Sitting of 3 July 1989

Preamble
The House met at hall-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  SOCIAL SECURITY

    Flint Office
    Mr. Raffan: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will review the area covered by the boundaries of his Department's office in Flint.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lloyd): A review of the boundaries in this area is planned for September.
    Mr. Raffan: As part of the review, and to assist claimants from the more rural areas of my constituency, will my hon. Friend give serious consideration to bringing the communities of Brynford, Cilcain and Mannerch under the Department's Flint office, as they are much closer to Flint than they are to Rhyl, which is the office under which they now come? Will my hon. Friend similarly reassess the communities of Leeswood and Pontblyddyn, which now come under the Wrexham DSS office?
    Mr. Lloyd: I am aware of my hon. Friend's concern about these matters because he has been in touch with me. I assure him that the review will take particular account of the views that he has expressed.

    Disability Benefits
    Mr. Hannam: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if, in the light of the Social Security Advisory Committee's report, "Benefits for Disabled People: A Strategy for Change" he has any plans to increase spending on disability benefits.
    The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Nicholas Scott): We have already provided for an increase in spending on the sick and disabled in real terms of £1·9 billion by 1991–92. This is a real increase in expenditure of nearly 25 per cent. When we assess the implications of the outcome of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys' surveys of disability we shall give careful consideration to the report of the Social Security Advisory Committee and other representations. However, it is too soon to say how this will affect existing expenditure plans.
    Mr. Hannam: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he accept that most disabled people fall into the lowest income groups and that the sharply increased spending which he quoted is largely due to the increased numbers drawing benefit? Will he take into account in the proposed review of the benefits system the extra costs that the disabled face in their normal day-to-day living and ensure that increased resources are made available?
    Mr. Scott: My hon. Friend and the entire House will be glad that there is increased take-up, especially of the best-targeted benefits for the disabled. When we have all the results of the OPCS surveys, and when various organisations have had a chance to comment on them, we shall want to examine all the evidence, including the general situation of disabled people and the extra costs that they bear, to ascertain whether the benefit system deals with those needs as effectively as possible.
    Mr. Corbyn: In his review of these matters will the Minister let the House know when he expects to be able to announce that he will make attendance allowance available to the parents of children under the age of two who are severely disabled? Those parents clearly suffer badly because of the need for extra care for their children. No extra benefit is currently available to them under the

    3
    social security system. The Minister promised when the recent Social Security Bill was being examined in Committee that with the outcome of the OPCS report he would make a statement about future benefits.
    Mr. Scott: The hon. Gentleman has raised one of a small number of subjects to which we are giving urgent attention. We must await the arrival of the last of the OPCS reports before we can come to a conclusion on the priority to be accorded to various matters. I assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that we are considering the matter with urgency and sympathy.
    Mr. Alfred Morris: Is the Minister not ashamed of his recent complaint that, under supplementary benefit, people with AIDS received some double provision for diet since, as he must know, doctors are recommending diets costing over £30 a week for which many now receive no extra help at all? Will he accept that his inaction is life threatening? At the very least, will he make the disability premium available without the six-month delay? Finally, what is his response to the Disablement Income Group's current finding that about 50 per cent. of attendance allowance claimants find objection to some aspect of the medical examination?
    Mr. Scott: What I said was true. Within the basic system of supplementary benefit and income support there is provision for a normal diet, and there are enhanced dietary payments. By the time that we got rid of additional requirements we introduced the disability premium at a level of £13·40 a week, if I recall correctly, and that will cover the majority of extra diets. All these matters, including the right hon. Gentleman's second point, will be appropriate to to be considered when we examine the findings of the OPCS reports.

    Poverty
    Mr. Andrew Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the extent of poverty in the United Kingdom.
    Mr Macdonald: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the extent of poverty in the United Kingdom.
    The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. John Moore): Like Ministers in previous Governments, I reject the concept of a poverty line. I share the view of the Chairman of the Select Committee on Social Services that is is absurd to claim that a third of the population lives in poverty.
    The term "poverty" is deliberately being confused with income inequality and those who claim that the poor are getting poorer ignore improvements in living standards and real income growth for people at all income levels since 1979. Perverse statistical definitions of poverty do not help to identify individuals and families in genuine need.
    Mr. Smith: Did not the right hon. Gentleman contemptuously dismiss other definitions of poverty in his end-of-the-line poverty speech, and has he not done so again today? Does he at least owe it to the poor and to this House to state his definition of poverty? How many poor people does he believe there are in Britain today?
    Mr. Moore: The hon. Gentleman obviously had considerable difficulty in hearing. I did not—nor did I today—dismiss, define or even seek to define poverty. Nor has anyone who has had the responsibility of Government. I sought to dismiss the absurd statistical definition described as the poverty line. As I said, that dismissal was shared by the Chairman of the Select Committee on Social Services, although it is not shared by the Labour party.
    What I sought to do in that speech, and what I seek to do in Government, is to help those who can be identified as being in need. That is why we are spending a record amount of money on social security.
    Mr. Macdonald: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that there has been a growing gap between the very richest and the very poorest in our society since 1979? Does he disown responsibility for that, or is he merely indifferent to it?
    Mr. Moore: The hon. Gentleman is beginning to accept the fact that we are debating and discussing, with all sections of the population—all the deciles—improving their lot over the past 10 years and examining the relative position between them. We can then begin to discuss matters on a more rational basis. The hon. Gentleman will no doubt wish to know how the Government, thanks to their economic success, have helped the poorest far better than did the previous failed Labour Government with their miserable performance.
    Mr. Hayes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that although, under this Government, pensioners have had the largest-ever increase in their living standards, many pensioners are in difficulty because they do not regard the state pension as a top-up? Will he consider ways to help that group? It would not be a major strain on the state as the group comprises people who cannot take advantage of the economic miracles to which my right hon. Friend rightly referred.
    Mr. Moore: As my hon. Friend said in Select Committee, he recognises that the Government are trying to deal with precisely the problems that he mentioned. For example, this autumn the Government will go beyond the 16 per cent.— 1·6 million pensioners—who are already on income support with the special pensioner package to help 2·6 million pensioners. That is an effort to help those least able to help themselves who have not benefited by quite as much as the remainder of the pensioner population.
    Mr. David Nicholson: Is not one advantage that has flowed from my right hon. Friend's speech on poverty some weeks ago the sensible, realistic and constructive debate in the country about the needs of various groups? The debate has been contributed to by, among others, the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) in an article in The Sunday Times. What groups has my right hon. Friend identified as requiring further attention and what he is proposing to do to help them?
    Mr. Moore: I am glad that my hon. Friend referred to the constructive debate in the country. All the editorials in the major press had identified the absurdity of a statistical definition before the Labour party introduced its review, in which it confirmed its attachment to that absurdity.
    Two sections of the population where, with better statistical definitions, we have identified clear need are needy families and pensioners who have not historically

