the DVLC being a soulless body were driven straight out of the window. One has extreme confidence in it.
The object of my amendment is to bridge the gap between the Bill becoming law, which I anticipate will be fairly soon, and 1991. Perhaps my noble friend is concerned that the early introduction of the Bill will cause problems in regard to checking that drivers are fit and proper persons and are medically fit. I should point out that the problem is no more troublesome now than it will be in 1991. The figures involved are small. The traffic commissioners' annual report of 31st March 1987 shows that 23,759 licences were granted and only five were refused for reasons of character. Those figures are minimal and are very much better than one ever deemed possible.
The Committee will see that in the amendment I have allowed a period of one month from the date the Bill receives Royal Assent to allow my noble friend to prescribe the form of the written authorisation to drive that will be given to the person when he or she passes the test. My noble friend may think that this is not long enough to complete the process. I shall not be opposed to a reasonable extension of the time if the principle of the amendment is accepted. I beg to move.
The Earl of Shrewsbury: I have great pleasure in adding my name to that of my noble friend Lord Teviot in supporting his amendment to Clause 4. I must declare an interest as a consultant to Richardson's Developments, which developed the Merry Hill Centre in the Black Country. It is one of the largest and most successful shopping centres in the United Kingdom. As this superb example of private enterprise has expanded it has added to its fleet of public service vehicles which operate over a wide area in the locality. However, if it is to continue finding new jobs in the region—not only in the retail sector—a more streamlined system of licensing must be introduced, not only for it but for hundreds of other operators across the country.
I support the amendment because it is clear to me that the present position cannot be tolerated by transport operators. The delay involved between the passing of the test and the issuing of a full badge is most unsatisfactory. Unlike car drivers who are immediately issued by their examiner with a pink slip which entitles them to drive unaccompanied from that moment on, PSV drivers who have successfully taken the test cannot drive a PSV vehicle for hire or reward for up to 14 days—and in some cases much longer—until such time as a badge has been issued.

615
The information I have from both Merry Hill and West Midlands Travel, a major bus operator which has in excess of 1,700 vehicles and employs more than 3,000 drivers in the West Midlands, is that in the West Midlands region delays of up to 10 days and much more between passing the test and being issued with a badge are being experienced at present. However, I am advised that these delays are often much longer in many other parts of the country. They can extend up to six weeks or longer in certain cases. These companies are finding that they have to constrain recruitment. West Midlands Travel currently has 90 vacancies for drivers because congestion in the present system remains unresolved.
Since deregulation, matters have considerably worsened in a climate created to enhance transport services to the public. Competition produced by deregulation has meant that operators are employing many more potential drivers, a large number of whom are recruited from the ranks of the unemployed. At Merry Hill, for example, out of 50 drivers recruited and trained to take the test since April 1988, some 55 per cent. were previously on the unemployment register. Thus the industry is more than playing its part in the Government's fight for full employment.
Is it really fair to draw such a distinction between PSV drivers and car drivers? Both have passed their tests and are therefore considered to be competent vehicle operators. Yet the PSV driver still has to face a delay until he or she can drive passengers for hire or reward. In the meantime, while the successful PSV driver is in a state of limbo, his employer can pay him only the trainee's rate of pay. In addition, the qualified trainee in this period can be employed to drive a vehicle for hire or reward only while there is an existing badge holder in attendance. This costs the employer nearly double while he waits for a badge to be issued by the licensing office to the trainee driver who has passed his test.
The present position causes not only many unnecessary difficulties, both financially and operationally, for the industry as a whole but problems among the workforce as the standard of recruit needed is very high. If drivers, once they have obtained their qualifications, are able to be on only a trainee's rate of pay they are bound to feel frustration and resentment. Indeed, it makes it a considerably more difficult task for the operators to recruit the right type of person for the job. That cannot be right. It is unfair to the employer, to the employee and to the customer. Moreover, the financial cost which is wasted is quite deplorable—not to mention the time and effort which could be utilised in a much more beneficial way.
My information is that it costs an employer a figure of between £500 and £800 to train up a potential public service vehicle driver. Further, to my knowledge there are no training grants available at present. This is a considerable investment for employers to make throughout the industry and yet delays on the applications for the tests, and the issuing of badges, are becoming worse. For example, I understand that in my area in the West Midlands,
616
before last Christmas, the licensing office in Broad Street, Birmingham, closed for two weeks to enable its staff to clear the backlog. Yet the cost of applying for a test has gone up considerably to £42.
The capital cost of minibuses is not cheap. To put one vehicle on the road, complete with ticketing equipment, costs in the region of £25,000. The amendment tabled by my noble friend would have a most beneficial effect in many ways. First, if the examiner were able to issue the successful examinee with a certificate on passing the test which would enable the driver to operate a vehicle immediately, as car drivers can, that would cut expense for the industry. It would also reduce wastage of quality manpower and would improve services for the general public.
Secondly, it would reduce the administrative workload of both the industry and the Department of Transport's licensing offices, which are under a considerable amount of pressure at present. It would further justify the recent rise in the test fee.
I cannot see that the amendment proposed could possibly cause any detrimental effect. It could only improve vastly on the present situation. With deregulation the industry has been given a climate in which it can improve and succeed. However, it must be in a position to attract, train and retain a quality workforce. The amendment goes a long way in helping to provide the tools for the job. I therefore strongly urge Members of the Committee to consider the amendment and give it their support.
Lord Underhill: I should like briefly to say from this Dispatch Box that the two noble Lords who introduced the amendment did so in an excellent manner. Moreover, unless the Minister can give some sound reason as to why the amendment should not be approved, we shall be disposed to endorse it.
Perhaps I may also say that I and my colleague appreciated the invitation which the Minister extended to visit the DVLC. We do not have the slightest doubt that when the whole relicensing under the Bill comes into effect the DVLC will be able to function efficiently. What we saw there was extremely well worth seeing and I endorse everything that the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, said.
However, if there is a delay occurring at present in drivers of passenger-carrying vehicles being able to take up their job quickly—it is most essential that they should do so in many areas—the Minister must give a sound reason as to why he cannot accept the amendment. If the wording needs improvement, I am certain that the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, will readily agree to change the wording on Report.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I fully appreciate the object of my noble friend's amendment. The changes that he is seeking are not necessary, as I think he said in his opening remarks. The application of the provisions of Part III of the Road Traffic Act 1988 to vocational licences will mean that provisional licences may be issued for drivers seeking to drive passenger-carrying vehicles. The conditions attached to this provisional entitlement will be conveyed in regulations to be

617
made under the Bill. These conditions will be suspended when the driver has passed the appropriate test and he may drive as a full licence holder until he obtains his full licence. I can assure my noble friends that we do not wish to have drivers who have passed their test sitting around until their full licence appears.
The problem with the current situation—that is, until the new system comes into effect—is that there is no provisional licence for PCV drivers. Their fitness to hold a licence on the basis of conduct and other grounds needs to be checked before a licence is issued by the traffic commissioners. That will disappear with the new system and PCV drivers should be on all fours with all other drivers.
The delays in traffic areas are being tackled through the provision of additional resources. We hope that that will remove the delays in the short term. I hope that with those assurances my noble friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Teviot: I am afraid that my noble friend only thinks I will withdraw the amendment. However, I shall give him just one more chance. The Bill will not come into effect until 1991. Is he or is he not going to give me what I want? Will the proposal which I put forward—and the second one contained in Amendment No. 59—with the provision of the one-month period after Royal Assent, be allowed? Can he see his way clearly to allowing me to do this? I had an assurance from Swansea that under the existing Bill that provision will become part of the test in 1991. However, I do not think that the industry can possibly afford to wait for that situation to occur. If my noble friend can assure me on that point, I shall be happy to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I explained a moment ago that there are problems with the existing system which make change difficult. However, I shall look into the matter to see whether anything can be done in the short term. Perhaps between now and the next stage of the Bill's proceedings I can be in touch with my noble friend.
Lord Teviot: As my noble friend has said that, I can do nothing but agree. However, it will be between now and the next stage of the Bill's proceedings, and I shall go no further while the Bill is in this place. I am most grateful to my noble friend for what he said. I have at least achieved that. In that case, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Refusal or revocation of licences on grounds of physical fitness]:
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 9, line 49, at end insert—
("(8A) In section 96 of the 1988 Act (driving with uncorrected defective eyesight). the following subsection shall he inserted after subsection (1)—
"(1A) Persons aged 70 and over who are in possession of a valid driving licence shall have their eyesight tested at least once
618
in every two years; and if they drive with uncorrected defective eyesight, they are guilty of an offence.").
The noble Baroness said: The amendment I tabled as set out on the Marshalled List is self-explanatory. However, I feel that I must read to the Committee the section of the Road Traffic Act 1988 which relates to the definition of eyesight. Section 96(1) provides:
"If a person drives a motor vehicle on a road while his eyesight is such (whether through a defect which cannot be or one which is not for the time being sufficiently corrected) that he cannot comply with any requirement as to eyesight prescribed under this Part of this Act for the purposes of tests of competence to drive, he is guilty of an offence".
I want to bring that point out at the beginning of my remarks in case my noble friend tells me that that obligation is already in the Act. I am perfectly clear that it is in the Act that your eyesight should be corrected and that you should be assured of your good vision in terms of driving. However, I am equally clear that many people really do not know that their eyesight is defective. I told Members of the Committee on Second Reading about a noble Lord—now deceased—who showed me his car and pointed out that it was in pristine condition, when in fact it was all crumpled up. I believe that there are many people who imagine that their eyesight is satisfactory. It is possible that it has deteriorated gradually and they are not aware of the fact.
My choice of the age of 70 is a purely arbitrary one. I am prepared to concede whatever age my noble friend the Minister considers appropriate, because there must be statistics which show at what age most eyesight defects develop. But in the time that I have sat as a magistrate, since 1971, I have never had any evidence brought forward in the case of a road traffic accident as to whether either of the drivers involved had had any problem with eyesight. In fact, the discussion is almost always about the vehicles and which way they were turning. No one ever says, "Did you see this vehicle?", "Can you see?", or "What is your eyesight like?"
In my view, many accidents are caused by unrecognised eyesight problems. Therefore the suggestion that I put forward—this is a probing amendment to find out what sort of reaction there is to it—is designed to discover whether there is some particular age at which an eyesight test should be called for.
As regards the period of two years, I only chose that because under the national health scheme, in the days of free eyesight tests, you were allowed to have such a test only every two years. Therefore there must have been some research done on the subject to indicate that that was about the appropriate period between eyesight tests. I am not inflexible on the period or the age. I wish to draw attention to those people who are already driving and whose eyesight may not be as good as they think it is. It is relevant to the safety of other drivers that everyone should be concerned to make sure that their eyesight is adequate for driving.
I have met young people who have told me that, although they do not wear glasses for anything else, they have to wear them for driving. It is easy to pass one's test and have one's eyesight assessed at that time. If one is in normal health, a licence is given until

619
one is 70. No one ever follows up on one's eyesight from that date until one stops driving. I ask my noble friend the Minister to comment on the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: Perhaps I may give some, admittedly muted, support to my friend Lady Gardner of Parkes. I say "muted support" because my amendment follows this one. It is fair to agree with my noble friend that until some accident occurs many drivers do not realise that their eyesight has deteriorated to the point at which they are incapable of driving a motor vehicle. In the past seven to 10 years a number of studies have been undertaken which have established conclusively that that is so. During the passage of another Bill last year, I referred to the McKean and Edington report from Southampton University on the incidence of glaucoma. The survey was admittedly small but it showed that a large majority of people had not realised that they could not see to the left or the right, which was the reason for their accident. They were grateful that they were stopped from driving on medical advice or, as more frequently happened, as the result of advice from their friends or relatives. They relieved themselves of the burden of making the voluntary decision to stop driving.
My noble friend illustrated another point. While the 1988 Act, which she has quoted, provides that an offence is committed if a driver drives without correct sight, there is no provision for that sight to be checked. It is a self-appraisal system. It is important to remind the Committee that there is a requirement on the application for a driving licence, which now lasts until age 70 in the case of private vehicles, to apprise the medical division of the DVLC of any deterioration or material change in health.
Equally, when the insurance company renewal notice appears, there is a requirement to advise the company of any material difference in health or other circumstances from what was declared when the policy was first underwritten. Most people forget that requirement. Most people forget about the driving licence because they do not see it day by day. On receiving a renewal notice from the insurance company, most people compare the premium with that of the previous year and, if it is reasonable, they pay, and that is the end of that. It is an unsatisfactory state of affairs.
I disagree with my noble friend on the age limit contained in her amendment because I understand that most eye deterioration starts at about 45 years of age. A lower age level might be more appropriate, although I do not know what it should be. There should be a further and more positive requirement for a driver to undertake some kind of test. I shall describe what I want to happen when we debate the next amendment. Broadly speaking, I support the principle underlying the amendment moved by my noble friend.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: Perhaps I may add a few words to what my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes said. For many years as a magistrate in my
620
local court I have judged the consequences of road traffic accidents. I must admit that I cannot remember ever having asked a defendant what his eyesight was like, nor do I believe that any police officer did so. I have taken the trouble to ask three opticians their views on the number of patients who drive with impaired eyesight. All three of them have said that it is ridiculous and dangerous for some people to be going around, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said, probably not even knowing that they cannot see and measure distance as accurately as those with correct eyesight. The amendment is important. I should like to lower the age by at least 20 years because that is what I have been advised. I shall certainly lend my support to the amendment.
Lord Underhill: All Members of the Committee will appreciate the intention behind the amendment moved by the noble Baroness. Perhaps I should declare an interest. First, I am fast approaching the middle 70s. Secondly, as I believe most noble Lords know, I completely lost the sight of one eye about eight or nine years ago. My medical record is on my DVLC card. I saw it when we visited Swansea last week.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said that a number of studies had shown the position to have been proved conclusively. On Second Reading, my noble friend Lord Carmichael questioned whether a large number of accidents and injuries were due to defective eyesight. The Minister said:
"There is no evidence to suggest that the present arrangements are failing to meet the requirements for road safety".—[Official Report, 15/12/88; col. 1062.]
Is there conclusive evidence that eyesight failure is the cause of a considerable number of accidents? Is there conclusive evidence that defective eyesight is common at age 70 and not at a lower age? It is the same with a number of problems. I know people of 50, and it is questionable whether they should he on the road at all. I at least have gone through a medical examination and it has been proved that I am still capable of driving. That is the interest that I declare.
Will the Minister give a clear indication of the facts of the case, bearing in mind that we were astounded when we visited the DVLC to be told that 250,000 communications are received at the centre every day? If everyone aged 70 has to he reminded every two years that they must have a medical check and report it to the DVLC, another piece of paper will have to be produced—I treasure mine—showing whether one has permission to drive, and the DVLC will have an immense amount of extra work. However, if the Minister has evidence to justify the point, the amendment should be supported. Will the Minister give us facts to justify the conclusions that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said have been divulged in a number of surveys?
4.30 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: I had not intended to take part in this debate until 1 remembered that about three or four months ago I was driving a pony trap round my property and was nearly hit by an extremely nice man who cannot see where he is going. It seems to me that it is much easier to say to everybody, "You should

621
have a test above a certain age." That takes away the sting of losing your licence or whatever may happen, rather than the result being put upon somebody afterwards. I am not in any way making a criticism of the man in question, except that I was extremely frightened and nearly fell out—but then perhaps your Lordships might not have had the benefit of my unbounded wisdom. That is neither here nor yon, but 1 think there is a case for saying that at a certain age there should be a medical examination or an eyesight examination which applies to all, and then everybody knows it is going to happen. There is no stigma and no worry, and it is fair to everybody. It is very important that there should be no stigma attached to growing old, and that is why I would support some amendment along these lines.
Earl Attlee: I am some 15 years younger than the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. Last year I was having an eye test and at the end of it I asked whether I should be wearing glasses when driving a car. The specialist said, "No, you are all right at the moment. but 1 think the next time you have your eyes tested, if there has been some deterioration then possibly you may need glasses". I do not think the age of 70 is the right age, or even the age of 50. I think perhaps that a nice round age such as 60 may be the right time for everyone to begin having their eyes tested before they drive.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: I feel I should like to add just one word to this interesting debate because I am also of an age where my eyesight is not what it was and my oculist advises me that for driving I should wear glasses although 1 can see perfectly well to drive without them. The result is that I normally do wear glasses and there is no doubt about it that the image is just a little clearer, especially when driving fast on motorways. Therefore, any driver in those circumstances will appreciate a situation a split second faster and therefore take earlier corrective action or whatever may be needed at perhaps a critical moment and thus avoid an accident. There is no doubt a technical point here; but the point my noble friend has to deal with in facing this battery of argument that has come at him, is whether across the board there is enough evidence to justify requiring a specific test, or anything more than we have now.
That is really the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. Any sensible person such as the noble Lord and, I hope, myself asks his or her oculist at a certain stage in their age development whether they should wear glasses for driving. I would suppose that happens often enough, so that not too many of us are driving around without being able to see properly. What we have to realise is that if we require the law to make it a legal requirement for everybody we are going to pose a very heavy administrative problem for the licence centre at Swansea, and of course for the medical profession and the oculists in giving all these tests. I am bound to say that I think my noble friend would need a great deal more evidence than he has up to date before he could possibly justify that.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: Following on what my noble friend Lord Nugent has said, I have a feeling
622
that my noble friend the Minister will say that there really is not sufficient evidence to support what has been suggested. As my noble friend Lady Macleod has pointed out, the police do not in fact look into the question of a driver's eyesight at the time of an accident, and that is why the Ministry of Transport, whenever this point is raised, always says there is no evidence to support what is said. Perhaps the first thing would be for police officers, when there are accidents, to make it a regular thing always to test the eyesight of anybody involved. Then they will get the evidence in due course.
Lord Trafford: Before going any further, we have had two quite different bases for arguing about this amendment. The first was what is referred to as "defective eyesight", which can mean a large number of things. I think it would be nice to know—I am not certain myself—what is actually proposed in terms of the test. There are a large number of conditions of the eye, some of which are of course not correctable although the term "uncorrected" is used. Secondly, we have had the phrase "medical examination" used in rather the same terms. They are of course different things, and apart from the burden this would impose upon opticians, doctors or anybody else—that is to say the administrative burden, and the administration in the form of the licensing authorities has already been mentioned—there is also the definition of precisely what test one would be passing. For example, the normal thing about reading registration plates at a distance anybody can check for themselves, and most people know whether or not they can see well at a distance or whether they cannot read the London telephone directory because their arm is not long enough, which is a pretty good test of certain problems. But the fact remains that there are many other things that may not be detected on an ordinary test. So I would ask: what depth of test is actually envisaged by this term "uncorrected vision"? I think that is important, and perhaps it ought not to be confused with the term "medical examination", which of course is much wider.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: We have had an interesting debate on this subject. We in the department recognise that after the age of 70, which is after all the age to which the amendment refers, health is likely to deteriorate in ways that might possibly affect driving and the driving licensing system takes account of the possible effects of increasing age. From that time licences are issued for only three years, and applicants are asked at regular intervals to declare any relevant medical condition, including any deterioration in eyesight. We therefore consider this amendment to be unnecessary.
As has been pointed out already, it is an offence now to drive at any age with eyesight which is known to be defective. Drivers are under a continuing obligation to report to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre if they become aware of the onset or the worsening of a health condition that might affect their fitness to drive safely. I might point out at this stage that each year there are around 300 convictions for eyesight offences.
When such notifications are received the centre will make medical inquiries and, in the light of those