    5
    benefited as much as others. Our new premium structure in income support this spring and our new special package to be introduced this autumn will help precisely those groups and will, I imagine, be welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Does the Secretary of State agree that notwithstanding the welcome help that will be given in October to that group of pensioners, who are suffering dire financial hardship, there is still a need? Have the Government planned beyond October, and is there any hope of the Christmas bonus being increased or of help being given with fuel during the coming winter?
    Mr. Moore: I fully understand why the hon. Gentleman would like to open up the debate beyond the autumn. I recognise that we should constantly try to understand and to resolve the real needs of those who are relatively less well off. I shall try to continue that process, because I know that it will he welcomed by rational right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House.
    Mr. McCrindle: Whatever may be our definition of poverty, can it possibly extend to those people to which an article in The Sunday Times referred yesterday under the heading
    "Jobless tenants living for free in luxury flats"?
    Is it true, as that article alleged, that private landlords are making substantial profits? If so, does my right hon. Friend intend taking powers to control that situation, on the basis that although we have no wish to be difficult with the jobless, we must look to the taxpayers, too?
    Mr. Moore: My hon. Friend has a long history of understanding and trying to help people, so I know that he would like me to remind the House that all those on income support have their housing benefit—their rent essentially 100 per cent. covered. I saw the article in The Sunday Times, and my hon. Friend is right to remind the House that it is necessary to prevent abuse. He will be happy to know that we are taking additional powers through the Social Security Bill to protect the public purse while equally trying to protect those in genuine need.
    Mr. Frank Field: Although I accept that it is the Government's policy to be selective, I invite the Secretary of State to quote all my article, not just part of it. In the article that he cited, I compared British society up to 1979 with a train journey, with first, second and third-class compartments—the political debate being about who received which tickets, but all of us heading in the same direction. Since 1979, some of the compartments have been detached and there has emerged from them an underclass. How do the Government answer that part of the argument?
    Mr. Moore: I have the whole of the hon. Gentleman's article before me, but no doubt neither he nor the House would want me to argue against it all. The critical point that I sought to make was that the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), unlike the Labour party, understands the statistical absurdity of defining a poverty line. I know that the hon. Gentleman would like to be reminded that, taking all the 10 per cent. categories in the country over the past decade, the bottom 10 per cent. have seen an improvement, according to the latest data that we have, and their real position has improved by 6 per cent.
    6
    All the other groups—all the way to the top—have shared in the inherent growth in prosperity. I know that the hon. Member for Birkenhead will welcome that.
    Mr. Baldry: Is it not right to say that between 1975 and 1985 households having the lowest one fifth of incomes have seen their incomes rise by about 14 per cent? If that is so, does it not make complete nonsense of any notion that the poor are getting poorer? Does it not prove that that is simply not true?
    Mr. Moore: My hon. Friend is right. The whole subject merits nothing less than the most serious attention, and it does not serve those who are in need to argue the statistical absurdities by which some people have allowed themselves to be trapped. Instead, it serves people in need to identify that need so that more effective help can be given. Fortunately, we have the wealth of a much more successful society to enable us to do that now.
    Mr. Robin Cook: Does the Secretary of State accept that if poverty is in decline, it certainly has nothing to do with the Government's social security policies? Did he notice last week's study by York university of unemployed families, showing that three quarters of them cannot afford essential clothing and that two fifths cannot afford to a sound diet? Is not that reasonable evidence that those families are in poverty? If the Secretary of State accepts the truth of that, what does he say to another of the report's conclusions: that, as a result of last year's benefits cuts, half the families concerned are now even poorer than they were two years ago?
    Mr. Moore: I start by asking the hon. Gentleman to be more accurate. I imagine that he has not had the benefit of reading the reports. I certainly have not, but I have the benefit of understanding their basis. The survey was conducted before last year's social security reforms. Researchers only suggest, and the reports themselves studied only 67 families in the autumn of 1987. Given the smallness of the survey, and the fact that it covered a period before the reforms, I do not accept the conclusions that the hon. Gentleman has drawn. What I do say is that the hon. Gentleman should have welcomed the way in which the Government have been able to increase, in real terms, expenditure on those least able to look after themselves by more than 31 per cent. in the past 10 years. That is a sign of targeted additional help as a consequence of the present wealth of the country.

    Social Fund
    Mr. John Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the progress of his Department's publicity campaign to increase take-up of social security fund grants and loans.
    Mr. Peter Lloyd: We will shortly publish information material on the social fund to improve awareness among those who have the greatest need for these payments and, most importantly, their advisers.
    Mr. Evans: That is all very interesting, but of what benefit has all that expensive advertising been to a 55-year-old unemployed male constituent of mine? He lives alone, has recently been refused the higher level of benefit and is now forced to exist on £35·52 a week. Is that not a classic case of the poor getting poorer?
    Mr. Lloyd: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I cannot discuss a particular case at the Dispatch Box. If he wishes to get in touch with me about it, I should be happy for him to do so.
    As the hon. Gentleman knows very well, there has been no expensive advertising for most of the benefits that are available. They are very well taken up. We are running right up to profile on the budgets for the social fund, which has become well known and is doing a good job.
    Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Does my hon. Friend agree that, although it must be right to target money where it is most needed, the problem of targeting is that most social security offices, certainly in Birmingham, are much under spent because people need almost an honours degree to know what they can claim? Does my hon. Friend also agree that saving people distress is much more important than saving money and that, if we are to get the changes truly right, we must ensure that people know what they have a right to and that the appropriate people obtain the care that is so desperately needed?
    Mr. Lloyd: Let me answer the general point by saying that £9 of every £10 of social security benefits is claimed. As for the social fund, I agree with my hon. Friend that it is important for people to know what is on offer, and that they are entitled to it. The information material to which I referred in my answer to the main question is designed to ensure that groups with a particular entitlement to the social fund know exactly how far it extends and what is available to them.

    Disability Surveys
    Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received about the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys' surveys on disability; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Scott: Organisations of and for disabled people are already commenting on the published findings of the OPCS surveys of disability. We welcome these comments, which contribute to the process of reviewing disability benefits in the light of the final data.
    Mr. Thurnham: Having extended the availability of the mobility allowance from 75 to 80-year-olds, will my right hon. Friend now use the OPCS surveys as a basis for a thorough review of disability benefits, and will he consult fully the relevant disability organisations?
    Mr. Scott: I am anxious to announce—when we have the final data —a timetable for further action and consultation will balance the need to listen carefully to the views of organisations of and for disabled people with no undue delay in the necessary action.
    Mrs. Beckett: The whole House will welcome the fact that, even before all the reviews have been published, the Government have accepted the case for restoring to the terminally ill some of the payment for attendance that they lost during the latest social security cuts. Will he reconsider the refusal to put even an enabling clause into this year's Social Security Bill, as, by definition, most of those who fail now to meet the six-month qualifying period are likely to be dead before the change in the law takes place?
    Mr. Scott: We must wait until we have the final results of the survey. As I have said, that—along with the matter
    8
    raised by the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn)—is something that we were prepared to consider on a faster track than other matters. I think that I must let it rest there for the time being.

    Family Credit
    Mr. Riddick: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many families on low incomes have experienced an increase in their incomes in real terms as a result of the introduction of family credit; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Moore: Precise estimates of real increases in income are not possible, but family credit is now providing more help to more families. The average amount in payment is over £25 compared with £15·28 for family income supplement and the very latest figures show that at the end of last week 263,400 awards were actually in payment. But with 86,400 claims still being processed I estimate that the underlying case load is now 315,000.
    Mr. Riddick: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that many families at the bottom end of the income scale are definitely better off since family credit was introduced? However much the Opposition might huff and puff, that cannot be denied. Does he agree that rather than handing out indiscrimimate blanket subsidies through child benefit, it is far more sensible to target those families who genuinely need help through family credit, as the Government are now doing?
    Mr. Moore: I remind my hon. Friend of what my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security said in a debate not too long ago: that there is a judicious mix of targeted benefits that go along with, as in the case with income support, a special family premium and family credit. I am delighted that there has been a major improvement in take-up consequent upon the advertising campaign. We are spending £4·5 billion out of a budget of £9 billion on help to families with children. I remind my hon. Friend of what we said in our election manifesto on the issue, as well as of my statutory duties. We are seeking to achieve a balance between broad, targeted benefits and indiscriminate benefits of the child benefit kind.
    Mr. Frank Field: As the Government are so pleased with the take-up of family credit, may we assume that they are equally pleased with the amendment that was passed recently in the other place linking increases in child benefit to the increases in this new, super family credit?
    Mr. Moore: I am as pleased as I am sure the hon. Member is that additional help is going to families on low incomes. The hon. Gentleman is referring to an entirely different matter. The other place is still considering the Social Security Bill, which will return to this House at some stage. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members will recall vividly that the House took a clear decision on the subject earlier this year.
    Mr. Knapman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that those on low incomes are most affected by inflation and that it ill behoves the Opposition to lecture us on either subject?
    Mr. Moore: That is absolutely right. For generations inflation destroyed the savings of pensioners. Above all else, we must ensure that we eradicate inflation.