623
inquiries, will take a decision about a future entitlement to drive. With the help of professional bodies, we try to ensure that doctors are well informed about the relevance to driving of certain medical conditions. Elderly people are more likely than others to see their doctors regularly and can be advised on their ability to drive.
Turning to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and by my noble friend Lord Nugent, about evidence as to whether this is in fact a problem, research in this country and abroad has not shown any significant relationship between various eye defects and accidents. The research does not provide any justification for compulsory eyesight tests. There is no conclusive evidence therefore that eyesight defects are a contributing factor in road accidents. A far bigger problem is drivers not using their perfectly good eyesight properly.
My noble friend Lord Trafford wondered what sort of tests would be required. I cannot answer that question of course, but I would point out that the department's test of being able to read a number plate in good daylight from a distance of 75 feet, with characters three and a half inches high (or slightly less far for smaller characters) is an extremely simple one for the police to enforce if they stop somebody after an accident at the roadside. The police regularly notify the DVLC when they have reason to believe that a driver may be unfit to drive through poor eyesight or, indeed, for any other reason, so I do not believe that the amendment is necessary. I believe that the existing system whereby it is already an offence to drive with defective eyesight is satisfactory.
In the light of the debate that we have had and of my reply, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: Before the noble Lord sits down, I wonder whether I might ask him if his department believes that drivers tell the truth, both when being tested and on paper. I do not believe that they do. I think that if you give people a questionnaire they will fill it in as they wish to fill it in, and they are by no means honest.
I hope that the Minister will ask his department to look at this matter more closely because many people all over the country are very worried that this provision is left out of the requirements for the ability to drive.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I thank those who have supported me in the amendment and contributed to the valuable discussion. I feel that I must take up one or two of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. I was not suggesting that everyone who had an eyesight test would have to send that to the DVLC; rather, it would be the equivalent after an accident of being asked by the police to produce the MOT form, if relevant, the driving licence and certificate of insurance. It would be on those occasions that one would produce one's eyesight test; so it would not be adding to the burden of the DVLC.
The noble Lord, Lord Trafford, asked what sort of test would be required. He came in after I had already
624
read that definition from the 1988 Act, so he will be able to see it in Hansard. It is as prescribed in the Act for the purposes of competence to drive. That was the definition of the type of test that I was suggesting. I emphasise that I was suggesting an eyesight test by an optician and not a letter from a doctor. All doctors are put under great pressure by patients wanting the right to continue to drive, and it is often very difficult for a doctor to refuse to supply a letter saying that someone is fit to drive when there might be a cause for doubt, and they tend to give the patient the benefit of the doubt.
As so many people have asked what evidence there is, perhaps I should quote Deputy Chief Constable Hanlon of Staffordshire who, at the Royal Society of Health Congress, called for periodic monitoring of driver vision with police powers to have drivers tested. Apparently the police do not have powers at the moment to ask to have a driver tested. He said:
"We are in the position where the human failing of 'Looked but failed to see' is third highest out of 23 causes of human errors contributing to accidents after "Lack of care' and 'Too fast'".
In fact, he said that it was rather unfortunate that there was no way of checking whether a driver could see well enough to perform the complicated business of driving. So I think that this matter is not to be taken lightly.
I shall read what the Minister has said and consider it carefully. I should like further advice on the matter of age, but I think it is very important that people should be aware of their obligation to ensure that their eyesight is right. I believe that the only way to ensure that is to have it tested by some independent person rather than by the self-assessment process which has been suggested.
I thank the Committee for the debate and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 9, line 49, at end insert—
("(8A) In section 96 of the 1988 Act (driving with uncorrected defective eyesight) at the end there shall be inserted the words—
"If a licence holder driving a motor vehicle on a road is found to be guilty of an offence, the Secretary of State shall require that person to submit to a test for the purpose of ascertaining whether he can comply with any requirement as to eyesight prescribed under this Part of this Act for the purposes of test of competence to drive." ").
The noble Lord said: To some extent this amendment covers ground which we have recently dealt with. But I should like to start in 1935 when there was the eyesight requirement for an applicant for a driving licence for a private motor car. I make the distinction between the private motor car licence applicant and the bus or heavy goods vehicle licence which is based on what is called the eyesight test which is over 50 years' old.
In a paper prepared for the European Road Safety Year in 1986 there was the result of a survey carried out at the previous year's Motorfair Show at Earls Court when 4,000 visitors submitted to vision screening. They were asked about the official standard of vision required of licence holders.

625
Drivers knew that a number plate was involved, but only 3.3 per cent. knew the correct up-to-date vision distance of 67 feet. Further, guesses of the distance varied from 7 feet to 100 metres. That shows the total futility of that test.
In a paper by W. N. Charman, who was Professor of Ophthalmic Optics at the University of Manchester in 1984, are set out long tables of the requirements of a variety of countries so far as private motorist eye tests are concerned. For example, for the European Community the minimum static acuity for a two-eyed person is 0.4 in the better eye, 0.2 in the worst eye and 0.5 for both eyes together. For a one-eyed person it is 0.8. That is just one of five tests.
In the United Kingdom there is the number-plate test and that is all. Other countries such as Belgium, Denmark, Ireland and Luxembourg all have a far better requirement. I ask my noble friend the Minister whether in 1991 when the second directive comes into force we shall not have to comply with a European requirement; or are we going to stand still on the number-plate test?
I repeat that in effect the number-plate test is virtually a once-in-a-lifetime test. Although under the Road Traffic Act—I think it is Section 87 of 1972 Act, amended by the 1988 Act—a constable has the right to require a driver to undertake a test if he has reason to suppose that there is defective eyesight, that test is the number-plate test. (Incidentally, it is a constable as described in the Act and not a police officer, so there is perhaps a technical restriction there.)
When my noble friend the Minister was answering my noble friend about evidence, he said the research that had been carried out had found that defective eyesight was not a contributory factor to accidents. So far as I am aware there has been no research, because Stats 19, which is the police form reporting an accident, includes no requirement whatsoever to note physical health, whether general physical health or eyesight; so of course no evidence has been collected as to whether it was a contributory factor.
But if one looks at the Charman Report, the Davison Paper produced by Peter A. Davison of the Physics Department at the Dublin Institute of Technology in 1984, the R. V. North Paper produced in 1984 by Professor North at the Department of Optometry of the University of Wales and the paper entitled Medical Aspects of Fitness to Drive produced by the Medical Commission on Accident Prevention where the guidelines are set down, one sees that all these papers suggest that on the evidence of surveys carried out on numbers of people varying between 10,000 to 4,000, a defect in eyesight was established.
It might be a defect of acuity or of binocular or monocular vision. It might be a defect due to diabetes or glaucoma. It may be due to a variety of things. But I am talking about the generality. I think the Committee will understand that when we are talking about medical or eye defects.
I am suggesting that with this amendment we could begin to establish a statistical base—a base of information on accidents where a conviction was brought for reckless driving, for driving without due care and attention or for other causes. This might be the time to start compiling statistics on medical
626
health and eyesight health of the people, of any age group, who were involved in accidents. We could then see what emerges. That is the purport of this amendment.
I have paper after paper and I could produce a variety of statistics. I want to leave the Committee with one thought on this matter. During the July 1988 National Motorway Safety Campaign—that is a biennial affair sponsored by the police authorities, the Department of Transport and, in 1988, by the General Accident Insurance Company—the police invited people to undertake, quite voluntarily, an eyesight test. That test is known as the Short Snellen Test. Of 982 males who undertook the test, 195 of them, about 20 per cent., were found to have a defect in their eyesight. Of 233 females who quite voluntarily undertook the test 38 of them were found to have an eye defect.
The Association of Chief Police Officers tells me that it has been continually concerned about the link between accidents and bad eyesight. But there are no statistics to back this up. There is academic evidence which suggests that there may be a link, but there is no statistical evidence because the department refuses, or perhaps does not have the ability, to collect such figures. The insurance companies, the police authorities and the Department of Transport are all involved in this, but who is really interested? I ask my noble friend to bear in mind the very worthy endeavours of his right honourable friend and his honourable friend to reduce the incidence of fatal and serious injury on our roads. I congratulate him and his colleagues on a sterling effort.
We could go further by the adoption of this amendment. The provision contained in the amendment would attract no cost whatever to the state. It would be incumbent upon the convicted person to submit himself, at his own cost, to some suitable test. There is no God given right to drive a motor car. It is a privilege and people must prove that they are capable of driving and are competent drivers. It is with that thought that I urge the Committee to accept Amendment No. 8 standing in my name. I beg to move.
Viscount Hanworth: I like this amendment a good deal more than the previous one. However, I think its provisions are far too wide because the words "an offence" could refer simply to an offence caused through exceeding the 30 mile per hour speed limit. One must have some caveat here and leave it to the discretion of the police whether an accident may have been caused by bad eyesight.
Further I do not think we should start to put an age limit on these tests. I say that because a great number of people first start to find that they are not seeing very well at the age of about 40 or 45. Often as they have carried on perfectly well without glasses they continue to do so. When some people get older they find they have to visit the oculist more frequently, simply because they cannot read the telephone directory or other matter. I do not subscribe to the idea of putting an age limit on the tests, because in my view such an age limit would have to be as low as 40.
I do not dispute for one minute that although a person may be able to see, or thinks he is able to see

627
perfectly well, unless he can see with acuity his reaction time definitely increases. I have a further point which slightly applies to the previous amendment. There are many factors in old age which decrease performance and possibly increase the likelihood of accidents. One of them of course is reaction time. I do not think that on balance we should single eyesight out as one of those factors.
The Earl of Onslow: I think it is better to go the other route. Rather than wait for something to happen, we should say to people that we shall develop the 75-foot rule as regards looking at number plates. We should do that rather than wait and prosecute someone for not being able to see where they are going.
This provision is rather like saying that one's car must pass an MOT test after it has been bent round a lamppost, rather than enforcing that beforehand so with luck it will not be bent round a lamppost. If we are going to go down this route of imposing some kind of compulsory test, I should much rather do something before accidents occur than afterwards.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: 1 hope my noble friend the Minister can help me and the Committee as regards the tests which I understand the police have been asking people to undertake completely voluntarily. The police have done this as a result of their concern. They have been asking people who drive into the Membury service station on a motorway out of London to take these tests. I understand it is that service station but I am open to correction. I know those tests have occurred at one of the service stations on one of the motorways leading out of London. When the Minister replies, will he tell us what conclusions the police have come to as a result of these voluntary tests, and indeed what kind of test the police administered? That would be most helpful.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I support this amendment, as the Committee would expect. But I think that it is taking the measure a little too late. However, it is better to take it late than not at all. The provision might prevent the same person having a further accident. So it has that merit.
One of the Members of the Committee came to me a minute ago to say that we had not brought out the point of whether or not one's glasses were right. I hope that the Committee will understand that if one already wears glasses an eye test will show whether they are correct and if one does not already have them the test will indicate whether one needs them. That point is highly relevant and I mention it because I was asked to do so.
I support the amendment. Although I think that it would be preferable to have a regular eye testing programme for drivers rather than wait until they have had an accident, the amendment would at least represent something.
5 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: In some ways the debate on this amendment has been similar to the debate on the
628
previous amendment. Amendment No. 8 as drafted would require all drivers convicted of any motoring, offence to submit to a test of eyesight. There are l½ million driving convictions each year. Many are for technical infringements involving, for example, vehicle defects or, as the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, said, exceeding the 30 mile per hour limit in which eyesight is not a factor. There would be nothing to be gained in road safety terms by requiring an eyesight test in such circumstances.
As I said earlier, research both in this country and abroad has not shown any significant relationship between various eye defects and accidents. The research does not produce any justification for compulsory eyesight tests. The Faculty of Ophthalmologists at the Royal College of Surgeons believes that our present arrangements for eyesight standards are satisfactory. That highly qualified and informed group does not support the call for regular eyesight tests, I understand. I believe that it says that the present number-plate test represents a high enough standard for an eyesight test.
Licence-holders have a continuing obligation to inform the licensing authority of the onset or worsening of any condition, including a deterioration in eyesight, which might affect their ability to drive. We do not believe that further requirements are practicable or necessary. As I said in relation to the previous amendment, the police already have powers to require a driver to submit to an eye test where they suspect an offence of driving with inadequate eyesight. As I mentioned in connection with the previous amendment, there are a number of such convictions each year.
So far as concerns the tests being carried out by police to which my noble friend Lady Macleod referred, I am afraid that I cannot give details at the moment. However, I shall endeavour to find out and let her know.
My noble friend Lord Lucas asked about the proposals for the second EC directive. They have not yet been published. The eyesight standards proposed in that directive will be considered fully in the negotiations in order to see whether any changes in the present rules are needed. It is too early to say what the outcome will be.
My noble friend referred a moment ago to police powers. I am informed that the statutory term "constable" includes any police officer, so there is no doubt in that respect.
Our arguments are very similar to those in respect of the previous amendment. We do not believe that the amendment would be acceptable. One and a half million driving convictions each year would be involved, many of which are technical infringements.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: Before the Minister sits down perhaps I may press the point further. He has again referred to research: can he tell us what research has been done?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I do not have chapter and verse on the research that has been carried out either in this country or abroad but I can assure my noble friend that it has been done and has not revealed any