    Housing Benefit
    Mr. Allen: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he is taking to ensure that delays at social security offices do not lead to housing benefit claims being held up with consequent accumulation of unanticipated rent arrears; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Peter Lloyd: I am not aware of delays in social security offices that may affect the award of housing benefit. Turnround times for income support claims for the month of April 1989, the latest available figure, averaged 4·7 days while those for changes in circumstances averaged 1·3 days. These figures compare with 8·1 and 4·8 respectively for April 1988. This significant improvement reflects the success of the Government's reform of social security and the hard work and commitment of the staff of local social security offices.
    Mr. Allen: I am staggered that the Minister has no evidence of delays. I shall certainly try to help him with evidence from Nottingham, North and no doubt some of my hon. Friends will send him information about their constituencies. Has he read the National Audit Office report on the implementation of the charges in housing benefit which was published recently? Has he also read in the report the evidence that was given by a senior officer in his Department? Is the Minister aware that his Department and his boss are criticised in the report for delays, for not bringing forward the programme early enough, for not allowing local authorities to develop their software arid for not allowing local authorities enough time to put their staff into place? I ask the Minister to read the report. It affects constituents. Some of my constituents lost almost £1,000 through a build-up of arrears that were totally unknown to them. They had never been in debt before. The report was signed by members of his Department, and they agreed the wording. Will he either sack them or implement the recommendations of the National Audit Office report?
    Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman is talking about something that is quite different from his question. I know of no delays in local offices that are holding up the payment of housing benefit. There have been complaints about the delay in transitional payments, but when they are examined one finds that in most cases the hold-up is due to information not having been received from local authorities.
    Mr. Andrew Mitchell: As the supplementary question referred to delays in local social security offices, and as the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) and I share at least one such office, would it not be fair to the staff who work in that office to make it plain to the House that normally they deal with every single claim that comes into the office within five days, and with most of them within 48 hours?
    Mr. Lloyd: I believe that the performance of the local offices in Nottingham is very good indeed. I took it that the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) was implicitly criticising them in asking his question. If he has any particular examples that he wishes to bring to my attention, I shall be happy to investigate them.
    Dr. Reid: May I recommend that the Minister reads the National Audit Office report? Like my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), I am a
    10
    member of the Public Accounts Committee. I have read that report, and I can assure my hon. Friend that his summary is far more accurate than the Minister's response —which was based on a 30-second conversation with his boss, the Secretary of State, who is sitting beside him. Transitional units are merely compounding the problem that they were set up to alleviate due to the long delays in assessment and because when assessment produced a rebate the money was not forwarded to the local authorities in time, so tenants who had never been in arrears in their lives received an assurance from the transitional unit that they would get rebates but the money never arrived, producing a commensurate build-up of arrears. Will the Minister do something about that?
    Mr. Lloyd: The transitional payments are operating extremely well, although there were some hiccups, but the main question was not about transitional payments. Like the hon. Member for Nottingham, North, the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) has not referred to cases in his local offices or cases known to him in which payment of housing benefit has been held up due to a lack of information passing from the local office to the local authority.

    Social Security Reform
    Mrs. Roe: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what changes he has made as a result of monitoring the social security reforms introduced in April last year.
    Mr. Scott: The memorandum supplied by the Department to the Select Committee on Social Services on 6 June, copies of which are available in the Library, includes a full list of the major changes we have made.
    Mrs. Roe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his reply, but what has been done to help 16 and 17-year-olds who are forced to live away from home?
    Mr. Scott: I know that my hon. Friend agrees very strongly with the main thrust of the Government's policy towards 16 and 17-year-olds, but the whole House will welcome the fact that 16 and 17-year-olds who have to live away from home will receive a higher rate of income support—the rate normally paid to 18 to 24-year-olds—if they are estranged from their parents. The higher level will also apply to those on housing benefit.
    Mr. Pike: Why does not the Minister make at least one further change to help those people on protected payments who were on supplementary benefit before the system was changed and are now on income support, who received absolutely no increase in April? With inflation running at 8·4 per cent. they are considerably worse off. Why does he not make at least one change to help those people?
    Mr. Scott: When we introduced the new system, we wanted to get rid of the complexities of the old supplementary benefit system. To avoid the erosion of transitional protection would perpetuate those inequalities and complexities for the future. I am quite sure that we are right to erode it.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: Has my right hon. Friend been able to monitor the working of the social fund, particularly the ability of people living on very low incomes to repay loans

    11
    for items of domestic equipment which go wrong and on which they have to borrow? How can they find £5 a week out of £46 a week?
    Mr. Scott: We shall shortly be publishing the first report on the social fund. A report has also been produced by the social fund commissioner herself. There is little evidence to show that people are unable to take up loans from the social fund because of their inability to pay.
    Mr. Robin Cook: May I press the Minister on the observation of my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) about claimants on transitional protection? Is he aware that figures from his own Department show that next April 200,000 claimants will get no increase as a result of transitional protection? What does he say to the chronically sick claimant who wrote to me because he had just been informed that he would get no increase for another four years? Is it fair to leave a disabled claimant without any increase for seven years in total? What more monitoring do Ministers need before they recognise that in common decency all claimants, whether or not they receive transitional protection, must share in next year's uprating?
    Mr. Scott: I still believe that the policy of eroding transitional protection is right. No constituent can know or calculate the number of years that it will take before his transitional protection is entirely eroded. I also remind the House that in October we shall be providing protection for elderly and disabled pensioners which will not affect their transitional protection.

    National Insurance
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much he expects to collect in national insurance contributions during the current year; what the expected figure will be next year; what the figures for each of the last two years were in real terms; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Lloyd: The yield from national insurance contributions is expected to be more than £32 billion in the current year and more than £33 billion in 1990–91. In the past two years, contributions yielded £31·.1 billion and £32·3 billion in real terms.
    Mr. Greenway: Will my hon. Friend confirm that those figures represent 16 per cent. of Government revenue and that NICs as an acronym for national insurance contributions are not aptly named? Will the Department be pressing the Chancellor to remit national insurance contributions from more low-paid people as happened this year?
    Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend rightly said that the yield from national insurance contributions represents 16 per cent. of Government receipts, compared with income tax which represents 23 per cent. Naturally, the DSS— particularly my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State —makes representations to and has discussions with the Chancellor and the Treasury about how much such revenue should be applied. I am sure that my hon. Friend took special pleasure from the reductions that were made in NICs for the lower paid in the last Budget.
    Mr. Flynn: The huge anticipated increase in national insurance yields is sufficient to give, from October, an increase of £3 per week for a single pensioner and £5 per
    12
    week for a pensioner couple. Does the Minister agree that anyone other than the Government plundering the national insurance fund would end up in court on a charge of fraud? Do the Government intend to continue to attempt not to pay the Treasury supplement which has been paid for three quarters of a century? Is the Minister aware that if the supplement were paid at the same rate as in 1979, a single pensioner would now be receiving an additional £11·50 per week and a pensioner couple an additional £18 per week? When will the Government stop using the national insurance fund to steal from pensioners? Directors enjoying an annual increase of 27 per cent. are steaming ahead in the first-class carriage while pensioners are in a detached, third-class carriage moving rapidly backwards.
    Mr. Lloyd: If any stealing was done, it was when the last Labour Government imposed the 3·5 per cent. surcharge on industry. That was a huge burden on business, but we have got rid of it. There will be no short-changing of pensioners. They will receive the full increase, according to inflation, to which they are entitled this autumn. In addition, the poorest pensioners—those on income support, those over 75, and those over 60 who are disabled —will receive an extra increase in October. That shows not merely that pensioners receive their full entitlement from the fund but that we look after those who are least well off.

    Family Credit
    Mr. Amos: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many more families are in receipt of family credit than received family income supplement; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Moore: My best estimate of the underlying caseload for family credit is 315,000, compared with around 220,000 on the same basis for family income supplement.
    Mr. Amos: I am delighted to see how successful family credit has been. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is time to abolish child benefit and add that money to family credit so that more people in the greatest need can be assisted rather than state money being given to rich people who do not need it?
    Mr. Moore: As I said earlier, we provide £9 billion in support for families with children, £4·5 billion of which is provided through child benefit. As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security said in an earlier debate, the Government aim to provide—not only because of our manifesto commitment to child benefit but because it is my statutory duty—a judicious mix of intelligent targeting through income support, child premiums, family credit and child benefit to help families with children. The Government would not maintain that commitment as strongly as we do unless he believed that that mix was right.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: In the light of the continuing industrial action on the railways and the statement made by the National Union of Railwaymen and others that railwaymen are grossly underpaid, will the Secretary of State set up and inquiry to report rapidly on the number of NUR members and other people working on the railways who are earning poverty wages and being forced to draw, in effect, a public subsidy to subsidise their wages?
    Mr. Moore: I am always intrigued by the way in which the hon. Gentleman manages to get so many different issues into one question. I shall continue to do as is my duty—
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Set up an inquiry.
    Mr. Moore: The hon. Gentleman is always extremely articulate from a sedentary position. [Interruption.] If he and other Opposition Members can contain themselves for 30 seconds, I will seek to answer the question. The Government are fortunately able to spend about £400 million this year on support for families on low incomes as against about £180 million on family income supplement and as opposed to the £48 million spent on similar families when Labour was last tragically in office. The sum spent was so low due to Labour's appalling inability to run the economy. That is the difference and I am sure that the House will endorse it.

  ATTORNEY-GENERAL

    Ministerial Conduct
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Attorney-General why, pursuant to his answer of 12 June Official Report, column 549, he does not accept the premise that it is important to our system of government that Ministers do not tell lies to the House of Commons.
    The Attorney-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): No sensible construction of my answer can support that assertion.
    Mr. Dalyell: Does the Attorney-General believe the leak from Sir Leon Brittan, who complains that Mr. Ingham and Mr. Powell approved the disclosure of his letter? How, as a Law Officer of all things in this Government, can he remain easy when he sees the people who abused his own actions more prominent in Madrid than the Foreign Secretary?
    The Attorney-General: I am afraid that I cannot encourage the hon. Gentleman by adding anything to the answer that I gave on 8 May to his hon. Friend for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick).
    Mr. Teddy Taylor: If my right hon. and learned Friend cannot do anything about that, can he at least do something to protect the people against political parties which constantly sing songs proclaiming people's power and red flags, but then say that they want to surrender all power to Brussels and the bureaucrats?
    The Attorney-General: I am expected to be extremely versatile in this position, but my authority does not extend to taking any such steps as would satisfy my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Winnick: Are we to believe that someone in Government lied about the leaking of the letter, but that parliamentary convention does not allow the Attorney-General to say so? Do we take it that civil servants at No. 10 lied, or is the Attorney-General telling the House that he believes what we believe about the leaking of that letter, but that as a member of the Government he is hardly in a position to say so?
    The Attorney-General: I thought that I had dealt as usefully as was within my power with much the same question from the hon. Gentleman on 8 May.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that if
    "Brevity is the soul of wit"
    constant repetition must be the sign of a most unoriginal mind?
    The Attorney-General: We all have our own styles. but as I have a frog in my throat I had better emulate those who practise brevity.