629
significant relationship between various eye defects and accidents.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I am most grateful to my noble friend for his response, although I have to confess to being very disappointed by it. It is odd, is it not, that the Medical Commission on Accident Prevention has said that approximately 4 per cent. of drivers—about 1 million—fail to meet what it believes to be the minimum eyesight requirement? If one measures that against 1½ million convictions there seems to be some relationship.
I should like to mention, in order to place on the Committee's record, that my noble friend Lord Onslow made a slip of the tongue when he mentioned a distance of 75 feet. The current requirement is 67 feet. I am sure that he confused the great many figures we have bandied about.
I am not overly happy with my noble friend's reply. I think that he has begged the question and has failed to seize an opportunity. Nevertheless I should like to consider what he and others have said about the matter and perhaps return to it at a later stage. On that basis I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Before my noble friend withdraws the amendment I should like to correct the point about distances. There are two requirements—75 feet for characters 3½, inches high, and 67 feet for characters 3½ inches high. So both my noble friends are right.
The Earl of Onslow: Before my noble friend withdraws his amendment, can we have a little more information about the research which has been carried out? It is a marvellous smokescreen to hide behind. If research has been carried out one automatically assumes an aura of scientific knowledge. My noble friend Lord Lucas produced some interesting pieces of paper but my noble friend on the Front Bench said that he did not know what kind of research had been carried out and did not have chapter and verse. Can we have chapter and verse about the research which says that the present situation is perfectly harmless?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Not at this stage. If I had been able to give my noble friend more details I should have done so. However, I shall attempt to find out and perhaps be able to place some information in the Library.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Compulsory training courses for riders of motor cycles]:
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 10, line 31, after ("training") insert ("or is on the way to or from an approved training centre visited to undergo training").
The noble Lord said: I am certain that there will be general approval for the proposals in the Bill for a compulsory training course for motor cyclists. That was the impression one gained from our Second Reading debate. It would appear that both the
630
organisations representing the industry and motor cyclists approve of a new training scheme.
Clause 6 states that a person shall not ride a motor cycle on the road unless he has completed the course or is driving on the road in the course of his training. The amendment seeks to sanction a motor cyclist riding his own machine to the training centre. That proposal may appear to some Members of the Committee to be somewhat outrageous. However, I can give at least three reasons why I believe the amendment is necessary.
First, if a person was not able to use his own motor cycle all training centres would not necessarily have the required number of training machines available. It is generally agreed that it is preferable for training to be given on a rider's own machine, which in most circumstances he will continue to ride once he is licensed after training.
Secondly, there is the situation in a sparsely populated area where there may be a problem in getting to the training centre. That may apply not only to riders but also to instructors. It must be appreciated that in parts of the country for some riders the training centre may be a considerable distance away. That point is dealt with in later amendments. It would be far more sensible for the trainee to ride his own cycle to the training centre for the necessary training. If he does not, many riders will have problems in getting to the training centre.
There is also a question of the time that is required to travel over long distances, in some cases when there is no public transport available. There must be many areas in which public tansport operates only once a day and although one can get to the training centre it is not possible to return from it at night. That is a situation that is met by a number of people who carry out duties other than those involved with the training centre.
At Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, envisaged the possibility of the training course extending over more than one day. I paraphrase his words, which I think indicated that if the trainee does not achieve the completion of the course on one day, "he will have to train longer". One can visualise that a person who lives in a sparsely populated area and who wishes to undergo training will have to undertake a difficult journey. He will either have to ask a friend to take him (in which case the friend will have to spend a few hours waiting for him to complete his training course before running him back again) or rely on public transport which may only operate one journey a day; and he must then face the impossibility of getting back home again at night.
Perhaps I may mention the case of a friend of mine who lives not far from Seascale in Beckermet. Her husband was ill in the general hospital in Whitehaven, and although she could catch a bus to Whitehaven in order to visit him, when visiting time was over she could not get a bus back. That situation will apply to trainees in many parts of the country. For the reasons that I have mentioned I believe that we should give consideration to allowing the trainee, in these special circumstances and so long as he or she is travelling to the training centre, to ride his own machine. I beg to move.
Earl Attlee: I am happy to support this amendment. I should mention that I support all the amendments to Clause 6 that have been tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, which include Amendments Nos. 15, 17, 18 and 21.
I think that this is a very good amendment because it is a simple one. Unless every training place is to be equipped with small and big bikes, there is no other way, other than by using some form of public transport or a private vehicle, that people can take their own bikes there. I am not sure whether bus companies are allowed to carry motorcycles. If not, the trainee may have to rely on his parents for transport and they may not have a car or have only one car which the husband or wife may be using all day. There is therefore only one alternative, which is for the learner to drive himself to the testing ground.
If he is stopped by the police, provided that he can say, "1 am on this training course and I am booked in there", it should be all right. It is the situation that applies if one is stopped by the police when taking one's car for its MOT. Provided that one has booked in and can prove it, one has not broken the law.
I believe that this is a very sensible amendment. If the Minister does not consider it such, I should be delighted if he will explain how people will get from their place of residence to the training ground with their own machine, especially if they live out in the country.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I wish to support this amendment. I speak from direct personal experience as a mother in that my daughter bought quite a large and powerful motorbike when she was a medical student and I considered that it was very important for her to have proper training to ride it.
The nearest training centre available to central London was in Enfield which was quite a distance away. No member of the family had a vehicle of a size that could possibly have taken her bike there. Yet, as has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, one should learn to ride on the bike that is intended to be used. There is not much point in learning on a quite different machine.
At the training centre trainees were taught not only how to ride but how to attend to minor things that go wrong with the bike. It makes one safer on the road if one is able to recognise some fault that has developed in the machine. This amendment is plain commonsense.
The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, made the very good point that there is no way that people can get away with pretending that they are on their way to a training centre when they are not, because they would be clearly listed as being on the course. It could not be used as an excuse for riding the bike on other occasions. Going to training is quite a specific action. My daughter's training consisted of a regular weekly session lasting an hour or two each time. It was a course that was attended by many young people and was most satisfactory. I support the amendment.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: The purpose of Clause 6 is to ensure that all new riders receive basic training on
632
off-road sites before they are allowed on to the road. That has been welcomed on all sides of the Committee. Initially the training would be under the supervision of a training instructor. Once the trainees have successfully completed their training they will be able to ride unsupervised.
While I can understand the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and that of other noble Lords, on how novices would be able to get themselves and their machines to training sites, this amendment would allow a total novice to ride on the road to a site without having received any tuition at all. We do not believe that that would be right.
In answer to the points made by my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes and the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, there are very many dealers who already deliver machines, both new and second-hand, to training centres. Indeed it is in their interests to do so in order to make a sale. Some of the more enlightened dealers have in fact set up their own training facilities to provide training at the point of sale, and I can foresee that practice becoming more common in the lead up to compulsory training. There are also many authorised training bodies, mainly the full-time commercial concerns, which have machines available for hire. That, too, is likely to become more common.
I believe that if this amendment were accepted it would defeat the object of introducing compulsory training for novice riders and would allow them to ride on the road for the first time without having received any tuition. Therefore I cannot accept the amendment.
Lord Underhill: I am not so very disappointed with the Minister's reply because, frankly, it is one that I expected. Nevertheless, I believe that the point had to be made. At present a young man or woman can obtain a provisional driving licence for a motorcycle and can take the machine on the road straightaway. He or she can ride that machine for two years, during which period one part of the two-part test must be taken. We merely suggest that the opportunity to ride should apply only for a journey to an approved training centre.
The Minister added that some dealers may give training on the spot. I shall have to remember that point when we come to deal with the proper qualifications for training instructors because I do not want any old Tom, Dick or Harry of a dealer giving this important training. It must be very important; otherwise, we would not have put this provision into the Bill.
All I can do is read what the Minister has said and take the advice of my advisers. The motorcycle federation itself believes that something on the lines of this amendment is essential. Perhaps the Minister has some idea of how a person who lives up in Caithness and Sutherland and who wants to ride his bike to travel to work will ever be able to receive training if he has to travel right across from the west to the east of Scotland to a training centre, which is the only one for that area of the population. However, I shall read what the Minister has said, and meanwhile I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Strathcarron Lord Strathcarron moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 10, line 31, at end insert—
("(bb) after subsection (3), there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"( ) The Secretary of State shall ensure that approved courses of training for motor cyclists are provided in all local authority districts and boroughs." ").
The noble Lord said: The Secretary of State is making it a requirement for all new riders to pass a compulsory course before they can ride by themselves on the road. In my view the Secretary of State should accept the responsibility of making sure that there are training centres in all local authority districts and boroughs, and I hope that it may be possible to do that. I beg to move.
Lord Underhill: I understand that the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, is to be taken with Amendments Nos. 19 to 21 in my name and those of other noble Lords.
I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, that if this new training scheme, which is generally desired, is to be a success, then the location of training centres will be very much dependent upon the availability of suitable sites for off-road training. Often, off-road training is provided at schools and other locally managed sites. It will also be agreed that local authority road safety officers will have views on the need for basic training of riders and will need to be involved in any consultation on the adequacy of facilities.
I believe that all four amendments have certain problems which the Minister may outline. However, I shall set out what I consider to be the problems. The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, requires that every district council and borough council needs to have a training centre. That may be impractical in some places.
Under my Amendment No. 21, the Secretary of State would be statutorily bound to consult with local authorities about the sufficiency of centres in their respective areas. Therefore, the local safety officers, to whom I have referred, would have a voice in this matter. I am not therefore laying down—and noble Lords who support the amendment agree—that every local authority area should necessarily have a training centre. We are saying that the Secretary of State shall consult with the local authorities about the sufficiency of centres within their areas. They may consider that there are too many or, if there are none at all, that something ought to be done. However, it is a matter that I believe all noble Lords could support.
In Amendment No. 19, I propose a 15-mile limit which a trainee should not have to exceed in driving to the centre. The problem is that we could lead ourselves into the same difficulty as with school transport and find that at 100 yards over three miles, transport is withdrawn. I rather dislike specifying a mileage basis. However, if we are to have a sensible decision, a basis must be considered. I leave that amendment for the Minister to consider.
Amendment No. 20 states that a trainee shall not have to travel "unreasonable distances". Having sat in this Chamber for nine and half years, and having listened to noble Lords in the legal profession argue
634
about reasonability and unreasonability, I can see the possible defect in the amendment.
All four amendments require consideration. Although there may be problems with regard to three of them, I can see no problem in Amendment No. 21. That requires the Secretary of State to consult with local authorities about the sufficiency of centres in their respective areas. I should like the Minister to give his views on the four amendments.
1 understand from the organisation representing the motorcycle industry that it estimates that some 200,000 persons may require training under this scheme each year. Fewer than 30,000 new riders receive formal training each year through the present voluntary training scheme. That is almost seven times the number who go through the present voluntary training scheme each year. The riders' organisation—the Motorcycle Federation—urges that the success of the new proposals depends largely on a continuation of voluntary schemes and that voluntary instructors will be playing a large part. Therefore, this question of accessibility is very important. If we want the scheme to be a success, there must be a sufficient number of training centres to which trainees can travel.
I should like the Minister to give his views on these four amendments. Each contains problems. The noble Lord may feel that one or another is worth adopting. I believe that one must be adopted if we are to have an adequate number of centres to carry out the training.
Earl Attlee: I speak to Amendment No. 20. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, says that in many Bills we hear about a "reasonable" person but that we have never had a completely satisfactory answer as to what is a reasonable person. On Amendment No. 20, I suggest that an "unreasonable" distance is such distance as a reasonable person would consider unreasonable.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My name has been attached to the wrong amendment—Amendment No. 19. That is probably my fault. However, perhaps I may have a moment or two of the Committee's time. We have to ensure that a training centre is reasonably available to everybody. I find Amendment No. 21 the most attractive. Fifteen miles is too arbitrary. It may be right in some areas and not in others. Amendment No. 21 should read that,
"The Secretary of State shall consult with local authorities about the sufficiency of approved training centres in their respective areas".
At present it refers simply to "centres". The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, calls for "approved courses of training" without necessarily identifying the locations at which those courses shall take place.
1 hope that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, will forgive me if I recall what I believe was his remark that he did not want every Tom, Dick or Harry in the trade. I have never sold motorcycles in my life. However, speaking as one who has been involved in the motor industry for a very long time, I do not like that description with reference to the industry of motor vehicles, whether they are two, three or four-wheeled.

635
We shall come later to courses of training and who are the right and proper people to undertake them. However, if we insist—as we properly shall—that people undertake training, then we do not want to fall into the gap that occurred when the admirable RAC NCU system was abandoned. There were insufficient training centres and insufficient instructors in those few centres. We shall presumably debate the commercial aspects in a short while. However, the point is rather more complex than simply the number of places available to prospective trainees.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Noble Lords and others have voiced concerns over the adequacy of training facilities, especially in the remoter areas of the country. I understand that those concerns may stem partly from an audit of training facilities that the Motor Cycle Association of Great Britain has carried out. It should be borne in mind that this audit is incomplete. Many of the sites operated by Star Rider in remote areas are not yet included. The picture may therefore not be as bleak as has been indicated.
The first of this group of amendments put forward by my noble friend Lord Strathcarron would require training facilities to be provided in all boroughs and districts. Presumably that would apply in Scotland as well as in England and Wales. It is unclear whether such councils would be expected to provide the facilities themselves or whether the Secretary of State would simply have to satisfy himself that such facilities exist in all these councils. In any case we do not believe that the amendment is necessary. It is possible that adequate nationwide coverage can be achieved without the need for training sites to be established in all borough and district council areas. That was a point that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, made.
The second amendment seeks to introduce a requirement that compulsory training will not come into operation if it would require a person to travel more than 15 miles to attend a training centre. I believe that such a requirement would be impracticable. While 15 miles may seem a long way to travel in London. in Scotland it would be regarded as just down the road. It is not uncommon for people to travel 40 or 50 miles to take their driving test in the remoter parts of the country.
The third amendment would require the Secretary of State to submit information to both Houses confirming that no one in the UK would have to travel unreasonable distances to attend training courses. The amendment is flawed in the fact that the Bill does not extend to Northern Ireland. Even so, I am advised that the wording of the amendment would make it unworkable in law, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, admitted, and on which the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, had a view.
The final amendment seeks to introduce a statutory requirement to consult local authorities. Local authority road safety officers are in the best position to advise on the sufficiency or otherwise of training centres in their areas. The department's officials already hold regular liaison meetings with RSOs to discuss matters of mutual concern. A lack of
636
suitable training facilities would obviously be a matter of concern both to RSOs and the department and would be discussed at these meetings. In fact it was discussed at one of these meetings only last week.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and my noble friend Lord Strathcarron referred to the sufficiency of sites. I think he said that 200,000 would be needing training each year and yet only 30,000 were currently taking full training. It must be borne in mind that training centres are vastly under-used at present. If geographical coverage is adequate, and we are sure it will be, there ought to be enough instructors to cope. Nevertheless I take note of these concerns and I should like to assure the Committee that these provisions will not be brought into effect until we are satisfied that adequate training facilities exist. Before we make any decision, we shall need to take into account the likely demand for training, especially in the remote areas. To do that we might need to look at the number and geographical spread of Part I tests conducted by approved training bodies, Part II tests conducted at our own driving test centres and possibly registration of two-wheelers. I hope that, with that assurance, my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Underhill: Before the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron intimates what he wishes to do with Amendment No. 10, may I ask the Minister a question? He tells us that there are regular discussions between his department's officials and road safety officers. I believe he said that there was a consultation as recently as yesterday. Is there any reason why something of the kind that we suggested in Amendment No. 21 should not be written into the Bill? We say that time and time again. We had a long debate in this Chamber the other day concerning whether statements made in this place are admissable in courts of law. I listened to a greater part of that debate. Whatever may be said, we want to ensure that there is a proper method of consultation about training centres.
If the Minister believes that adequate consultation with the road safety officers of local authorities is taking place now, cannot we write it into the Bill that they must be consulted not just once but at regular intervals concerning the sufficiency of training centres in their areas? The information I have is that under the present training scheme there are about 850 centres in Great Britain. I notice that the Minister at Second Reading thought that there would be adequate coverage. He said:
"However, as it will now become compulsory, it is quite possible that more will open up".—[Official Report, 15/12/1988: col. 1063.]
I wish to make this far more certain than "quite possible". I want a definite assurance that sufficient centres will open up. If the Minister could see his way clear to writing into the Bill something along the lines of Amendment No. 21 about the sufficiency of centres in various areas being a matter of consultation with local authorities that would be helpful to me and to the training scheme.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I shall of course look into that matter, but there are complications in writing

637
into Bills the word "consult" because there are legal definitions of what needs to be done. I do not believe that it would be necessary for us to consult all local authorities for example. In London one could foresee a situation where there might not be a training centre in the middle of London, but if there is one in the next door borough that presumably would be perfectly adequate.
I believe the noble Lord said that I had said that there were 850 training centres in the country. I understand the figure to be nearer 910. As I said in my reply, 1 assure the Committee that these provisions will not be brought into effect until we are satisfied that adequate training facilities exist. That should be a fairly good assurance.
Lord Strathcarron: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, for his support. In view of the reassurance given by the Minister, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Strathcarron Lord Strathcarron moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 10, line 34, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Lord said: As the Bill is drafted at present, the Minister is not making any firm commitment to make regulations. If the new training course is to he taken seriously it must surely be the Minister's duty to make regulations governing training standards. I beg to move.
Lord Underhill: I support the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, in his amendment. Clause 6 details the five classes for which the Minister may make provision. All these are important. We have later amendments seeking to vary these or add to them, but it seems that merely making this power of regulation permissive on the Secretary of State is far too weak. The Secretary of State should be statutorily bound to introduce regulations, either those as at present written into the Bill or additions that we may seek to introduce later.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: Not wishing to be repetitive, I hope that my noble friend can give us a satisfactory answer. We frequently find ourselves in difficulty over the words "may" and "shall". It seems to me that since this part of the Bill is concerned with the greater safety of motor cycle riders, their training and so on, there should be an express duty on the Secretary of State to do something rather than making it purely permissive, as my reading of Clause 6(2)(c) leads me to believe.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: As has been explained, this amendment would place a duty on the Secretary of State to make regulations concerning training. However, I do not believe that the amendment is necessary. Obviously the Secretary of State will need to make regulations so as to specify certain matters; for instance, the content of the training course. It may not be necessary, however, to make provision for all the matters listed in subsection (2)(c). We hope, for example, that it will not be necessary to specify charges for training, as it will be for the training groups to decide their level of charging. But the power is there to protect would-be riders.
638
I believe that the amendment is unnecessary. Obviously the Secretary of State will need to make regulations. I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Strathcarron: As the Secretary of State is prepared to make regulations, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 10, line 40, at end insert ("and the days of the week on which training shall be made available").
The noble Lord said: The amendment adds to the regulations which the Secretary of State may and ought to make. After line 40 on page 10 we wish to add the words:
"and the days of the week on which training shall he made available".
It may be argued that there are problems in this respect, but we are dealing with people, many of them young, who are undergoing training. It will be essential that training centres are open arid available at times when young people can attend. As has already been mentioned, some may have to make substantial journeys.
I hope that the Minister will agree to the amendment. We do not specify which days, but believe that the regulations should lay down the days of the week on which training centres shall be available. The exact days and hours are open to consultation between the various organisations which will make arrangements for the training centres. I hope that the Minister will agree that this provision should he included in the list of regulations. They will not be compulsory but the Minister is given permission to bring about regulations. I beg to move.
Earl Attlee: This is a sensible amendment. If it misses anything it is in the words used by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. The amendment reads:
"and the days of the week on which training shall he made available".
I believe that it should include the words, "and the times of day".
Many of those who will undertake the training will be young people attending school. It will not be much good if training centres are closed at the weekend when those people are free, but open during the week when the likely users will be at school.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I am puzzled as to why the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has proposed the amendment. I can see no reason why the Secretary of State should need to specify in regulations the days of the week on which training should be available. Training will be available on whatever days training groups operate. There are over 910 training sites throughout the country. Very many of those (about 85 per cent.) rely upon the goodwill of volunteer instructors who give up their spare time, usually at weekends, to pass on their enthusiasm, knowledge and skill to those coming into motorcycling. There are also many who operate purely on a commercial basis and run training courses up to seven days a week.

639
By specifying that training must be made available on certain days we could well end up driving away the voluntary groups. I cannot believe that that is the purpose behind this amendment, but it could well be a consequence of it. For that reason I ask the noble Lord to withdraw it.
Lord Underhill: The Minister has made a valid point: we do not wish to drive away volunteers. However, neither do we wish to attract commercial training centres which will try to cream off on certain days of the week. I readily withdraw the amendment, but I should like to consider carefully what the Minister has said. I should also like to seek the advice of those bodies which are directly involved: the industry and the riders' associations.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 10, line 41, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
("(b) the instruction, examination and approval by the Secretary of State of instructors to provide training and the withdrawal of his approval, and regular checks requiring that instruction standards are maintained:").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 13 deals with motorcycle training: It proposes to delete paragraph (b) at line 41 on page 10 which reads:
"the approval by the Secretary of State of the persons providing the courses and the withdrawal of his approval".
The Secretary of State will be permitted to make that regulation should he so desire.
The amendment proposes to delete that paragraph and substitute the words:
"the instruction, examination and approval by the Secretary of State of instructors to provide training and the withdrawal of his approval, and regular checks requiring that instruction standards are maintained".
From advice that I have received it appears to be essential that correct instruction should be given to the instructors. The examination and approval of instructors must be carefully treated. We recognise the fact that the Secretary of State must have the authority to withdraw his approval of any instructor should he so desire. Regular checks must be made to ensure that required instruction standards are maintained.
If, as the Minister said, there are approximatey 900 voluntary centres under the present scheme—and we have been told that about 200,000 people may need to undergo annual training under the new scheme—it is essential that the scheme should be maintained at a high standard.
The Bill makes no reference to that requirement, but the adoption of our amendment will ensure that a higher standard for the training of instructors, their examination and subsequent monitoring is carried out. That is the purpose of the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I had anticipated that Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 would be grouped together and I should like to speak to both. On reflection I can see no reason why we should not deal
640
with the purport of the amendments by altering Section 123 of the 1988 Act. It provides that:
"No paid instruction in the driving of a motor car shall be given unless",
and there then follows a series of requirements. In effect they are repeated in the two amendments before the Committee this afternoon.
It will not drive away the volunteer any more than it has driven away the volunteer in car driving. It assures the purchasers of instruction that they are taking part in an approved course run by approved people. A register can be checked and there are other penalties and attributes to that conception.
I realise that if Section 123 of the 1988 Act was altered there would be a number of consequential amendments up to Section 128. However, it follows that motorcycle instruction, which is giving great cause for concern, should at least be on a par with motor vehicle driving instruction. That appears to follow, and it would obviate much of the confusion which may occur in setting up a separate and distinct system for motorcycle instructors.
Earl Attlee: I also wondered why Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 were not grouped together because to do so appears to be logical. As the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has said, if you are going to teach someone to drive for payment you must be qualified. However, under this Bill, if you are going to teach someone the rudiments of riding a motorcycle for payment, then you need have no qualifications at all. In a car the driving instructor sits beside the driver, whereas it is a very brave man who would sit on the back of a motorcycle to teach someone to ride it. Therefore, presumably, that tuitition wil be done not on the bike but by standing alongside or running after it. Therefore, I should have thought that a qualification is needed to prove that instructors are capable of such teaching.
Speaking personally, when I was very much younger I bought a motorbike and rode without any training. I was a member of the Honourable Artillery Company and I went to Pirbright and areas like that and received payment for riding army bikes across country. The first time—never having been off a metal road in my life—I went across country, afterwards the leader of the team said, "Attlee, you have a very novel style but it seems to be effective. Would you like to join our team?" I did that. I do not believe that that is very wise. It would have been far better had I been taught the rudiments of going across country by someone qualified to do so.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: At first glance this may appear to be a fairly reasonable amendment. However, I have to point out that if accepted it could put back the concept of compulsory training by up to 10 years! I am sure that is not the purpose behind the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, but that could certainly be its effect.
The present situation is that the department approves every training body authorised to conduct Part I of the motorcycle test. Also, to ensure consistent standards of testing we train at least one examiner from each organisation at our driving establishment at Cardington. In the case of national

641
organisations like Star Rider and the British Motorcyclists Federation we train one examiner from each region. Once trained, these examiners can train other examiners in the organisation. In this way we are able to keep a register of all approved training bodies (ATBs) and all approved examiners.,
Under the new regime it is our intention to authorise ATBs to carry out compulsory training and we expect them to train their own instructors. We are in discussion with representatives of the training groups on the need for selected instructors to attend Cardington prior to this provision coming into force.
If this amendment is accepted the Secretary of State will be responsible for the training of all motorcycle instructors. Since there are over 4,000 in Britain, it could take 10 years to train them all at Cardington. We do not want that and feel it is unnecessary.
The amendment also seeks to include in statute a regular monitoring system. We issue conditions of appointment to each ATB authorised to undertake Part I of the test. These include a section on monitoring arrangements. Such monitoring will remain a feature of the appointment of ATBs under the new regime. Therefore it is not necessary for such checks to be given statutory backing.
My noble friend Lord Lucas asked whether or not the same rules should apply for motorcycle instructors as for car instructors; that is, that they should all be approved by the Department of Transport. We believe that for motorbikes it is more appropriate to authorise ATBs. Many motor car instructors are self-employed so we have to vet them individually, but, as I have said, all the motorbike instructors will operate from training centres.
Therefore, I hope that the explanation I have given and the difficulties which accepting this amendment would present and the delay in implementing Clause 6 of this Bill will enable the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Underhill: I find it very difficult to accept that if this amendment is approved by the Committee then that would put back the scheme for 10 years. While the Minister has been speaking I have not had an opportunity to refer to the guidelines for the pilot Autoguide system. However, as that is being considered, surely the department must be considering the nature of the training courses and the question of instructors. The regulations which may be made include:
"(a) the nature of the courses of training".
Therefore, detailed consideration must be given by the department, with the approval of the Secretary of State, to the nature of the courses of training. We are saying that we should also like to insert regulations regarding the instruction, examination and approval of instructors to provide training. We are not laying down exactly how that should be done and we are certainly not asking the Secretary of State to have all the instructors at Marsham Street one by one to undergo training. We should like regulations to lay down exactly how the training and examination of instructors shall proceed. Surely that is not a difficult task. If that will take 10 years, then frankly—I was
642
about to use some had language which I must not do in Committee—we need a complete overhaul of the Department of Transport at Marsham Street, because if that situation will take 10 years to bring about there is something wrong and bureaucratic about the organisation.
It seems to me that if we want a good standard of scheme then regulations must lay down the qualifications and how to deal with the question of instructors. Without proper selection and training of instructors, there may as well not be a training scheme, and that may as well not be in the Bill.
I agree with those who said that this amendment should perhaps be considered with Amendment No. 14, and I ask that we do that because one goes with the other. I believe that we cannot have a proper scheme for the examination and training of instructors unless we have an official register of instructors which will be approved by the Secretary of State. In view of the Minister's general pushing off of the amendment with an argument which I regard as specious, I shall look carefully at what he said. However, I am sure that we shall have to return to this matter because I cannot believe that my amendment, if carried, will delay the implementation of the scheme by 10 years. If that is the position then we need a complete overhaul of officials at the Department of Transport. I do not accept that that is necessary. I believe that many officials there are quite capable of devising such a scheme in the time required.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may point out that I said nothing about needing to overhaul Marsham Street or that that would take 10 years. This amendment would make the Secretary of State responsible for the training of all motorcycle instructors and, as there are 4,000 of them, to get them through the course at Cardington would take up to 10 years.
Lord Underhill: I must draw the attention of the Minister to paragraph (b), which states that the Secretary of State may provide regulations. The Bill speaks of:
"the approval by the Secretary of State of the persons providing the courses and the withdrawal of his approval".
The Bill states that he must approve the persons providing the courses. He will not merely draw names out of a hat. There must be justification for his approval. My amendment sought to lay down the type of qualities which should he taken into consideration when giving that approval. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. [Amendment No, 14 not moved.]
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 10. line 43, after ("the") insert ("maximum").
The noble Lord said: This is a small amendment which is intended to ensure that, while there can be financial competition, overcharging will be banned. This matter goes back to the discussions we had earlier on the widespread nature of training areas. It

643
could very well lead to a rural monopoly if there is no training area nearby and a long way to go for the nearest. The person who sets up a training school could charge almost anything. I hope that the Minister will recognise that point.
We are not affecting competition because the minimum charge is not affected in any way. We are not even affecting the possibility of certain schools or training establishments offering the initial course at a cut rate, with the promise of a more extensive course after the initial course has been passed. We are allowing plenty of flexibility. We are concerned only that there should be no possibility of overcharging because many trainees will be young teenagers. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Lord Strathcarron: In considering this matter we must realise that there will be training centres keen to offer wider and more extensive training, which will clearly cost more, so they ought to have the commercial freedom to charge accordingly. Indeed, it may be for the benefit of the rider being trained because he may get an attractive deal as a result. That possibility might be affected if there is a set charge.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: What my noble friend Lord Strathcarron says may be true, or it may not—that is something of a hostage to fortune. I should like to ask my noble friend the Minister why the subsection is in the Bill at all. It seems to be totally contrary to the Government's general philosophy that market forces should prevail.
I remind the Committee that we are discussing Clause 6 and the new subsection (3A) which states that "regulations may make" and, later, "regulations may in particular", so there is no compulsion on the Secretary of State to do anything whatever in regard to charges. However, if at some time he is to take the authority that this Bill enables him to take—I am not happy about that—certainly the amendment we are discussing that fixes a maximum charge should pertain; otherwise I see no value in this clause of the Bill.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: In answer to my noble friend, it is inconceivable that we should wish to specify a minimum charge for training. If an ATB wished to offer free training we would certainly not object; nor would we wish to institute a flat rate charge since costs undoubtedly differ in various parts of the country. If charges were to be specified in regulations—as my noble friend points out, they might not necessarily be so—they would be maximum charges and therefore, despite what my noble friend said, I am happy to accept this amendment.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: We can be nothing but gracious towards the Minister since he has been gracious enough to accept the amendment. I am happy with the result.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 10, line 44, at end insert—
("( ) the examination of persons completing courses of training to justify the provision of certificates that a course of training has been successfully completed:").
The noble Lord said: I had expected this amendment to be linked with Amendment No. 17 but I believe the Minister would prefer them to be dealt with separately and I am happy with that. It is not enough that the course should be completed: the certificate should also state that the course has been successfully completed. I do not consider that to be hair-splitting. It is of some importance and I hope that the Minsiter will consider the amendment sympathetically. I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: The Committee will be aware that compulsory training is intended to replace the part I motorcycle test so that we can get away from the idea of two tests for motorcyclists. This amendment implies that there should be a test at the end of the compulsory training course. We do not want that. Instructors will conduct a rolling assessment of those undertaking training. Only if all elements of the course are completed to the instructor's satisfaction can a certificate, showing successful completion of the course, be issued. Motorcycle instructors are skilled people and they will know when a rider is competent enough to be allowed to ride on the road without supervision. We can rely upon their judgment. Therefore, the amendment is unnecessary.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I thank the Minister for that reply and for his elucidation of the proposed method. There is a slight difficulty, in that we want uniformity over the entire country. Although in general I am in favour of an ongoing assessment of riders before they go for a full test, I should have thought it would he helpful if they had a feeling within themselves that at least they were through the first part and could go on to the proper test. However, in view of the Minister's remarks, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 10, line 46, after ("training") insert ("having achieved adequate standards to permit authorisation of the unsupervised driving of such motorcycles on public roads").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is on the same lines as Amendment No. 16 and the argument is much the same. I expect the Minister's answer will be the same.
We are still looking for training standards to be uniform throughout the country and suggesting that there should be some way in which the person taking the course can show that he has reached that uniform standard. Therefore, when someone moves from one part of the country to another he will have some way of showing that, before taking the test, he had adequately completed the course. Young people tend to move about the country and some record would therefore be needed or a trainee would have to go back to the beginning, perhaps with a new instructor,

645
voluntarily or otherwise. Therefore, I hope the Minister will give this proposal some thought. I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: The wording of this clause is quite deliberate. It requires a rider to have successfully completed an approved training course before he is allowed to ride on the road unsupervised. A rider will only have successfully completed the course if he satisfies his instructor that he has reached the standard required to be issued with a certificate. This is already included as a requirement in the outline of the compulsory course which we are currently discussing with the training bodies.
I am not sure that I understand the noble Lord's point about someone moving to another part of the country, because if he has a certificate he is allowed to ride. If he wants to take further training he can do so, and I hope he will. Having obtained a certificate he is allowed to ride and that certificate is of equal value anywhere in the country.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: The Minister said that there would be an ongoing test and that is when the rider would get the certificate. If a young person had spent a lot of time in training but moved before he took his test, would he need to go back to the beginning in the new area before applying for his full test?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: It is not quite like that. At the end of the course which the rider attends—probably a one-day course but it could be longer if he is unsuccessful—he will get his certificate, in which case he will then be allowed to ride unsupervised. He must then go on to take his test. If he wants to undertake further training he can do so and if he does not want to do so, he need not. When he takes his test the position will be as at present. He will not in future he allowed to ride unsupervised until he has obtained his certificate, and that certificate will be uniform throughout the country.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I note what the Minister says, but in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 11, line 3, at end insert—
("( ) special circumstances in which exemptions from the requirements for successful completion of a course of training may be authorised by the Secretary of State to permit the driving of motorcycles on public roads without having undertaken such training;").
The noble Lord said: This is another suggested addition to the permissive regulations that the Minister may make. The amendment proposes,
"special circumstances in which exemptions from the requirements for successful completion of a course of training may be authorised by the Secretary of State to permit the driving of motorcycles on public roads without having undertaken such training:".
We have discussed on previous amendments the Minister's rejection of circumstances under which a trainee should be permitted to use his own motorcycle in riding to a training centre. This
646
amendment is intended to cover cases that may be exceptional but nevertheless should be included in the Bill. For example, a training centre may be closed for various reasons. There may be a lack of instructors. When training has been undertaken by a trainer or a commercial organisation, it could be found impossible to keep going either because of the charge or because a loss is being made. Heaven forbid, it may be that the centre is closed for a period because of industrial action. There are various reasons why a training centre may be closed. Because of that we wish to ensure that there are regulations by which the special exemption can be given. Obviously, the regulations would have to detail very carefully the nature of such exemption and the circumstances in which an exemption may be granted. I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has outlined some points that I believe are worthy of consideration. I would not wish to raise false hopes about the amendment at this stage but I wish to consider what has been said and whether there may be wider implications for the concept of exemptions from the compulsory training requirement. If the noble Lord cares to withdraw the amendment I shall undertake to consider the matter to see whether the provision for exemption is the right way to proceed. I shall be in touch with the noble Lord between now and the next stage of the Bill.
Lord Underhill: I am grateful to the Minister for that undertaking. In those circumstances I readily withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 19, 20 and 21 not moved.]
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes moved Amendment No. 22:
After Clause 6, insert the following new clause:—
("P-plates.
After section 97(3) of the 1988 Act there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(3B) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for the introduction of a standard sign (to be known as a "P-plate") which may be affixed by any driver to the front and back of a vehicle in the manner of a learner plate, indicating that the driver of the vehicle, whilst qualified to drive, has recently passed a driving test or has limited recent experience of driving unaccompanied." ").
The noble Baroness said: I raised this matter at Second Reading. I believe that my amendment is quite clear and self-explanatory. I am not particularly sold on the idea of its being a P-plate; it could be an "R", a "D" or whatever one wishes to call it. "P" is the letter used in Australia where I have seen this system in operation. It indicates "probationary". It would be a warning to other drivers that the driver of the car is not an experienced one; it would also be a warning to passengers or prospective passengers.
Recently, my newly-qualified daughter was driving me when I happened to see the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, waiting for a taxi. I very brightly said to my daughter, "Pull up and offer him a lift." That is what we did. If my daughter had had the P-plate I do not believe that he would have been so

647
willing to get in, but he did. As we drove along Bayswater Road and approached Marble Arch I was saying to her, "A little more left; a little more to the right; be careful here". When we eventually negotiated the traffic at Marble Arch and got into Park Lane, I heard the noble Lord who was sitting in the back with his newspaper, ask, "She has passed her test, hasn't she?" When we arrived here we had made the journey rather slowly but safely and the noble Lord seemed to be a very relieved passenger when he departed.
One tends to forget when drivers are new drivers. My daughter passed the test at the first attempt but she was a comparatively inexperienced driver. Not only was she lacking in a degree of confidence, she was also certainly lacking in a degree of expertise when confronted with a situation such as one finds at the Marble Arch roundabout which can be pretty daunting for anyone.
I remember a case that came before the courts some years ago of a woman who was summoned for driving with L-plates when she had actually gained her driving licence. I believe the judge gave her an absolute discharge because he said he had sympathy with her. She said she was driving with L-plates because the other traffic around her was quite terrifying. She felt that the plates gave her a degree of protection and that because people made allowance for the fact that she was not a very experienced driver they did not sit right on top of her vehicle. I believe that it is a protection. giving a degree of assurance to the driver.
My original intention at Second Reading was to suggest that this provision should be enforceable. I have not included that in the amendment simply because the Minister sent me a very detailed letter setting out the reasons why he opposed such a measure. One reason he gave was that it would be very difficult to enforce and that it would take a great deal of police time. He also said that there was no place on the driving licence where one could show the date of the test. That surprised me. I should have thought that in these computerised days it would be very simple to include on the driving licence the date of the test.
The Minister continued by saying that a person could obtain a licence today, drive non-stop for three months and become a comparatively experienced driver within a very short time. Someone else might drive perhaps only once a month or perhaps put the licence away in a drawer for five years. In those circumstances it would not be necessary for them to show the plate after that period of time. Yet such a person would be less experienced than someone who might have been driving for a matter of months. I accept the logic of that argument and for that reason I thought it preferable to suggest that people could choose to use this symbol.
Another category would be people who have a degree of disability in driving. There are drivers who have three-year licences following which a medical certificate has to be obtained to show that the driver is able to continue. There are some people with medical conditions that vary with intensity from time
648
to time. Such people, if they were not feeling 100 per cent., could put such a label on their car and other drivers would know that the symbol meant that this was someone whose driving they should pay special regard to.
I believe that there is merit in having a symbol of this kind. If it is impossible to make it mandatory or enforceable, as the Minister believes, then I believe that there is an optional element that would be extremely valuable. I believe that such a scheme exists already in France. There, not only is it enforced but such a driver is also restricted to the speed at which he can travel during the period of the limited licence. In Australia I believe the period is about 18 months. One is not allowed to drive beyond a certain speed. If one has an accident during that period one has to pay on the insurance policy a higher premium because the driver has not had sufficient experience. There are many conditions attached to such a scheme and these are valuable.
Another point in the Minister's letter with which I do not agree is where he says that there is no merit at all in having any officially designated sign. In that respect I part company with his letter. I was prepared to go along with most of the other points he made. I believe that it must be an officially designated sign. If people simply put a notice in the back of a car, others will wonder what it means or would have to think about it. That would be useless. It needs to be something that has a particular value attached to it, for example a "P" plate or an "R" plate, as I believe occurs in Northern Ireland. Whatever form the plate takes it should be something that notifies other drivers that a driver will not be progressing at perhaps the same pace as the rest of the traffic or that he might not have the same degree of co-ordination.
Many different points could be covered. Such drivers would be safe enough to drive but would not be put under the same degree of pressure by other drivers. There would not he what is called "tail-gating", when other drivers come right up to the bumper bar. It has happened often enough to me when I have been driving at full speed on the motorway. Another car comes to within a foot of one's bumper bar and sits there. It is most intimidating. For that to happen to someone who is not so competent in his driving would be quite alarming. This amendment is self-explanatory. I beg to move.
Lord Tordoff: I have some sympathy with this suggestion although I am not clear on one point. I thought that we were talking about motorcycles. With the thought of the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, her daughter and the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, coming around Marble Arch, I can understand why my noble friend the Leader of my party in this House might have gone a little pale. From the way the noble Baroness shakes her head, I think that perhaps Section 97(3) of the 1988 Act ranges beyond motorcycles.
Perhaps I may also suggest that if a "P" is used in Australia it should be a "d" in this country. That is what an upside down "P" looks like over here. Having made those slightly frivolous comments, I think there is a good deal to be said for having some