    "Today" Newspaper Story
    Mr. Mullin: To ask the Attorney-General what action for interference with the course of justice he has taken against the Today newspaper for its front-page story on 11 May headed, "Maggie IRA Bomb Squad Seized" concerning the arrest of three Irishmen who were later released.
    The Attorney-General: The matter is under consideration.
    Mr. Mullin: Does the Attorney-General agree that such newspaper reports give credence to the belief that an Irishman cannot hope for a fair trial in this country?
    The Attorney-General: No, Sir. The hon. Gentleman does no service to the administration of justice in this country by asking such a question, but I do not suppose that he intends to.
    Mr. Stanbrook: Under his powers to restrain interference with the course of justice, will my right hon. and learned Friend consider the leader of the Storehouse group, who has announced that he intends that his shops should open on Sundays in clear breach of the law? Can he not be committed?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not believe that that question has anything to do with the IRA.

    Personal Injury Cases
    Mr. Allen: To ask the Attonery-General what measures are in hand to assist county courts in meeting the additional caseload of personal injury cases transferred to their jurisdiction; and if he will make a statement.
    The Solicitor-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): Such cases are increasingly concentrated in 43 trials centres, which are organised to guarantee a continuous hearing in all the longer cases and thus make efficient use both of court rooms and of judges' time, and provide a better service to litigants.
    Mr. Allen: Is the Solicitor-General aware that one of the main avenues through which ordinary people on normal incomes come into contact with justice is through personal injury cases? Will he therefore take particular steps to ensure that there are no unnecessary delays in bringing such cases to court? Those cases, many of which involve trade unionists and others injured at work, are being delayed because they are being transferred to the county courts. Will the Solicitor-General take steps to improve the situation'? A number of county courts are now issuing notices of delays, of which I have a number of examples. One case recently brought to my attention is of Luton county court, where no foreseeable date is given for

    15
    such cases coming to court. That is tragic for the individuals involved. What does the Solicitor-General intend to do about it?
    The Solicitor-General: My primary answer was that the longer cases should be concentrated into particular trial centres. However, the hon. Gentleman can rest assured that our objectives—not only in the civil justice review, which was announced recently, but in the proposed rule changes to come next January in advance of the civil justice review—are to achieve the aims that the hon. Gentleman set out.
    Mr. Fraser: Is the Solicitor-General aware of some of the inadequacies and inefficiencies of the county courts? Camelford county court, for example, stopped sending out notices in June because the postal budget had been spent and notices had to wait until the following month. Can the Solicitor-General confirm that the rule for county courts will not be penny-pinching justice, but the efficient and speedy administration of justice for all?
    The Solicitor-General: I confess that I was not aware of that idiosyncrasy of Camelford county court, but I will have the matter looked into and write to the hon. Gentleman.

    Judges
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Attorney-General what qualities the Lord Chancellor looks for in prospective judges; and if he will make a statement.
    The Attorney-General: High Court and circuit judges are appointed by the Queen on the recommendation of the Lord Chancellor. The criteria for selection are judicial potential, ability, experience, reputation and personal inrtegrity.
    Mr. Greenway: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that reply. Is he satisfied that, in practice, all those appointed to be judges, including Judge Pickles, satisfy those criteria? Is there any prospect within the reforms envisaged for the legal profession of the appointment of lay judges—properly advised, perhaps, in view of the judges' role in advising on the law? Would it be possible to appoint people such as ex-bishops—[Interruption.] — ex-headmastersand even ex-Cabinet Ministers to be judges?
    The Attorney-General: My right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor attaches the greatest importance to the criteria that I have mentioned. Great care is taken and there is wide consultation on the appointment of judges. Whether there would be a higher incidence of the totality of those criteria if eligibility for the higher courts and higher judges were extended as my hon. Friend suggests is a matter for debate that he may like to take up elsewhere.
    Mr. Skinner: Is it true that the bottom line of the application form that the Lord Chancellor overlooks says, "Is he one of us?" in accordance with the Prime Minister's dictum, and how many judges are freemasons? Has the Attorney-General done a survey on that? If the threatened strike of barristers and others goes ahead at the Royal Courts of Justice—it was put off a short time ago—will the strike breakers feature prominently as future judges and will the Economic League be given a list of the strike leaders? Will all that be taken into account?
    The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman will find that the selection of judges is made far more widely by the present Lord Chancellor, and by all his predecessors of either party, than would be the case if the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends were ever in a position to appoint judges.
    Mr. Rowe: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that for cases involving children and young people there is considerable merit in having a judge whose taste in music post-dates the Beatles? For cases involving children, will he consider appointing the equivalent of the French juge d'enfants, who is often a much younger person on his or her way up the legal ladder?
    The Attorney-General: I very much take my hon. Friend's point. Jurisdiction over the family and especially over children is of the highest importance and calls for special qualities. My right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor seeks to appoint to the family division judges who demonstrate those qualities and his appointments meet with considerable success. It is not necessarily a question of one's taste in music, which could be pre-Beatles as well as post-Beatles.