649
designation of drivers who have just come out of the period of learning. It would be good for them and would encourage people to give them a little more consideration. Many people who have just come out of the learner phase suddenly find that everything happens to them at once. They do not have the protection that L-plates give to people. In France people must display a 50 kilometre an hour restriction sign on their cars while they are learning. Then they must display the sign with a line through it for a period of six months or nine months after that time. I am sure that it is a good idea. Whether the Government would be prepared to support such a piece of bureaucracy I slightly doubt.
Viscount Brookeborough: In Northern Ireland we have a system of R-plates. The R stands for restricted. Since 1968 the R has been mandatory. The R denotes that the person passed his driving test within the previous year. Those with R-plates on their cars are restricted to a speed of 45 miles an hour. Should another driver drive that car while still displaying the R-plates he or she is automatically restricted to that speed.
About an hour ago, when I realised that this amendment would be debated, I spoke to the divisional commander of the traffic branch of the RUC. He pointed out that after its introduction in 1968 there was an immediate reduction in accidents. His graphs show that as age and experience of driving increase there is a large reduction in the number of accidents. The figures for 1988 were as follows. Out of 11,059 vehicles involved in accidents, 654 drivers had R-plates, 388 were learners and 319 drivers were within one year of taking down their R-plates. The figures show that 12 per cent. of vehicles involved in accidents were driven by people who were within two years of getting their full licence. In 1987, one year earlier, the proportion was even higher. Should a driver with R-plates appear in court for a traffic offence the period for displaying them can be extended. Should for any reason a driver lose his licence for more than one year, when he re-takes the test he has again to display an R-plate.
R-plates impose a speed restriction and make the driver himself more conscious that he must pay attention to the rules of the road. In addition, as we have already heard, they make others more aware of the fact that he probably has limited experience of driving. Whether or not he passes his test and does not drive for that full year until the year after does not make much difference. Most drivers who pass their test drive afterwards. In the opinion of the police the system is an important contributory factor to road safety in Northern Ireland. Police visiting from Great Britain and the Isle of Man last year showed a great deal of interest in it. Reference was made to administration. With licences being computerised, there can be no problem in including one more set of figures—the date that the licence was first granted. For that reason, I support the amendment.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: While I have a great deal of sympathy with the amendment, I have doubts on one point. For many years I have tried to
650
get the department properly to recognise the L-plate. I have never been successful. The L-plate is sometimes left on cars when there is only one driver. We do not even have the restriction used in Northern Ireland of an R plate on the car. That would be an advance. We all see people who display L-plates but are obviously not learner drivers.
I received a gem of a reply from the department many years ago. I was worried that if people drove in that way the plate would be devalued and that proper attention would not be paid to it. I was told that one should always drive with care and attention whether or not an L-plate is displayed. That makes one wonder why we bother with L-plates in the first place. I would support such an amendment if there was a restriction on the speed at which the car could travel. I suggest that cars displaying L-plates should not exceed 30 miles an hour. Someone who takes a learner on the road should afterwards take off the plates so that the car is shown to be no longer that of a learner driver.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I am grateful to my noble friend for explaining so clearly the purpose of the amendment and for the amusing story that she told. I wonder what excuse the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, might have made for not getting into the car in the first place. I am sure that he would not have caused offence in carrying a P-plate but that might give some difficulties to people in the future.
As the law stands at present there is nothing to prevent P-plates from being displayed voluntarily. The amendment as drafted would leave the use of such plates on a voluntary basis and would merely standardise their design. A number of countries have mandatory probation schemes for newly-qualified drivers. Northern Ireland is one of them, as my noble friend Lord Brookeborough pointed out. We have no evidence to show that they help to reduce casualty rates. I understand that neither has RoSPA which has looked into this matter. We have no plans to introduce such a scheme or to encourage their use.
There are, however, many disadvantages to such schemes. It would seem to us that some qualified drivers may react to P-plates aggressively rather than defensively. To that extent the novice's plight would be aggravated. Further, the driving test is designed to assess the ability of learners to drive safely on the road. P-plates would imply that despite passing the test a driver was not in fact competent.
A million drivers pass their test every year. Therefore to add this number of P-plates to the existing number of L-plates could in our view reduce the impact of L-plates. Plates could get left on a vehicle by another driver, or another rider in the case of the vehicle being a bike, who is not experienced and they would thus tend to be devalued.
For all those reasons I am afraid that we are not in favour of such a scheme. I must just point out to my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes that it is not an offence to drive with L-plates even if you have passed the test. Therefore 1 am not quite sure about the case which she mentioned. That I cannot understand, because it is not an offence. Accordingly, we cannot accept the amendment.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: Before the Minister sits down, can he tell us whether there was a time when there was a suggestion contained in the Highway Code that although it may not be an offence to travel with L-plates when one is not a learner driver, it was considered to be bad practice? I thought that that was mentioned in the Highway Code at one time and that it had been quietly dropped.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I am not sure whether that provision is in the Highway Code at present. As I said, it is not an offence. However, it is not a very good idea. If you are driving by yourself with L-plates you are likely to be stopped by the police who will wonder why you are driving on your own. Nevertheless, in the circumstances, I shall look into the matter.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I had not intended to take part in the debate, although this is a subject by which I have always been attracted. However, when I heard my noble friend moving the amendment, I found myself agreeing with a great deal of what she said. Surely my noble friend on the Front Bench has actually—I hope that I say this in no sense of unkindness—kicked something of an own goal. The whole point about the L-plate is that it creates difficulties. If you are a qualified driver but you drive with an L-plate in order to warn other drivers, you are likely to be stopped. However, you will have an answer because you can show your driving licence.
The idea of having a separate designation—I was also much impressed by the speech of my noble friend Lord Brookeborough—whereby you can tell other road users that you are not very experienced and please could they take care seems to have a good deal of attraction.
The point that has always struck me is the question of motorway driving. You are not allowed to drive on a motorway with an L-plate. Therefore the first time you ever have any experience of driving on a motorway is after you have taken your test. Yet, we all know that this can actually he quite a hair-raising experience. I should have thought it would be of considerable help to other drivers if you were able to have a sign as you go on the motorway driving by yourself—because it may well be inconvenient to have to be accompanied—indicating that you are not a very experienced driver. One knows from one's experience, especially in regard to some of the congestion on the motorways, that some drivers can create difficulties.
Therefore I hope that my noble friend will not dismiss the amendment out of hand and that he will undertake to look at the matter. I say to him, again with the greatest kindness, that I was not impressed by the arguments with which he has been furnished by his department. Indeed, one recognised the hand of the Sir Humphreys. I think that one must take a rather more critical look at some of those arguments. I believe that my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes has put a case with some strength to the Committee. Therefore I hope that the Committee will be prepared to accept it.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I am most grateful for the support which has been expressed. I am sorry that there was a degree of confusion at the beginning when it seemed to some Members of the Committee that we were still on the subject of motorcycles. This was a new clause and therefore quite detached from the motorcycle issue.
In view of what my noble friend Lord Brookeborough, said, it would seem logical to me that the amendment I tabled should really press for an R-plate. Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom and therefore there is some logic in the argument that we should have the same.
The other point made by my noble friend which most impressed me was that the restriction attaches to the car rather than to the driver. That is an absolutely splendid point which we should also bring in with our L-plates. It should be that if you have an L-plate on the car, whether you are alone or not, you should have to drive under certain conditions.
The point with regard to driving with L-plates when you have a licence has already been made by other speakers but, nevertheless, it is a valid one. It may be that the law in connection with that point has changed, because the case I cited happened many years ago. However. I remember at the time being most surprised and struck by the case, because 1 had not realised that you should not drive with L-plates if you had a licence. Certainly, if you are driving alone in a car with L-plates the police have an obligation to stop you and ask you why you are alone. L-plates should of course be displayed by a learner driver who is accompanied by a qualified driver. Clearly anyone driving on his own with L-plates is in a difficult situation.
I think that the proposal has a great deal of merit in it: but I also think that it needs planning to work out the best way of doing it—such as, for example, in the case of the R-plates. I also think that it will be good to go more thoroughly into whether it should be mandatory or optional. I should like to have further discussions with my noble friend on this point before we reach the next stage of the Bill. In its present form, as put down today, there are obviously points to be considered.
I hope that the Minister will look at the matter again. I shall however certainly be bringing it back again in some other more detailed and accurate form. It will be a matter of whether the department wishes to co-operate to try to work out a system which will be good and effective. Indeed, I think that the evidence from Northern Ireland will be extremely valuable in this connection. On those grounds I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Schedule 3 (Driving Licences: Minor, Consequentionial, and Further Amendments):
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 28, line 34, leave out ("and").
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 24 to 29. These amendments clarify the arrangements

653
for exchange of driving licences. The wording ensures that drivers who pass the test or hold a full licence in the appropriate categories of vehicle get an equivalent Great Britain licence as though they had passed the test in a similar vehicle in Great Britain. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 24 to 29:
Page 28. line 34, at end insert—
("( ) in paragraph (b) for the word "any" where it first occurs there shall be substituted the word "all"; and").
Page 28, line 38, leave out ("any") and insert ("all").
Page 28, line 46, leave out ("any") and insert ("all").
Page 29, line 4, leave out ("any") and insert ("all").
Page 29, line 9, leave out ("any") and insert ("all").
Page 29, leave out lines 15 to 29 and insert—
("(10) A full Northern Ireland licence, a full British external licence, a full British Forces licence or an exchangeable licence shall be treated for the purposes of paragraphs (b)(ii), (d) or (f) (as the case may be) of subsection (1) above as authorising the driving of—

(a) vehicles of all classes designated by regulations as a group for the purposes of subsection (1)(b) above, if the licence authorises the driving of vehicles of any class included in the group, or any class corresponding to a class included in the group, and

(b) vehicles of all classes included in another such group, if by virtue of regulations a person holding a licence authorising him to drive vehicles of any class included in the group mentioned in paragraph (a) above is treated as competent also to drive vehicles of a class included in that other group.").

The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee I should like to move these amendments en bloc. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 31, leave out lines 15 and 16.
The noble Lord said: This amendment merely removes a duplication in the wording of paragaph 9 of Schedule 3. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 32. line 17, at end insert—
(" . In section 165(4) of the 1968 Act (defence in case of failure to produce certain documents) for "subsection (1)" there shall be substituted "subsection (3)"").
The noble Lord said: This amendment merely rectifies an error in the original drafting of the Road Traffic Act 1988. Section 165(4) of the 1988 Act refers to "an offence under subsection (1)" when in fact the provision creating the offence is in subsection (3). I beg to move.
Lord Underhill: Naturally I support the amendment to correct an oversight. However, perhaps I may make a statement about an amendment which I had intended to move, the purpose of which was to bring in a new subsection. The amendment moved by the Minister refers to the production of "certain documents". I must point out that the amendment which I tabled was also regarding the production of documents.
Advice was given to me that that amendment was not relevant to the subject matter of the Bill.
654
Naturally, after discussion, I accepted that advice and withdrew the amendment yesterday morning. It referred to an issue which was raised by my noble friend Lord Carmichael in a Second Reading speech as far back as 6th June 1985 with regard to the Road Traffic (Production of Documents) Bill. On that occasion the Minister accepted that there was an anomaly, but it was not wished to have an amendment which might delay the passage of a Private Member's Bill which was generally desired, and so the amendment was not pressed.
The Minister said that he would keep the matter in mind, and when a suitable legislative opportunity arose would table such a provision. The Minister may not be able to give me an assurance today because he did not know that I was going to raise the matter. It will be almost four years since the matter was raised. I wonder whether the Minister will give the matter consideration for legislation at the appropriate time.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Yes, although the noble Lord said that he did not give me notice of this matter, I saw his earlier amendment which was subsequently withdrawn. I understood why that was done and we will look into the matter. I can give the noble Lord the assurance that we shall take the next available appropriate opportunity to introduce the measure. I hope that that will not be too far away. If we shortly have legislation on the North Report that would provide an opportunity.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 33, line 25, leave out ("3") and insert ("3(1)").
The noble Lord said: There are two offences under paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 to the Bill. It is only the offence under paragraph 3(a)—failure by driver with a provisional licence or a driver under the age of 21 to comply with the conditions of his licence—that is relevant here. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 33, line 32, column 1, leave out ("114(2)") and insert ("114(1)"):
The noble Lord said: The reference here to the offence created by Section 114(2) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 is incorrect. The reference should be to Section 114(1). The amendment rectifies this error. A reference to the offence created by Section 114(2) is added by a later amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 33, line 34, at end insert—

("RTA section 114(2)

Causing or permitting a person under 21 to drive LGV or PCV in contravention of conditions of that person's licence.

Section 11 of this Act.")

The noble Lord said: The amendment adds a reference to the offence created by the offence created by Section 114(2) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 as inserted by Schedule 2 to this Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 33, line 37. at end insert—

(" "RTA section 92(7c)

Failure to deliver licence revoked by virtue of section 92(7A) to Secretary of State.

Summarily.

Level on the standard scale.

—

—

—"

The noble Lord said: Clause 5(4) inserts a new subsection (7a) in Section 92 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 which empowers the Secretary of State to serve additional notices regarding a driver's medical disabilities and his fitness to drive. Such notices can have the effect of limiting a driver to vehicles of a particular class specified in the notice. A subsequent notice revokes any limited licence arising as a result of a previous notice. A new offence is created in subsection (7c) of failing without reasonable cause to deliver to the Secretary of State a limited licence that has been so revoked. This amendment adds a reference to that new offence to the list of offences in Schedule 5 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 regarding conditional offers of fixed penalties in Scotland. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 35, line 22, after (" "HGV" ") insert ("in both places where it occurs").
The noble Lord said: "HGV" appears in two places in the entry for regulations under Section 117 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 in Schedule 5 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. This amendment ensures that this reference to "HGV" will in both cases be replaced by "LGV or PCV". I beg to move.
On Question. amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
6.45 p.m.
Clause 8 [Definitions of driver information systems etc.]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 11, leave out lines 25 and 26.
The noble Lord said: The amendment is aimed at obtaining clarification of the Government's intention and a possible rewording of the clause because, as the words stand, the data would be regarded as collected within the meaning of the Bill if, for example, an RAC patrolman in a rescue vehicle radioed in information about traffic congestion, an accident, road conditions or some other information about the road. It is possible that the wording of this and other subsections within Clause 8 could result in a licence being required for the dissemination of many types of driver information not intended to be covered by the Bill. Clarification is required, and I hope that the Minister will be able to help the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: It may be helpful if, in responding to this amendment, I outline the sort of systems which we envisage will need to be licensed
656
under Part II of the Bill, as this is the first amendment relating to this part of the Bill.
Although Autoguide is the best known example in Great Britain of an advanced driver information system, Part II is designed also to provide for the introduction and regulation of other driver information systems which may be developed in the future. In preparing the legislation we have, however, tried to ensure that such future systems will not be subject to any unnecessary degree of regulation and control.
Clause 8(3) therefore defines a driver information system in a relatively general way, by reference to certain characteristics of the system. There is power, in Clauses 8(7) and 9(2) for the Secretary of State, by order, to remove particular systems, or particular descriptions of driver information, from the provisions of this part of the Bill.
Given the pace and unpredictability of future technological development and the scope to modify existing systems—possibly to make them compatible with systems in other countries—we cannot say exactly how the Secretary of State would be likely to use the powers. In very broad terms, however, we envisage that driver information systems will require a licence if they have two characteristics. The first would be that the equipment or information from the system was available to the general public. A system which was operated by, for example, a police force in order to give guidance only to police vehicles would not therefore require a licence.
The second test would be whether or not a system provided specific information to be acted on by individual drivers. A major part of the justification for licensing driver information systems stems from the need to ensure that they are operated in a safe and environmentally sensitive way. We see no need for special regulation of, for example, conventional radio traffic broadcasts. These transmit exactly the same information to thousands of motorists, regardless of their location.
In addition to these two tests, a licence would also be required if the operator of a driver information system needed the powers provided in Clause 12 of the Bill in order to install the necessary infrastructure in the road.
Having given that general explanation, perhaps I could consider the effect of the amendment. At present, Clause 8(3) defines a driver information system as a system which does one or both of two things. First, it could transmit to motor vehicles data from which driver information is derived. Data is defined, in Clause 8(5), in its scientific sense, which is why this part of the definition excludes conventional traffic broadcasts by radio.
The second type of system that falls within the definition is one that collects, stores or processes data from which the driver information is derived. It is however specified in lines 25 and 26 that the data has to be collected, in part at least, from motor vehicles. If that last requirement were to be deleted, as proposed in the amendment, certain self-contained systems could fall within the licensing requirement.
To give an example, it is possible that an invehicle device could be produced which would include a road

657
map encoded on a compact disc. The driver would have to select that part of the map appropriate to the area in which he was travelling. There would be no automatic route selection or information on current traffic conditions. It would not work from roadside beacons or collect data from the driver's vehicle. Essentially therefore it would be no more than an electronically produced map and we see no reason why such a device should require a special licence, any more than a conventional road atlas. However, if lines 25 and 26 were deleted as proposed in the amendment, such systems would fall within the licensing requirement.
As to the example which the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael. gave of the RAC man radioing back to base, whether he would need a licence would depend on the precise type of communication involved. However, we would not expect this to be caught by the definition of "data". If it were, there are powers for the Secretary of State to exclude systems from the licensing requirement. I hope that, with that rather lengthy explanation, I have been able to clarify the aim of Clause 8 and to satisfy the noble Lord's concern.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I must thank the noble Lord for his most detailed and helpful explanation. My noble friend and I will need to look at what he has said with some care, but in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 11, line 43, at end insert—
("( ) Driver information obtained from public sources to facilitate efficient operation of route guidance services shall not be restricted to use in a driver information system if its dissemination to drivers generally in other ways can be beneficial to such drivers and advantageous in achieving satisfactory traffic movement.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is aimed at ensuring that information gathered, for example, by the police is not used solely in the context of the driver information system but that it is available for broadcasting distribution to as many drivers as possible, irrespective of whether or not their vehicles are fitted with information system equipment.
It would be unacceptable to all of us if essential information obtained, collated and processed at public expense were to be available only to a minority of drivers. We merely need to think of the situation in a hard winter, when local authorities and other road authorities will be gathering information about road conditions. If that were supplied and used only by those who were running, organising or funding an information system, it would be a misuse of public information. I hope that this amendment will do what we hope it will do, although, following the explanation in the case of the last amendment, I am not sure that it will. I hope that the Minister will be able to clarify the position on this amendment as well as he did in relation to the previous amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I certainly agree with the spirit of this amendment but I cannot accept that it is necessary. The amendment would apply to any driver
658
information system which was licensed under the Bill, but it may be helpful to your Lordships if I discuss the probable effect of the amendment in relation to Autoguide.
As noble Lords who have had a demonstration of the Autoguide system will know, equipped vehicles not only receive information on routes and traffic conditions from roadside beacons but they will also be able to transmit back via the beacons information from which the central control can calculate road and traffic conditions in any particular area. It is this information coming hack front Autoguide vehicles that will form the basis of the guidance which the system transmits to drivers.
However, as the amendment recognises, there may also be advantages in supplementing this with information about roads and traffic conditions from public authorities. The three authorities which come immediately to mind are local highway authorities, the police and the Department of Transport.
Each of these public bodies has a direct interest in, to quote the words of the amendment, "achieving satisfactory traffic movement", and arrangements already exist for bringing it to the attention of drivers. Perhaps I may give two examples. First, many national and local radio stations issue frequent traffic broadcasts to alert drivers to particular problems so that they can avoid trouble spots. Work is in hand to improve the quality of traffic broadcasts. A particularly striking example is the BBC's radio data system (RDS). This system enables drivers whose cars have a special radio automatically to receive traffic broadcasts which are relevant to the area in which the particular vehicle is travelling. If necessary, the radio will switch itself on automatically or interrupt other broadcasts to bring the traffic bulletin to the attention of the driver. Information on current traffic conditions is provided by a number of sources, notably the police. The Department of Transport is collaborating with the BBC on an RDS pilot scheme which is planned to cover a large part of southern England.
A second example of the way in which information on traffic conditions can be made available to all drivers is through variable message signs. At present a number of these signs are installed on motorways, where they can give drivers advance warning of trouble ahead, such as fog. We can, however, see great potential for the wider use of such systems. They could, for example, be installed on the outskirts of towns and cities to indicate to drivers whether the city centre is congested; or, in central London, they could advise drivers of which bridges to use when crossing the river. The Department of Transport's research programme is examining how the scope for variable message signs could be improved.
I hope that these two brief examples have illustrated the way in which public bodies are already working to disseminate as widely as possible the driver information they collect. Accordingly, we do not feel that this amendment is necessary.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: Before the noble Lord sits down, he has mentioned the BBC. Would he also pay tribute to the work done by all the companies covered by the Independent Broadcasting Authority

659
radio stations? When I was on the IBA I had a hand in starting some of these stations, and they have proved to be of enormous value to road users throughout the country because they transmit, normally every half hour, local traffic details.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: In fact I did mention local radio stations in my reply and I would be happy to pay tribute to them. What I was describing so far as the BBC is concerned was a new system which they are developing.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: Again I am very grateful to the Minister for the way he has explained the Government's position. He says that the amendment is unnecessary. I should like to study what he has said, and in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, be leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Operators' licences]:
7 p.m.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 12, line 32, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
("(1) The Secretary of State may grant a licence to operate a driver information system in a single area in England. Wales or Scotland on a trial basis (such a licence being referred to in this part of the Act as an "operator's licence")".
(2) The trial shall last for a period of not less than two years and shall be monitored by the Secretary of State.
(3) The Secretary of State shall consult the local authority Associations and whatever other organisations he considers appropriate on the results of the trial and shall present to Parliament a report on the trial and the results of his consultation.
(4) Following the presentation of the report in accordance with subsection (3) above, the Secretary of State may grant an operator's licence in relation to any other area in England or Wales or Scotland.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to delete the existing subsection (1) of Clause 10 and to replace it with four new subsections. The existing subsection (1) states:
"The Secretary of State may grant a licence to operate a driver information system in any area in England or Wales or Scotland (such a licence being referred to in this Part of the Act as an 'operator's licence')."
Before explaining the amendment, may I thank the Minister for arranging for an excellent guideline for pilot Autoguide system proposals. I do not know how many other noble Lords have received it. It is issued by the Department of Transport in connection with this Bill but it is not part of the Bill. The Bill does not refer to guidance notes which must be followed. These notes are very useful and I shall make some reference to them, particularly in connection with this amendment. I thank the Minister for sending a copy of them, because they are extremely helpful.
At present, subsection (1) provides only that the Secretary of State be empowered to grant a licence to operate a driver information system anywhere in Great Britain. At Second Reading the noble Lord the Minister made clear that the system would be implemented gradually. He stated in col. 1064 that a
660
pilot scheme would be started, which could be fully evaluated. That is the purpose of the new subsection (1) as in the amendment. The reference to starting with a pilot scheme, however, does not appear in the Bill. The new subsection (1) provides that a pilot scheme be in a single area. When I refer to the guidance notes, 1 find that paragraph (8) would appear to empower the Secretary of State to have more than one trial scheme. Again, this is not in the Bill.
The new subsection (2) of the amendment would provide that a trial be for a minimum period of not less than two years during which the pilot scheme would be monitored. The guidance notes say it should be for a minimum of three years. We would not argue as to whether it should be two or three years, but we are saying that it must be a minimum of two years.
Subsection (3) which we propose would impose a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to consult with local authority associations and whatever other organisations he considered appropriate on the results of the trial. At Second Reading the Minister stated that local authorities should be involved in the monitoring of a pilot scheme. Again, this is not in the Bill.
Further, the guidance notes contain a great deal of reference, but there is little or no reference to the involvement of local government through their local authority associations. In fact, there is very little reference to the position of local government in the guidance notes. It is essential that monitoring of the pilot scheme be written into the Bill, but there is no reference to that. We have the Minister's assurance that this will be done. Obviously it must be done; otherwise it would make nonsense of issuing further licences for new schemes in the future; but there is no reference to it in the Bill.
I emphasise that it is important that the existence of the pilot scheme and the arrangement for its monitoring be written into the Bill. There are a number of reasons for that, one of which is to remove the scope for possible commercial pressures being placed on the Government to extend Autoguide beyond the original pilot area in advance of the experience in that area being monitored, assessed and discussed with local authority associations and with other organisations. In order to avoid that, we need to have that sort of safeguard in the Bill.
We should also ensure that local highway authorities nationally, including those not directly affected by the pilot scheme, be given the opportunity to comment on the impact of an Autoguide scheme which could well be extended to their own area at a later date. Therefore, we need to ensure that information be given out about the monitoring of the scheme.
We must also ensure that the pilot scheme be operated for a sufficiently long period of time to enable any problems or difficulties to be identified and, where possible, resolved. The guidance notes suggest a minimum of three years for a trial scheme—we propose to write into the Bill by amendment a minimum of two years—but there is no reference to that in the Bill.
Guidance Note No. 22 states only that the Secretary of State will wish to reserve the right to invite local highway authorities, local authority associations and the police to participate in the monitoring and evaluation of a pilot scheme. But that is merely a guidance note; there is no reference to it in the Bill.
Our proposed subsection (4) would provide that after the presentation of the report on monitoring the Secretary of State may then grant a licence for a scheme anywhere in Great Britain. In other words, we are not endeavouring to kill the scheme. We are saying, as we said on Second Reading, that we believe it could be very helpful, but that surely many of the points raised in the guidance notes should be in the Bill. In our amendment we have picked out four items which are suitable for a new subsection, having deleted the purely general subsection (1) as in the Bill.
In Guidance Note No. 19 we find that after the detailed consideration of the provisions of the trial scheme a possible second licence could be granted, but that would be a matter for negotiation between the Secretary of State and the promoter. That is repeated in Guidance Note No. 20 concerning a possible second 12-year licence.
Some minimum requirements are set out in Annex 2 of the guidance notes. It is imperative that consideration be given to them, and surely they can be considered only by discussion with local authority associations and the other organisations concerned, particularly those which are highway authorities.
Not only is the AMA, of which 1 am the president, in favour of the amendment and the four new subsections, but also are the Association of County Councils and the Association of London Authorities. Therefore, a large section of local authorities believes that it is essential that such points be written into the Bill.
I emphasise that no matter how excellent the points made in the guidance notes may be they are nothing to do with the Bill because they are not in the Bill. There is no mention even that guidance notes to which attention should be given must be issued. The four points which I have listed in the amendment are simple points which are essential to help to make the scheme and the monitoring a success. I beg to move.
Lord Tordoff: I have great sympathy with the suggestion that there should be some reference to consultation with local authorities in the monitoring process. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, that that would be better written in the Bill rather than in guidance notes, since those do not bind anybody, certainly not the next Secretary of State for Transport, nor an incoming government.
There is one thing about this amendment which worries me slightly: the idea that this should be a single area only. It seems to me that there might be circumstances in which it might be wished to have more than one area, particularly if more than one system is being contemplated. Even with one system, even if Autoguide is the only system which swings into action, it might be felt necessary to have trial areas in different locations, one in a highly urbanised area and one in a less urbanised area. With that
662
qualification I should like to support the amendment and to hear what the Minister has to say about it.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I think I understand the purpose of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, in moving this amendment. I do not wish to criticise my noble friend the Minister on this point and it is a little difficult to relate what the noble Lord. Lord Underhill, seeks to do with the guidelines, but like him I should prefer to see some parts of the guidelines incorporated in the Bill before us. I suspect that we shall come on to that at a later stage.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, that there should be some reference in the Bill to the monitoring of the situation. Although I am not too concerned about the list of names, it may be thought by the Committee to be necessary to set out who should be consulted and who should be part of the monitoring body. It would seem to be reasonably obvious that it could not be the department alone; nor, indeed, the operator of an initial licence.
Where the amendment constrains activities is that, according to my understanding, there are other regions around the country in which different operators are likely to attempt to make use of systems of that nature. There is undoubtedly a desire on the part of potential licensees to make better use of the road network system. Autoguide compatible systems, which are being researched widely, may through this proposed amendment produce quite an unacceptable delay in commercial terms in developing the various technologies. That could well be detrimental to what we are seeking to achieve.
Further, the commercial viability and the effectiveness in improving the use of roads is much dependent on the take-up, in other words the people who will buy the system and install it in their vehicles. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. refers to a trial period. That suggests an initial limitation on the infrastructure and the number of users who could be brought in at that time. In my view that casts doubt on the ability of a licensee to continue with the system.
At the end of a two-year trial period, when the holder of a provisional licence, so to speak, may well have spent £25 million to £50 million, certainly a considerable sum of money, he wants to feel that there is some real opportunity of gaining the full 12-year licence which is envisaged in the guidelines. That again, is not set down in the Bill so we do not know what the Secretary of State might feel during that period. If we went down the road that the amendment suggests, as it is currently written, we could well inhibit potential licensees. That should be avoided at all costs.
I do not reject the amendment out of hand. Obviously I want to listen carefully to what my noble friend the Minister has to say. But I ask the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, to have a fairly open mind as to the full implications of what he is proposing. I go with him in suggesting that, having had the Autoguide guidelines for only 36 hours, we might want to take account of what is written in the Bill and the guidelines and align that with what my noble friend has to say in response to the comments we have both made.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: I wish to support the development of the Autoguide system. I shall express the concern, although I do not think it is very necessary, that we should not amend the Bill in any way that would handicap its development. I was glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, supporting the principle of the scheme, as he did on Second Reading, because I think it has a valuable prospect of helping traffic movement in big cities.
The point that my noble friend Lord Lucas is making is one that I should like warmly to support.
I am sure that the Minister is taking care, as he must, to preserve the commercial viability of the scheme. I am sure that he is doing that in the terms in which the Bill is now drafted. I have not had the advantage of seeing the guidelines, but I can imagine the kind of points that are made in the document. They all sound quite sensible. I support entirely the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, about the need to consult with local authorities. That is necessary if for no other reason than the fact that, if they were hostile to the scheme, it would undoubtedly fail. After all, the beacons have to be planted in the areas of local authorities, and if they wished to frustrate the scheme they could easily do so. So it is plain common sense that they should be brought in from the beginning, they should be told what is happening, their views should be consulted and they should be carried along with the scheme. I am sure that in that way not only could we ensure that local authorities did not oppose the scheme but we should obtain their assistance. That involves a good deal more work for my noble friend and his advisers, particularly when one considers the number of local authorities involved in London, for example. But it is essential that local authorities should be brought in from the beginning and that their goodwill should be won.
On the commercial viability of these schemes, a simple pilot scheme will run into a cost of several million pounds. Therefore local authorities are casting their bread upon the waters. It is most important that the prospect should flow from that that the major scheme will then be developed. Again local authorities will have to lay out a lot of money, but they will be able to see the prospect of making the scheme a financial success.
I give my noble friend warm support and warm congratulations that he and his advisers in the Department of Transport have in this case grasped time by the forelock in preparing for the development of the brand new scheme and for drawing up the necessary legislation so quickly. That is all quite admirable. I am sure that my noble friend will have a helpful answer to the amendment and that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, will not feel it necessary to press it.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I am grateful to my noble friend. The main effect of this amendment, as the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has explained, would be to provide that any trials of driver information systems should be subject to certain requirements. They should last for not less than two years and they should be monitored by the Secretary of State, who would be required to consult local authority
664
associations and others on the results of the trial and to present a report to Parliament.
I think that the guidelines for the submission of proposals for the Autoguide system in London which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State published yesterday make it clear that the Government are thinking on very much the same lines as the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. Incidentally, I sent a copy of these guidelines to a number of noble Lords who had their names down to amendments in this part of the Bill. I shall certainly send a copy to my noble friend Lord Nugent, although of course the guidelines are available in the Library.
The guidelines make it clear that a London Autoguide system will be in two distinct parts. The first licence would be for the operation of a substantial pilot scheme covering part of the London area. The second and longer licence for the provision of a fully commercial Autoguide system throughout London would be granted only if the operation of the pilot scheme were judged to be satisfactory.
The guidelines propose that the licence for the pilot scheme will last for three years, of which one year will be for the monitoring and evaluation of the system by the operator and the Department of Transport. Our judgment is that a monitoring period of one year will be sufficient to allow the operation of the pilot scheme to he fully evaluated. As to consultation, the Department of Transport is currently discussing with local authority associations and the police how they might be involved in the monitoring and evaluation of the pilot Autoguide scheme. We shall be meeting the local authority associations on 8th February and we shall have made sure by then that they have copies of the guidelines and that they can be discussed at that meeting.
We have not so far undertaken that the detailed results obtained from the monitoring of the pilot Autoguide scheme should be laid before Parliament. However, in view of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and others, and the obvious interest in Autoguide both inside and outside Parliament, I am happy to give that undertaking today. While as I have indicated, we very much agree with the thinking behind this amendment, we are not disposed to accept it. We must bear in mind that Part II of the Bill is concerned not only with Autoguide but also with other types of driver information systems. Some of the systems which may in the future fall to be licensed under the Bill have not even been developed.
We think that it would be quite wrong to impose through the Bill too rigid or bureaucratic a framework for the introduction of such a system. I think that my noble friend Lord Lucas and my noble friend Lord Nugent made that point. It would be wrong for example to specify that trials must last for two years, one year or some other fixed period. Once experience has been gained it may be that a much shorter trial would be sufficient. In relation to consultation, it is quite possible that in future a number of fairly similar systems would be developed. It may well be unnecessary to consult the local authority associations on the results of every trial that was undertaken.

665
In the light of those points, and in particular the undertaking that I have given that the results of the monitoring and evaluation of the pilot Autoguide scheme in London will be made available to Parliament, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Underhill: I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in the discussion on the amendment and to the Minister for his reply. I should like to make just one or two comments.
I referred to guidance notes, the Minister has referred to guidance notes, and other Members of the Committee have also referred to them. In the past few years there have been Bills in which it has been laid down that guidance notes will be issued and that specified bodies must take note of those guidelines. Not in this Bill: there are helpful guidelines, but they are not to be referred to in the Bill.
As the noble Lords, Lord Tordoff and Lord Lucas, have suggested, it may be desirable to try out different schemes. However, there must obviously be some limit because we are considering a completely new system, one which we all hope will be successful. In the course of monitoring the system all kinds of problems may be found. Therefore at the outset there must be some limitation on the number of schemes which the Secretary of State may feel inclined to authorise.
I was pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, supported my view that a number of the points set out in the guidelines should be incorporated in the Bill. Monitoring is the most important aspect in relation to Clause 10. If the monitoring is not carried out properly and if it is not considered by the appropriate organisations one could end up with a scheme that is undesirable or it could be killed through lack of information. That is why we are so concerned that a number of the points from the guidelines should be incorporated in the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, asked one very important question: who will monitor the system? We know that TRRL will undertake some monitoring and present its results to the Department of Transport. However, who will be the monitoring body? It should be an independent body which monitors the scheme.
I am very pleased that a number of those who took part in the debate agreed that local authorities should be considered. There are later amendments dealing with the position of local authorities before any scheme is put into operation. Amendment No. 39 proposes that local authority associations and whatever other organisations the Minister considers appropriate should be consulted on the results of the trial.
The Minister said that the guidelines show that the Government are thinking on the same lines as I am. That is very helpful and we welcome that statement. However, if the Minister considers that we are thinking on the same lines then surely he would agree that the really important points dealing with the trial area, monitoring and the results of that monitoring should be written into the Bill.
666
Nowhere in the amendment do I refer to Autoguide. The Bill does not refer to Autoguide. We readily accept that that is the name given to one system and that there may be other systems which it may be appropriate to consider. I am very pleased that the Minister has given an assurance that a report on the results of the monitoring of the Autoguide system will be presented to Parliament. I think that that is most important.
I did not expect that the Committee would accept an amendment which deletes one subsection and puts forward new ones in its place. However, we believe that those four subsections are worthy of consideration. It is obvious from the discussion that has taken place that other Members of the Committee think the same. I hope that. in the light of the fact that he considers that the Government and I are thinking on the same lines, the Minister will pick out those items in the guidelines which arc vital and which should be included in the Bill.
The Minister gave an excellent and detailed reply at Second Reading. We hope that he will not be shifted about, but the noble Lord may not be the Minister when the monitoring is undertaken; there may not even be the same government. Therefore some of those points ought to be included in the Bill.
I return to the points which I made in connection with a previous amendment. I accept the statements made by a number of Members of the Committee with legal expertise who believe that it is what is set out in the Bill which counts and not what the Minister says, however excellent that may be, and not guidelines for which there is no provision in the Bill. Those points must be included in the Bill itself.
I readily withdraw the amendment. I am delighted with the Minister's assurance that a report on the results of the monitoring will be presented to Parliament. I should like the Minister to do what we shall do£to consider very carefully what has been said in this debate and consider which are the important issues which should be put into the Bill. I should prefer the Minister to bring forward the issues which he believes ought to be in the Bill rather than bringing forward an amendment myself.
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, wishes to say something before 1 sit down.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I should like to say something before the noble Lord decides what to do.
I wonder whether my noble friend the Minister could advise the Committee£perhaps not this evening£as to the status of the Autoguide guidelines. It was my understanding that those guidelines were produced for the benefit of those putting forward proposals for consideration by the department for the issue of a pilot study licence. It would be helpful if we could separate the guidelines from what will become law£and we have been advised that, in the light of events, some parts of the Bill will be subject to amendment as the Bill proceeds through Parliament. The position would be much clearer to both the licence applicant and Parliament if we knew which parts of the guidelines were appropriate to each of those issues.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I was just about to make a point in connection with the guidelines when my noble friend spoke. There exists perhaps a slight misunderstanding. Those are not guidance notes, they are invitations to submit proposals which would, we hope, form the basis of a legally binding licence between the Secretary of State and the Autoguide operator. They are therefore rather more powerful than the guidelines which the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, had in mind. I shall read carefully what the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and other noble Lords have said on this amendment and will bear that in mind if anything needs to be done.
Lord Tordoff: Before the noble Lord makes his decision I think it would be right to thank the Minister for what he said about reporting back to Parliament the results of monitoring. I should not like that to go unnoticed. Perhaps I did not quite hear the noble Lord, Lord Underhill.
Lord Underhill: I am grateful for the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and for the further comments of the Minister. When I referred to guidance notes I meant the same thing as these guidelines. I understand exactly why they are issued and 1 have also read the annexes which I find extremely interesting. However, they still do not have any legal standing. They only represent what the Government intend the scheme to follow and the framework within which the guidelines shall be operated.
There are some very important points, particularly on the subject of the trial scheme, monitoring and the fact that afterwards organisations, including the local authority organisations, will be consulted, to which there is no reference in the Bill. These are important issues which we believe ought to be in the Bill. I should like the Minister to consider the matter in the light of those comments and the observations of other noble Lords, and to examine which matters in these guidelines it may be appropriate to extract and make legally binding in the Bill rather than have as guidelines which the Government hope other schemes will follow. On that basis I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Davidson: I beg to move that the Committee stage be adjourned and that we resume at 8.30 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The sitting was suspended from 7.32 until 8.30 p.m.]
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 12, line 35, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment. We propose the deletion of subsection (2) of this clause. Subsection (2) provides that more than one operator's licence may be granted for the same area but that a licence is not assignable. We can readily accept the position that the licence cannot be assignable: that it cannot be transferred to someone else at the operator's desire. However, these Notes on Clauses merely repeat the words that I have read out;
668
they do not give an explanation of them. We should like to know the Government's intention and how this would work.
On a previous amendment it was mentioned that there might be a desire to have different schemes in different parts of the country and perhaps different schemes using different types of projects. However, the subsection that we suggest is deleted provides that,
"More than one operator's licence may be granted for the same area".
I raised this at Second Reading. Despite the very detailed replies that we received on many points from the Minister, I do not think that we had any explanation on how a scheme of this kind could work if one has two separate schemes within the same designated area. That is the point that I wish to make with this probing amendment.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: The noble Lord has described this as a probing amendment. My questions were similar. As one reads the Bill it appears that there can be one scheme by operator X, and another by operator Y. The Autoguide guidelines insist on compatibility in adjoining areas, whereas the Bill is continually referring to the same area. I could not quite follow that point. I shall be glad to hear the Minister on the subject.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I am glad to have the opportunity to give an explanation as to why subsection (2) is in the Bill. The removal of subsection (2) would have a number of effects. One would be to prevent different types of driver information systems from operating in the same area. If for example an Autoguide system was licensed for the London area it would not be possible then to license in London another type of system which provided a different driver information service.
The removal of subsection (2) would also prevent more than one operator's licence for the same type of system being granted for the same area. For Autoguide it is certainly true that we have invited proposals for the award of one licence for the London area. We do not at present expect there to be competing Autoguide operations in one area. But there is no reason why in London or elsewhere there could not eventually be driver information systems provided by more than one operator. There might be one organisation which collects and processes data and another which actually transmits it to road users. In that case both would need licences for the same area. It might also be that operational areas could eventually overlap.
Finally we must bear in mind that the Bill is designed to facilitate the introduction of driver information systems which may be developed in the future. It is possible that it will be perfectly feasible to license more than one operation of a system in the same area.
The overall effect of this amendment would therefore be to remove the flexibility necessary to ensure that future developments in driver information technology can be dealt with under the licensing arrangements. It would also prevent competition among different operators of systems,