    Immigration Rules
    Mr. Cohen: To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the recent correspondence between the Treasury solicitors and immigration adjudicators concerning the application of the immigration rules in appeal hearings.
    The Solicitor-General: The Treasury Solicitor wrote not to adjudicators but to the president of the immigration appeal tribunal, on whose behalf he had acted as legal adviser in the judicial review proceedings. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) on 9 June.
    Mr. Cohen: Has not the Attorney-General had to admit that there was a blatant attempt to interfere with the judiciary in immigration tribunal cases, and is not that interference of constitutional significance? Who was responsible? Was it a Minister or the staff of a Minister? Will the Solicitor-General explain? Should there not be a public apology?
    The Solicitor-General: If the hon. Gentleman had taken the trouble to read the reply to his hon. Friend, he would have found his questions answered and his mind set at rest.

  OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

    Peru
    Dr. Kim Howells: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to increase development grants to Peru.
    The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Chris Patten): I have no plans at present for an increase. It is likely that we shall maintain our programme of technical co-operation to Peru at approximately current levels for the foreseeable future.
    Dr. Howells: Given the way in which certain British companies are growing fat by tearing the mineral wealth

    17
    and the rain forests out of South America, why do we allocate such miserable amounts of aid to countries such as Peru, which are struggling democracies attempting to rebuild their economies? As those countries are trying to prevent themselves from becoming dominated by the drugs barons who grow drugs there and since the British Government set up such a hue and cry about fighting those drugs barons when the drugs come into this country, why is more money not given to help those struggling democracies to overcome the problem at source?
    Mr. Patten: The hon. Gentleman has covered a broad waterfront. with a number of non sequiturs en route. I shall be interested to discuss the problem of tropical rain forests with him when I return from Brazil in a week or two.
    On the hon. Gentleman's point about the total size of our programme in Peru, we have never had large programmes in Latin America—under Governments of either party—because much of our aid is concentrated on Commonwealth countries and on the poorest countries. We have a programme of about £1 million in Peru, but I remind the hon. Gentleman that there are 77 countries poorer than Peru.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the biggest difficulties about development programmes with Peru is that country's inability to sort out its international financial affairs? Is it not high time that the Peruvian Government buckled down to sorting out their debts and financial position, as much of the rest of Latin America has already done?
    Mr. Patten: Peru's best chance of getting more capital aid lies in reconciliation with the multilateral banks with which it is at present in arrears.

    Non-commercial Aid
    Mr. John Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proportion of the gross national product is accounted for in non-commercial aid to developing countries in (a) 1975, (b) 1980, (c) 1985 and (d) 1989.
    Mr. Chris Patten: United Kingdom net official development assistance and grants by United Kingdom voluntary agencies represented 0·41 per cent. of GNP in 1975, and 0·37 per cent. in both 1980 and 1985. The figure for 1989 will not be available until next year. The provisional figure for 1988 is 0·35 per cent.
    Mr. Evans: Will the Minister take this opportunity to deny the scandalous story in yesterday's edition of The Observer to the effect that recent British non-commercial development aid to Malaysia was tied to the purchase of British armaments?
    Mr. Patten: I have denied that story many times. It is quite an old story. It first surfaced in The Guardian in June last year and has since been recycled in The Observer. I denied it most recently and explicitly in evidence to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs.
    Mr. Jack: I wish my right hon. Friend well on his forthcoming trip to Brazil. Will he confirm that one of the most effective ways in which Britain can help with
    18
    non-commerical aid is by making expertise available to countries such as Brazil to help them deal with their forestry problems?
    Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend is entirely correct. We have as much expertise on tropical forestry matters in this country as exists anywhere else in the world and some splendid experts, such as Dr. Prance, a member of our recent environmental mission to Brazil.

    Third World Development
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what studies his Department has sponsored of the role of the free market in fostering economic development in the Third world.
    Mr. Chris Patten: My Department is sponsoring a range of studies. They include assessment of the more liberal economic policies that many developing countries are pursuing under structural adjustment programmes and the role of market forces in stimulating agriculture, forestry, industry and foreign trade.
    Mr. Marshall: First, I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his appointment to the Privy Council. Does he agree that in the Third world, as elsewhere, there is a strong correlation between economic growth and the adoption of a social market economy? Will he therefore concentrate our economic assistance on those countries that have had the foresight to adopt the social market economy rather than indulging in a mindless morass of Marxism and Socialism?
    Mr. Patten: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend for his kind personal reference and I am lost in envy at his final alliteration. I can confirm what my hon. Friend said about the importance of market forces and the price mechanism in supporting sustainable economic development. We have put an increasing amount of our aid into supporting economic reform programmes which are more likely to encourage the development of the private sector and inward private investment. I am delighted that so many countries are pursuing more sensible economic policies and I note that the leader of the Labour party, Peter Mandelson, is also more in favour of market economics these days.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: Has the right hon. Gentleman had his attention drawn to the exposure by the Daily Record of conditions on the tea plantations in Bangladesh of James Finlay and Company? Will he join me in deploring the outrageous exploitation of labour, including child labour? Does he accept that that is the unacceptable face of the free market in the Third world and, if so, will he bring the matter to the attention of the Commonwealth Development Corporation?
    Mr. Patten: I have not seen the report to which the hon. Gentleman draws attention, although I condemn such exploitation wherever it occurs. We are involved in a number of projects on the tea estates of Bangladesh to improve housing and other social conditions. That is a sensible and important use of our aid money. I hope that private sector companies as well as public sector companies will do all that they can to ensure social equity as well as market forces as the best engines of economic growth.