669
each striving to provide the best possible information to drivers. I hope that that explains fully the reasoning behind this subsection.
Lord Underhill: I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. The first observations that he made heartened me. He gave an explanation that I understood. However, the possibility of having two entirely different types of project in the same area rather confounds me. Perhaps it is because I am unable to understand what can be done with modern technology. However. the idea that the same infrared lights can be used for one system and for another fills me with a little awe, quite frankly, as well as the competition between drivers as to which system they will have. I can foresee a glorious mess.
1 shall not accept that part of the Minister's reply. I do not believe that it is intended to be part of the Bill; it is a matter for the future. However, he used the words "in the same area". It is obvious that when I am referring to an area it is different from the area that the Minister has in mind. 1 referred to "area" as being the area covered by the licence, not the whole of the London area. If it refers to the London area, I can understand that one might have one scheme in Islington and another somewhere else. Should there not be some definition in the Bill as to what is referred to by "area"?
Subsection (1) states:
"The Secretary of State may grant a licence to operate a driver information system in any area in England or Wales".
The Minister obviously believes that it refers to anywhere in London, England or Wales, whereas I am interpreting it as being the area to be covered by the operator's licence. My interpretation is obviously not the right one. Should there not be a definition in the Bill of what "area" is intended to mean?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I think that I should look at this point. I had not seen any difficulty until this stage with "area". The London area, for instance, might be granted a licence for the whole of the area within the M.25. It might be split into boroughs, or north or south of the Thames. However, whether we need a definition of "area" is a matter that I shall look into.
On the point of the two types in the same area, the systems might be quite different. There might be one for heavy goods vehicles and another for cars. There is no reason why both should need roadside beacons such as Autoguide has. We are trying to look into the future, as the noble Lord suggested. We do not know necessarily what might come up. We know about the Autoguide system, which is on trial at the moment. However, other systems may be invented in the future and we wish the Bill to be able to cope with them as and when they arise.
Lord Underhill: I am grateful to the Minister for undertaking to look at that matter. It is possible that my understanding of what is meant by "area" needs a definition and what the Minister says requires no definition. On that basis I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 13, line 15, at beginning insert ("subject to subsection (8A) below,").
The noble Lord said: I believe that it will be convenient if with Amendment No. 41 I speak also to Amendments Nos. 42 and 49, with particular emphasis on Amendment No. 49 which contains the substance of the three amendments. The purpose of these amendments is to limit the classes of road down which vehicles can be directed—it would seem obvious that these essentially should be main roads only—and to provide proper consultation before any road can be included in a scheme. The classes of road listed in the amendments are those which form the primary route network in any area and are therefore intended for through traffic. The amendments would therefore prevent the information systems from being used to direct vehicles down rat runs.
At Second Reading the Minister referred to fear which had been expressed by a number of noble Lords during the debate that the system may result in rat runs. He said:
"We have no reason to think that Autoguide will increase the overall volume of traffic on minor roads. Main roads generally offer the quicker … times. The problems is … choosing the right main road, which is … where Autoguide can help by giving advance warning of congestion".—[Official Report, 15/12/1988, col. 1066.]
The Minister seemed to express approval of this kind of amendment, that we ought to be defining the roads we want and concentrating on the primary road system.
It should also be noted that the Bill gives neither local authorities nor the residents concerned any input as to the roads to be used and would allow the Secretary of State full power to direct traffic down any road however unsuitable. I know that the Minister will say that no Secretary of State would do such a thing, but Secretaries of State change and one Secretary of State may think differently from another. In our view, local knowledge of the area and the roads to be covered is essential.
It may be thought that the guidelines to which we have referred, issued by the Department of Transport, cover these points, but once again I emphasise that they are not in the Bill. For example, paragraph 14 of the guidelines refers to roads, but not to any consultation with the highway or any other local authority. The guidelines refer also to the use of below class B roads for other than originating or terminating traffic. How will the system determine what is originating traffic and which is terminating traffic? The cars will not have notes on them. That is a point in the guidelines which, frankly, I did not understand. Both the AMA and the Association of County Councils urge that the system should be confined in the main to the primary network. It is on that basis that I beg to move.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, will not he surprised that I seek to influence the Committee in opposing this amendment. In fact I gave notice of this during Second Reading. I do not believe that it is practical to impose the kind of conditions which the amendment seeks to do. If we are to take full

671
advantage of this system, we must take full advantage of the roads available on which the system can operate. Of course there are roads which should not bear any greater level of traffic. I believe it was the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael—he will forgive me if I got it wrong—who was talking about playroads, roads closed off to through traffic, roads for play areas, for access only or closed for other reasons. The rest of the roads should be utilised for traffic.
If the Autoguide system can sensibly utilise such roads I do not think it should be inhibited, which I believe will be the effect of this amendment. Surely it is one of the primary objectives to use the current road network and to use alternative routes where there are no penalties or penalising issues at stake. To accept what the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, seeks to do would affect the commercial viability of the scheme. At present we are considering a totally new system. We have proposed a trial period during which monitoring will be carried out. It might be better at the end of that period to see what effects there are.
One can easily envisage people with knowledge of the Autoguide system, perhaps being subscribers, but also having particular local knowledge. They may decide one afternoon. because of what they had heard, to abandon Autoguide and drive down the left-hand and right-hand roads, whatever they may be. I believe noble Lords opposite understand what I am saying. If the Autoguide system is then to be prohibited from directing traffic, in effect that will encourage the non-subscriber to seek the alternative. It is far better that the whole system he embraced, as it were in one, that the intelligence gathered by the system is used to the best advantage using all the roads that lawfully can properly be used for moving traffic and not just for "parking areas".
I cannot understand the practicability of doing what the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, suggests in his amendment. I hope that he will see that reason and not press his amendment.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, for his explanation of this group of amendments. I understand his concern that Autoguide and similar systems should not lead to an increase in traffic on unsuitable roads, or "rat runs" as they are often called. We too wish to make sure that this does not happen. It might be helpful to the Committee if I explained the way in which my right honourable friend proposes to tackle the issue and exercise the licensing powers which he seeks.
As the Committee is aware, the guidelines were issued yesterday, inviting the private sector to make proposals for the operation of an Autoguide system in London. The guidelines make it very clear that decisions on the system will be taken in two distinct stages, and indeed that there will be two separate licences. The first licence would be for the operation of a substantial pilot scheme covering part of the London area. This would involve perhaps 1,000 vehicles, and its operation would be monitored by the Department of Transport and the Autoguide operator over a period of one year. The department is discussing with local authority associations and the
672
police how it might be involved in monitoring the pilot scheme. The guidelines make clear that the second and longer licence for the provision of a fully commercial Autoguide system throughout London would be granted only if the operation of the pilot scheme were judged to be satisfactory.
There would be two main tests; first, that the operation of the system had not had, and was not likely to have, a detrimental effect on road safety, and, secondly, that the operation had not of itself created—and was not likely to create—an increase in the volume of traffic using unsuitable roads. I think that these guidelines and the detailed technical annexes which accompany them make it absolutely clear that a commercial Autoguide licence will be awarded only after careful appraisal of the pilot scheme by the Secretary of State.
A major reason for having the pilot scheme is that we need to gain experience of precisely how Autoguide would operate. Research already done through the Transport and Road Research Laboratory suggests that an Autoguide system would lead to a transfer of traffic from minor to major roads and that drivers in equipped vehicles would benefit from this overall reduction in congestion. This research is however based on computer models and not on the sort of large-scale pilot scheme we are proposing and which would involve studies of individual vehicles on a variety of routes.
Main roads generally offer the best journey times. The problem is choosing the right main road. This is exactly where Autoguide can help by assisting that choice and enabling the driver to anticipate congestion. Individual highway authorities can also help by improving traffic signing and by creating and maintaining the best possible conditions on the main network, so encouraging through traffic to use the most suitable routes. Local highway authorities have wide powers already to restrict traffic and classes of traffic on particular roads. Autoguide operators would have to incorporate these restrictions in their guidance information. Moreover, a route guidance system must be able to direct drivers from the minor road network to the selected main road.
I hope that Members will appreciate from what I have said that it would be premature to provide in the Bill that a driver information system such as Autoguide could operate only in relation to main roads. This would introduce rigidity which could generally restrict the value of a pilot scheme and a subsequent commercial system. That point was well made by my noble friend Lord Lucas. A more appropriate control is, I believe, through conditions in the licence to be awarded by the Secretary of State. Clause 10(8)(b) would enable the Secretary of State, in licensing systems, to impose conditions about the roads on which those systems could direct drivers. This would allow the Secretary of State the flexibility to impose conditions which are tailored to a particular system and to the particular area and time of day and night in which that system is operating, and to different classes of vehicle. The guidelines to which I have referred make clear our intention to use the power as in Clause 10 to prevent Autoguide traffic using unsuitable roads, should such restrictions be necessary.

673
To limit Autoguide and other driver information systems to main roads as defined in the amendment before Autoguide has been properly evaluated and before other systems have been developed would, in our view, be far too restrictive. We need to encourage the commercial development of systems such as Autoguide which could be a great benefit to drivers of equipped vehicles and to traffic in general. At the same time the systems must be operated in a way which does not produce undesirable side effects. We believe that the clauses drafted, the use to which we intend to put them, and our intention to involve highway authorities and the police, provide the right balance.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asked what we meant by "originating and terminating traffic" and how it could be distinguished by an Autoguide system. It is the function of the origin or destination of a particular journey as known by the in-vehicle equipment and the vehicle's distance from the last beacon which it passed.
TRRL research, referred to at Annex 3 to the guidelines, suggests that a full Autoguide system would produce a slight shift of traffic away from minor roads on to major roads and another shift away from congested streets mainly in central London to slightly congested streets away from the centre. That is what the pilot scheme will show us.
I hope that in the light of what I have said, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Underhill: I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. I omitted to refer to a view expressed to us by the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety. It has emphasised the fact that the majority of road accidents which occur in residential areas involve the most vulnerable of road users; that is, children, the elderly, pedestrians and cyclists. Therefore, road safety is most important in considering on which roads vehicles should travel.
The Minister said that the police and local authorities would be involved in the selection of the roads. I hope that the Minister will consider writing that provision into the Bill. I accept his assurance but, as has already been said, it may be that the present Secretary of State will not be in office. We need to have written into the Bill the provision that the consultation on the roads to be used will involve the local authorities and the police.
I readily accept that there must be a certain amount of flexibility and that we should not be too rigid in our arrangements. However, we must ensure that there are safeguards for the local highway authority and for residents in puny, residential roads. Our interests cannot be only the commercial interests of the operators. That will be very important because if the operators discover that it is not viable we shall not have an Autoguide or similar scheme. Other factors need consideration and I should like the Minister to consider whether they should be written into the Bill.
Having heard his explanation, although still believing that these matters should be written into the Bill in some form, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
674
[Amendment No. 42 not moved.]
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 13, line 23, leave out paragraph (c).
The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment. Its intention is to omit subsection (8)(c) on page 13 of the Bill. The paragraph provides that the Minister may specify,
"the classes of motor vehicles to whose drivers route guidance may or may not be given or the circumstances in which it may or may not be given to such drivers".
I should like an explanation of what is meant by that and how the Minister will differentiate between one class of driver and another. I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: The purpose of paragragh (c) of Clause 10(8) is to enable the Secretary of State, through the licence which he will issue to operators of driver information systems, to ensure that traffic is not guided onto unsuitable roads. This paragraph, together with paragraph (b), would enable licence conditions to be precisely tailored to the needs of particular areas. The licence could, for example, specify that while an Autoguide system could direct cars on to certain roads it could not direct heavy goods vehicles—or, as they are to be called under Part I of the Bill, large goods vehicles—on to them. The Secretary of State would be able, by virtue of paragraph (c), to include licence conditions to the effect that vehicles, or particular classes of vehicles—such as lorries—could use only certain roads at particular times of the day or during particular periods. To take two examples, the conditions could be used to divert through traffic away from urban area at night time or away from central London on ceremonial occasions.
In short, this provision will help to ensure that systems are operated in a safe and environmentally safe way. With that explanation I hope that the noble Lord will agree to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. The Bill merely refers to those vehicles using route guidance. I am curious to find out what would happen if a lorry driver just decided that he would go on a particular prohibited road, if he did not have a guidance system in the cab. One does not need to have a system. It would obviously be helpful to some, but it may be a long time before the large goods vehicles have it. Therefore, will those lorries not be able to go as and where they like?
Lord Barabazon of Tara: That is not a matter for this Bill. If there is a lorry ban in effect, as there is in the City of London at night, and the lorry driver breaks the ban, then that is an offence. This Bill makes no difference to that situation. The only difference which this Bill makes is that if he has an Autoguide system, that will direct him away at that time of night and will, therefore, prevent him from committing that offence.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 13, line 28, leave out paragraph (e).
The noble Lord said: I propose this amendment because there are those who consider that, as the driver information scheme is a commercial undertaking, it should be wholly and not partially private and commercial. Therefore, that demands that all the necessary charges should be fixed by commercial judgment and market forces and not necessarily by the Secretary of State, not necessarily by what one might describe as a ministerial decree at some time.
I notice—and this is a difficulty to which I referred earlier this evening when discussing the role of Autoguide guidelines—that the question of those charges are to be waived by the Secretary of State at this time. Where does that leave us? It seems to me that the Bill says that the Secretary of State can fix the charges and the guidelines say that he is not going to. In that case, why give the Secretary of State the power in the Bill to do something which he has specifically said he will not do for 15 years—the three pilot years plus the 12-year licence? Whichever way one looks at the matter, 15 years is a long time to preserve one's position. Had it been a five-year period, I could perhaps have understood that. That is the purpose of my amendment and I should be glad to know what the Minister has to say on that subject. I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: In regard to this part of the Bill I do not believe that the Government can be accused of not looking far ahead, and hopefully they will not have to bring further legislation before the Chamber in the near future.
The provision is included in the Bill very much as a contingency measure. The pace of technology on driver information systems strongly suggests that there will be competition between different systems, and in those circumstances it will be in the operators' interests to keep prices to their customers as low as possible.
Even in the early days advanced systems such as Autoguide will face competition from more conventional sources of driver information, such as traffic broadcasts on the radio. The guidelines which have been issued to invite proposals for an Autoguide system in the London area make clear that the relevant operator's licence will not include a condition to control charges to users.
It is however just possible that at some time in the future a restriction on charges to users would be appropriate. It is conceivable—though, as I have indicated, in our view unlikely—that while Autoguide will become firmly established across the country, there will not be comparable development of competing systems. In those circumstances price restraint might be necessary. I should however make clear that, under the provisions of Clause 10, charges to users could be controlled only through a condition in an operator's licence. That licence would be the subject of free negotiation between the prospective operator and the Secretary of State. There could therefore be no question of the Secretary of State
676
unilaterally imposing a condition in relation to user prices. I hope that explanation will satisfy my noble friend.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I am grateful to my noble friend for his explanation, which I accept. However, I should like to take up one point. It is conceivable—and those were the words used by my noble friend—that in the future, having expended some £30, £40 or £50 million on developing a system, an operator comes to the Secretary of State and says, "Now we have been through the monitoring process; I have done all you wanted. It has come out right. Can I have my 12-year licence?" "Oh yes," says the Secretary of State, "but technological advances have been such and such and such, and so I think I shall have to impose that which the law allows me to; namely, a certain restriction on charge". When one has expended some £30 or £40 million and one has to get a return, one will not start to argue about a few pounds licence money or royalties, or whatever it may be.
I find this provision inhibitive upon the potential traffic information system licensed applicant. I am disappointed that the Minister should feel it necessary to make that sort of provision. However, I do not propose to take this any further; I simply register a little unhappiness about the matter. I hope that that power will not be invoked certainly within 15 years from the time the first pilot scheme gets underway.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Perhaps my noble friend will give way. By turning to the guidelines one notes that they say that the licensee will have a pre-emptive right to a licence for a further 12 years after the three-year period.
Turning to the next paragraph, he will not use for London licences for these periods the power which the Bill would give him to regulate the charges. Therefore, he will have the full 12-year run.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I am much obliged to my noble friend the Minister and 1 beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Grantchester): In calling Amendment No. 45, I have to announce that, if it is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 46, 47, 48, 51 and 52.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 13, line 32, leave out paragraph (f).
The noble Lord said: I am grateful to the Deputy Chairman of Committees for his comments because orginally it was intended, not by me, that Amendment No. 45 would be taken with those amendments. We wanted to settle the position as to whether paragraph (f) should be included before we came to the subsequent amendments.
Perhaps I should say at this stage that there may be some Members of the Committee who wonder why, so far as the Opposition are concerned, no Divisions have been called. This is a non-political Bill. We have consciously decided to use the Committee stage of the

677
Bill to obtain from the Minister explanations on important points—which we are getting—so that we can decide what we shall do at the next stage.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, in his previous amendment, referred to paragraph (e), which gives one of the conditions which may be included in an operator's licence. This refers to charges which the licence holder may make for supplying a driver information system or other services. Paragraph (f), which I seek to delete, requires,
"the licence holder 10 furnish to the Secretary of State such information … as the Secretary of State requires and authorising the Secretary of State to make such use, including the sale, of the information as he thinks fit".
On Second Reading I questioned what was intended by what I gather to be the purport of the Bill: that the holder of the licence, the operator, may sell information but that equally the Bill seems to provide in paragraph (f) that the Secretary of State can request what information he requires from the operator and sell it, the Bill indicates, "as he thinks fit".
I had hoped to learn whether I was right. The Minister said that I referred to the Secretary of State's power to collect charges from users and he mentioned various other points in relation to Clause 10. He went on to say:
"The fact that those provisions are in Clause 10 does not necessarily mean that they will be used in every licence which my right honourable friend issues to the operator; they are designed to allow sufficient flexibility for my right honourable friend to negotiate and agree appropriate licences in each case."—[Official Report, 15/12/88: col. 1065.)
I am certain that the Minister will agree that that does not answer whether or not I am correct in saying that the licence holder may sell the information and also that the Secretary of State may request whatever information he desires and sell it "as he thinks fit".
It may be my innocence in some of these technological matters but I do not understand what is meant by the fact that both the licence holder and the Secretary of State can sell the same information. Is there any limit to what use the Secretary of State may make of the information? Paragraph (f) concludes:
"the Secretary of State to make such use, including the sale, of the information as he thinks fit".
Therefore, he can use that information "as he thinks fit". What is intended by that? I should like the Minister to explain the point of these provisions. I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: In responding to this amendment, perhaps I should start by explaining the purpose of paragraph (f). The Department of Transport and local highway authorities currently devote considerable resources to collecting information on patterns of vehicle movement and on monitoring traffic speeds. The information is required to enable my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to take decisions on the need for road improvements and on traffic management issues. This information is also required by local highway authorities and for traffic research.
Paragraph (f) was drafted with the Autoguide system of driver information particularly in mind. Part of the Autoguide system involves the collection
678
by a central computer of data about the speed of traffic on individual stretches of road or about delays at junctions. The central computer will therefore hold the sort of information which would be of benefit to all those involved in tackling traffic problems.
Given the potential use and value of this information, subsection (9) of Clause 10 provides power for the Secretary of State to pay the licence-holder for it. As regards the Secretary of State demanding free of charge information from the licensee. this would be a condition in the licence and would therefore be negotiated between the Secretary of State and the licensee. There is no question of the Secretary of State being able to demand information against the will of the operator free of charge. I hope I have been able to explain the purpose of this paragraph satisfactorily to the noble Lord.
Lord Underhill: I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. I shall have to read very carefully what he said. I am not so certain that one of the points he made is covered in the Bill. Therefore I shall read very carefully what he said and then decide what may be done at the next stage. Meanwhile I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 13, line 32, at beginning insert ("subject to subsections (11) and (12) below").
The noble Lord said: For the convenience of the Committee, in moving this amendment I speak also to Amendments Nos. 48, 51 and 52. I use the word "Autoguide" though we are talking about the driver information system. Autoguide can easily be used to track vehicles through the road network. It relies upon having individually identified vehicles feeding back real time information to the central control to give reliable directions. The purpose of the amendments, and particularly Amendment No. 52, is therefore to protect civil liberties by ensuring that the Secretary of State can only normally obtain information about traffic flows in general and not about specific vehicles and that information cannot be obtained on line.
Should there be any specific occasion when the Secretary of State, or, through him, the police, wish to track a vehicle through the driver information system, it is suggested that the Secretary of State should obtain a warrant. I understand that he can do that very simply. Amendment No. 51 states,
"The Secretary of State shall release any information he obtains under subsection (8)(f) above to the relevant highway authority, upon the request of that highway authority, without charge".
The purpose of this amendment is to allow local authorities free access to any information obtained by the Secretary of State as regards their particular area. That seems a logical thing to do because we wish to have this free play of information from the highway authority to the Secretary of State for the driver information system. Equally we wish the information to flow back the other way. In particular the point of Amendment No. 51 is for that to be possible. In such a case the information should be supplied free of charge. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: In this group of amendments the noble Lord raises an issue that is probably dear to the hearts of Members of the Committee: it is the question of privacy and the invasion of privacy. When speaking about this series of amendments he has been speaking about tracking. The amendments ask for the protection of Autoguide. I take the noble Lord's point that we are talking about driver information systems (loosely called Autoguide at this time) and access by the Secretary of State. Obviously we are not talking about a particular individual, but rather about a government office of state.
I believe that some potential users are certainly not going to take very kindly to any invasion of their privacy. Equally and conversely, a useful vehicle security function might well be provided at the owner's request. An additional feature may be purchased by that user so that there is no misunderstanding. A better way of dealing with the problem that the noble Lord foresees and to which I generally subscribe might be for the Committee to frame an amendment which would legislate against the inclusion of any compulsory vehicle identity to the system. The security aspect could then be dealt with separately and there would be no fear of tracking. One can envisage, unhappily, circumstances in which the authorities may wish to track. Someone could break into the system and track a vehicle, so identifying when a user arrived at this home in order to ambush him or something of that nature.
1 do not believe that I am wasting the Committee's time in posing questions of this kind. They have to be dealt with. I do not suggest that I know the answers. If I knew the answers I would have put down an amendment. I see problems. I should like my noble friend to say that he will look again at the matter and that perhaps we may discuss it before the next stage of the Bill. I should like not to see problems with this kind of system which will be so hugely beneficial and advantageous to us all.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: New subsection (11), proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, would require the Secretary of State to make available to the relevant highway authority any information which he acquires from the licence holder. The information would be given to the highway authority free of charge, on request. We cannot accept this new provision.
The Government's firm policy is that Autoguide should be promoted by the private sector. The information on traffic movements derived from the system will be part of the return on the capital investment. That is why subsection (9) provides power for the Secretary of State to pay for such information. It seems to us unreasonable and indeed unrealistic to demand that the Secretary of State should then release that information free of charge.
As I have said, we do however recognise that the information will be of value not only to the Secretary of State but also to local highway authorities. The guidelines for the submission of proposals for an Autoguide system in London make this clear. In particular, they specify that one of the considerations
680
in assessing proposals for a commercial scheme will be whether they include proposals for the provision of traffic and journey time data to highway authorities and the police. The guidelines also refer to research work which the Department of Transport proposes to undertake to identify data which an Autoguide system could produce and which would be of value to highway authorities and others.
In summary, we very much hope that the data which is collected by the Autoguide system will prove to be of value to highway authorities; and as I have indicated, we are taking positive steps to encourage the transfer of data. We do not however believe that it would be reasonable to require the Secretary of State to release the information free of charge to highway authorities when he himself is likely to have to pay for the information. It would be better for individual authorities, each of which may have different requirements, to make their own arrangements directly with the Autoguide operator.
New subsection (12) is, as the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has explained, concerned with protecting the privacy of individual Autoguide users. As I have indicated, the purpose of the licence condition envisaged in paragraph (f) is to enable the Secretary of State to acquire information on overall traffic movements. It is most certainly not our intention to collect information on individual vehicles or to use the Autoguide system to keep track of the movements of individual drivers. It may however be possible to make use of an Autoguide system to assist with the location of stolen vehicles, though this is not an area we have yet studied. My noble friend Lord Lucas referred to this general area. I can certainly see advantages in an Autoguide subscriber whose vehicle was stolen being able to find out where it was. This is an area which we have not yet studied.
We would like to look at the drafting of the new subsection (12), but we see advantages in making it absolutely clear in the Bill that Autoguide and other driver information systems will not form part of a big brother. I hope that in the light of what I have said the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, will feel able to withdraw these amendments on the understanding that we shall consider the matter further to see whether there is a way that the effects which he seeks to include in subsection (12) could be achieved in the Bill.
Lord Underhill: I am grateful to the Minister for giving us his assurance that he will look at these points. The Bill clearly states that the Secretary of State can request:
"such information … as the Secretary of State requires".
Therefore there is nothing in the Bill to limit information that he might require. That is the point which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, amplified in his remarks. So there is need to take a careful look at the matter and I am grateful to the Minister for saying that he will do so.
As regards the question of supplying information to the highway authorities free of charge, I should like to read very carefully what the Minister said. If the highway authorities are to be involved right at the start—I hope they will be—in helping to define the areas which will be used and also the use of the

681
infrastructure in the roads to he used, and then when they require information which will help them to plan future traffic infrastructures and other matters there is a charge for it, that seems totally unreasonable.
The Minister said that it is unreasonable not to make a charge and I shall have to read carefully what he said. However, I am grateful to him for agreeing to look at the other amendment. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 13, line 32, after ("State") insert ("for an agreed fee").
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 50. These are linked amendments which deal with costs. A licence-holder will, 1 believe, be under an unsatisfactory statutory obligation to provide information to the Secretary of State. Indeed, we have dealt with that element of the matter, but he is still under the obligation to provide information to the Secretary of State for a payment at a level which is to be set by the customer—the Secretary of State. That provision could be good, bad or indifferent; it could in fact by quite derisory.
The amendments would lay down the need for an agreement for fees to be negotiated. I wish to make the following point, notwithstanding what my noble friend the Minister had to say when we discussed Amendment No. 45, which was an amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, to leave out paragraph (f), which dealt with costs. He said that of course such payments would be negotiated. But in fact the Bill says nothing of the sort. At the beginning of paragraph (f) it says:
"Requiring the licence holder to furnish to the Secretary of State such information derived".
I have suggested that after the words "Secretary of State" we should include the words "for an agreed fee". Then, at line 50, it says:
"The Secretary of State may make such payments as he may determine in respect of the furnishing of information".
Again I remind the Committee that my noble friend said in respect of an earlier amendment that this should be negotiated. However, it does not provide for anything of the sort. It says that the Secretary of State may make such payments as he determines. There is nothing about negotiation there; there is nothing about agreement at all.
After having said that and having looked at the Autoguide guidelines I come back to the same question which we have met many times this evening: are the guidelines primarily for the use of the potential applicant for a licence or are they guidelines as to how the law embodied in the Bill shall be interpreted? Indeed, in a recent debate in this House we dealt with the view the courts should take of what Parliament meant. I do not want to go into that subject. Clearly, the guidelines in subsection (8) are irrelevant if one looks at the Bill. If one does not do that, and says that the guidelines are just guidelines and one should not be worried because the money to be paid cannot be determined because of the
682
guidelines, we cannot possibly agree on the one hand to the guidelines and on the other to the Bill.
My amendment is good; it is sound. I do not believe that there is a technical defect in it, because it embodies what I have been trying to describe. It in no way affects the guidelines because the Secretary of State has already waived, within the guidelines, those powers under this section of the Bill in so far as—the Minister confirmed this point earlier—it provides three years for the pilot stage and 12 years for the full licence. There can be no disadvantage in my noble friend accepting the amendment.
I have to say in all honesty that it would need a bolder man than I to carry this matter all the way, but I believe what I have said to be right. My noble friend may say that he accepts the amendment. He shows no inclination to do so at the moment and so I must wait to see what he says. In the meantime, I beg to move.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworthe: One of the themes that has come through a number of the points forcefully put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, when he moved the amendment is the whole question of what is in the Bill; what is in the guidelines and what the Minister, no doubt with the greatest of sincerity and belief in the future, says will happen. Some of us listened to the second debate last Wednesday, when judges, QCs and people with a great experience of looking at legislation made it absolutely clear that only one thing could influence the interpretation of an Act—that is, the words in the Act. One can look at Hansard to see the Government's intention when everyone accepted what was said and thought they knew what it meant, but at the end of the day the judge looks at the Act and that is all that matters.
The Minister has been helpful and given us the guidelines. That may have caused more trouble, but it does not mean to say that I do not want him to provide us with guidelines and Notes on Clauses in the future. They have been helpful. Nevertheless, at the end of the day it is the words that count. In this case, the noble Lord. Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has a strong point.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: That is not quite right. I hope that I can reassure my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, that the amendments are not necessary.
The purpose of paragraph (f) of Clause 10(8) is, as I have explained, to enable the Secretary of State to acquire information from the operator of an Autoguide or some other driver information system. The sort of information we have in mind would relate, for example, to traffic speeds in particular areas and would be used to help the Department of Transport to assess the need for road improvement and traffic regulation measures.
However, the Bill would not allow the Secretary of State to compel the operator to provide this information. There would need to be agreement between the Secretary of State and the operator, as part of the negotiations on the operators' licence. There is power in Clause 10(9) for the Secretary of State to pay for such information and the operator

683
would presumably sign the licence only if he were satisfied with the level of payment offered by the Secretary of State.
The difference between the Bill and the guidelines is that the Bill sets out the legal framework, including the powers for the Secretary of State. The guidelines set out who would use the powers for one system, Autoguide, in one area, London. As I said earlier, the guidelines would then lead to a legally binding arrangement between the Secretary of State and the operators. These things would be set down in a legally binding agreement. Whether they are in the Bill or not does not matter because they would be just as legally binding in the agreement signed between the Secretary of State and the promoter.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I do not find that reassuring.To be honest, I want to take legal advice on the matter. I think I shall want to come back to Amendment No. 47 later, although I have some sympathy with the Minister's answer. However, in Amendment No. 50 we are dealing with something rather different because we have moved a little bit away from the details of the licence and we are in the area of the Secretary of State mating payments in respect of the furnishing of information by virtue of that which is gathered by a licence-holder.
The Minister can wriggle around any way he likes, but the Bill quite clearly says that the Secretary of State may make such payments as he may determine. There is no question here of a condition of the licence or negotiation with a licence-holder. I am sorry to tell my noble friend that I do not believe that in law he is right in his argument. Be that as it may, I shall investigate this and I am absolutely sure my noble friend will be looking closely at what has been said. We can return to this matter at the next stage, and in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 48 to 52 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Strabolgi): There is a printing error here. Amendment No. 53 should go with Clause 12 and I therefore propose to put the Question that Clause 10 shall stand part of the Bill.
On Question, Whether Clause 10 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I wanted to raise one issue on Clause 10 and I apologise to my noble friend for not having given him notice of my intention. However, I only discovered it late this afternoon and I shall be quite happy if he wishes to let me know later his feelings on the matter that I wish to raise.
Clause 10(8)(e) on page 13 deals with the regulating of charges that may be made by the licence holder,
"to drivers or other persons for receiving data transmitted by a driver information system".
I am quite happy so far as that goes, but the subsection then goes on—
"or for any other services provided by the licence holder".
684
I am going to use a fairly usual circumstance to describe my worry.
Here we have Autoguide, which is being promoted, albeit separately, by the two major motoring organisations: the Royal Automobile Club with its consortium and the AA with another consortium. Both those organisations provide many other services in a variety of ways. It is not clear to me whether "regulating the charges that may be made by the licence holder" can relate to other services under the terms of the subsection. The Bill says that it can. Does this include the recovery service, the hotel guide service, or whatever other service those consortia may provide? Indeed, even if they were corporately separate from both those motoring organisations they might wish in the fullness of time to provide other information services. Are those services to be regulated under the terms of the Bill?
There might possibly be some contradiction in terms of what we mean by "other services." I cannot think that it is the Government's intention to regulate the charges those organisations make for a hotel guide, a walking guide, an overseas guide or anything else. Perhaps my noble friend would satisfy me as to whether my interpretation is correct.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I shall have to write to my noble friend on this issue. It would not be our intention that other services not connected with the driver information system would be covered by this. My noble friend mentioned the AA and the RAC as promoters. But, of course, GEC and Plessey are as well, and we do not know what might be covered, so it certainly is not our intention. However, I think I should write to my noble friend and clarify the situation.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 [Power to install apparatus etc.]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 15, line 11, at end insert ("without the approval of the Highway Authority").
The noble Lord said: This appears to be a commonsense amendment specifying that there should not be apparatus in the road, which will almost certainly be owned by the highway authority, without the approval of that authority.
Subsection (4) reads:
"The powers conferred by subsection (2) above shall not be exercisable by fixing system apparatus to a traffic sign (within the meaning of section 64(1) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984)".
I have suggested adding,
"without the approval of the Highway Authority",
and I see that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, is proposing the same amendment.
When one looks at subsection (2) it seems that the holder of an operator's licence can:

"(a) install system apparatus in, upon, under, over, along or across a public road:

(b) inspect. maintain, adjust, repair, alter, renew or remove any system apparatus so installed:".

He can also break up or open a road and tunnel or bore under the road. There could be very great

685
difficulties and in some cases danger in not having the approval of the highway authority.
I know that common sense dictates that no one would possibly get involved in such matters without approaching the highway authority, but if in extremis the licensee felt that something had to be done quickly without the approval of the local authority since he was in a great deal of trouble, I suppose that theoretically he could go back to the Act and say, "I do not really need the approval of the local authority". That is something that the Minister, on reflection, should agree with. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: For some obscure reason I see that the noble Lord opposite and I have put down amendments couched in precisely the same terms. I do not dissent from anything that the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, said. However, I would add two points. First, without the amendment, the clause that we are discussing specifically excludes existing road furniture. That seems to me quite ridiculous. A licence holder would then seek permission, as necessary, to stick up his own piece of furniture. That is absolute nonsense when the existing furniture can be used. That is where I believe the highway authority should come in.
There is a second reason in addition to the commercial argument. For environmental and anti-vandalism reasons it makes sense that all this kind of apparatus should be fixed on the existing furniture. I hope, therefore, that my noble friend the Minister will accept that this amendment is necessary and reasonable.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I shall deal with Amendments Nos. 53 and 54 at the same time, as they are identical. I am grateful to the noble Lords for the explanations of these amendments. The effect of the amendments would however be to allow the fixing of driver information system apparatus not to the poles on which traffic signs are mounted but to the signs themselves. I am sure the noble Lord will agree that in no circumstances should equipment be mounted where it might obscure a traffic sign.
The position regarding the attachment of system apparatus to the poles of traffic signs is dealt with in Clause 12(5) and (6). The written consent of the highway authority will be required unless the Secretary of State prescribes otherwise by order. In the light of this explanation, I hope that the noble Lords will withdraw their amendments.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: We should be reasonably grateful to the Minister for that response, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 54 not moved.]
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 55:
Page 15. line 40, at end insert—
("( ) The powers conferred by subsection (2) above shall not be exercised prior to the introduction of a new Public Utilities Street Works Act.").
The noble Lord said: The effect of this amendment would be to prevent any Autoguide operator from taking advantage of the powers in the Bill to install apparatus in the highway until a new Public Utilities Street Works Act had been introduced along the lines recommended in the Horne Report.
The Minister will be aware that what we are really doing is seeking from him a confirmation stronger than the statement he made on Second Reading, when he said:
"The Government are committed to introducing legislation at a suitable opportunity to reform the Public Utilities Street Works Act along the lines recommended in the Horne report." —[0fficial Report, 15/12/88; col. 1060.]
That statement was welcomed, but it is important that the Government appreciate that none of the improvements envisaged in the Horne Report can be achieved without legislation. The Minister himself suggested that. He also suggested that the Government were waiting for a point in the legislative programme at which to insert that provision.
A number of the recommendations could be implemented on a voluntary basis. But we believe, and I am sure the Minister believes, that if he could get the power and the money to implement it, the Horne package as a whole is a balanced one with gains and losses for both authorities and utilities. Selective implementation would inevitably alter that balance and, despite the unprecedented level of agreement and co-operation which now exists between the utilities and the highway authorities, would result in patchy and unco-ordinated adoption of the Horne proposals.
The Minister must find complaints on his desk almost daily from all over the country about holes in the road. I am sure that he is sympathetic to the complaints. We should like confirmation that his department and he himself are still pressing for some room in the legislative programme as soon as possible. We hope that he will accept the amendment in order to lend power to his elbow. On the basis of the amendment the various undertakers would be only too pleased to bring additional pressure on the Government. I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I cannot accept the amendment. The noble Lord will no doubt not be surprised by that. As I said in our earlier debate at Second Reading, we are committed to introducing legislation at a suitable opportunity to reform the Public Utilities Street Works Act 1950 along the lines recommended in the Horne Report. We fully accept the strength of the case for early legislation, but pressures on the legislative programme make it impossible to give a commitment to any particular Session. We shall continue to seek an opportunity to introduce the Bill.
I believe that it would be wrong to stop the Autoguide system from being introduced merely because we have not yet legislated in that particular area. It would be wrong to debar the use of powers to install apparatus simply because those revised procedures for street works have not yet been introduced.

687
It may interest the noble Lord to know that the installation of Autoguide equipment will not, I hope, cause a great many problems so far as concerns digging up the roads. It will involve perhaps 200 to 300 beacons. A fully commercial system would clearly need more infrastructure, but the amount of street work needed for each beacon would be minimal. Much of the cabling would be installed by one of the two existing public telecommunication operators—BT or Mercury. Those operators would almost certainly use existing ducts and powerlines. They would not need to install new powerlines simply for Autoguide.
There might be one area where the public might be aware of the installation of Autoguide equipment; that would be at road junctions or other points where beacons were installed. Even there, there should be no question of major excavation of the road. The most that would be needed would probably be the cutting of a small slot across the highway and traffic could quite safely continue to pass over that while the necessary cable was being installed. Other work might be necessary on the footway, but again it would not be extensive. It would involve nothing like the amount of digging that the water board or the gas board have occasionally to do.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation and also for the information that the Horne Report is still sticking out of the pigeon-hole in his department. We hope that at some time it will fall out onto his desk. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Schedule 4 agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Driver Information Systems: Undertaker's Works]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 38, line 14, leave out ("operator") and insert ("undertaker").
The noble Lord said: The amendment corrects a one-word drafting error in paragraph 5(a) of Schedule 5. 1 beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 14 to 16 agreed to.
Schedule 6 [Repeals]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 57 and 58:
Page 40, column 3. leave out lines 2 to 4.
Page 40, line 16, column 3, after ("Schedule 1") insert—
(" —
(a) in paragraph 2, the word "and" at the end of subparagraph (a),
(b) in paragraph 3, the word "and" at the end of subparagraph (b),
(c) in paragraph 4, the word "and" at the end of subparagraph (a), and
(d) in the table.").
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the House I should like to move Amendments Nos. 57 and 58 together. These amendments are made to reflect the drafting conventions which apply to schedules of repeals. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 17 [Citation, commencement and extent]:
[Amendment No. 59 not moved.]
Clause 17 agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Security Service Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.
House adjourned at four minutes before ten o'clock.

  ST. GEORGE AND DRAGON STATUE, HYDE PARK
  ST. GEORGE AND DRAGON STATUE, HYDE PARK
  EC WORKS DIRECTIVE 71/305
  EC WORKS DIRECTIVE 71/305
  WORLD HERITAGE SITES: DEVELOPMENT IMPLICATIONS
  WORLD HERITAGE SITES: DEVELOPMENT IMPLICATIONS
  WASTE DISPOSAL: REFORM PROPOSALS
  WASTE DISPOSAL: REFORM PROPOSALS
  POLISH VISITORS: VISA APPLICATIONS
  POLISH VISITORS: VISA APPLICATIONS
  DOGS AND EXPLOSIVES: MIDDLE EAST ALLEGATIONS
  DOGS AND EXPLOSIVES: MIDDLE EAST ALLEGATIONS
  PRISON RULES: REVISION PROPOSALS
  PRISON RULES: REVISION PROPOSALS