    Andean Countries
    Mr. Sheerman: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to increase aid to the Andean group of countries.
    Mr. Chris Patten: I have no plans at present to increase aid levels to the Andean group of countries. I expect our aid programmes to those countries to be maintained at approximately current levels for the foreseeable future.
    Mr. Sheerman: I congratulate the Minister on his promotion. Is it not about time that he seized the opportunities of his office and started to do something for undeveloped countries, notably those in South America where, after 10 years of Conservative Government, only a measly £10 million flows from this wealthy country to countries that are struggling for democracy and struggling to fight drugs and poverty? When will the Minister do something?
    Mr. Patten: I will answer that question as though it were a string of compliments. I know of the hon. Gentleman's interest in the region and his particular interest in Peru, which is as welcome in that country as in this. I repeat what I said earlier. We have traditionally concentrated our aid programmes on the Commonwealth and on poorer countries. If we are likely to do more in Latin America, it will almost certainly be due to our growing interest and concern about environmental issues. That is one reason why, as I said earlier, I am going to Brazil later today.

    Overseas Development Administration Silver Jubilee
    Mr. Greg Knight: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to celebrate the Overseas Development Administration's silver jubilee.
    Mr. Chris Patten: On 28 June my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, in the presence of Her Royal Highness the Princess Royal, hosted a reception at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to mark the publication of an anniversary edition of the ODA's annual review. Copies are being distributed widely. Earlier that
    20
    day, I launched at the Royal Society of Arts two new specially commissioned videos on the key issues of the environment and the role of science in development.
    Mr. Knight: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best way to celebrate 25 years of aid is to give further encouragement to those charities and other non-governmental organisations which have played such a significant part in development? Should we not be encouraging more volunteers to go to developing countries?
    Mr. Patten: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. We helped 60 charitable agencies last year in long-term development work covering 800 projects. We should be able to do more this year, having increased the funds available for the joint funding scheme by just over 40 per cent. We are also increasing the amount of financial assistance to volunteering agencies. This year their grant will have risen by just over 20 per cent. I hope that the number of volunteers will increase from about 1,300 now to about 1,500 by 1990.
    Miss Lestor: Enjoyable though the celebrations were last week—the right hon. Gentleman was kind enough to invite me—I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman has seen in the jubilee edition of "Overseas Development", the ODA newspaper, the anger expressed by former Minister Dame Judith Hart at the Government's record in the past 10 years. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is more to celebrate in 25 years of ODA than glossy brochures and pleasant receptions, much though we all enjoyed them? Will the right hon. Gentleman mark the occasion by announcing his timetable for British aid to reach 0·7 per cent of GNP, bearing in mind that if press speculation is correct and he leaves ODA this summer he will leave behind a drop in aid in real terms of 18 per cent. since 1979?
    Mr. Patten: In response to the hon. Lady's latter point, I think it was someone like Cardinal Manning—or perhaps it was Lord St. John of Fawsley—who said:
    "I do not ask to see
    The distant scene; one step enough for me."
    In response to the hon. Lady's first point, the fact that we quote Baroness Hart in our publication does not show that we agree with her, but merely that we believe in a plural society. I am delighted that this year the aid programme is growing by 12 per cent. in cash terms and 7 per cent. in real terms.

Points of Order
3.33 pm
Sir John Stokes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Was it in order for the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) to imply in a recent question that there was corruption in the appointment of judges? Far from being funny, were his remarks not entirely out of order?
Mr. Speaker: I do not recollect that anything that the hon. Gentleman said in my presence was out of order.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: I would like to place it on the record that I did not pay the hon. Gentleman to say that.
Mr. Speaker: I have protected the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). He does not need to do anything else.
Mr. David Madel: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like to seek your guidance. On Wednesday we face another hugely disruptive strike on the railways, with both sides being as far apart as ever and no sign of any move towards a new arbitration system. Have you had any indication from the Government, Mr. Speaker, about when they might share their thinking with us as to how British Rail can be helped to get out of this terrible mess which is having a bad effect on industry, on my constituents and on the constituents of Croydon?
Mr. Speaker: I have had no such notification. The Leader of the I louse is on the Treasury Bench, and I am sure that he will have heard what the hon. Member has said.

Water Bill (Allocation of Time)
3.34 pm
The Minister for Water and Planning (Mr. Michael Howard): I beg to move,
That the Order of the House [6th February] he supplemented as follows:
Lords Amendments
1.—(1) The proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall be completed in two allotted days and shall be brought to a conclusion at Seven p.m. on the second of those days.
(2) The order in which those proceedings are to be taken shall be Lords Amendments 1 to 43, Lords Amendment 55, Lords Amendments 44 to 54, Lords Amendments 56 to 116, Lords Amendment 155, Lords Amendments 117 to 154, Lords Amendments 156 to 237, Lords Amendments 267 and 277, Lords Amendments 238 to 266, Lords Amendments 268 to 276 and remaining Lords Amendments.
(3) Subject to the provisions of the Order [6th February], each part of those proceedings shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the third column of the Table set out below.

Table—Proceedings

Allotted day

Lords Amendments

Time far conclusion of proceedings

First day

Nos. 1 to 13

6.00 p.m.

Nos. 14 to 43 and No. 55

7.30 p.m.

Nos. 44 to 54 and Nos. 56 to 116

10.00 p.m.

Second day

No. 155, Nos. 117 to 154,

5.00 p.m.

Nos. 156 to 237 and Nos. 267 and 277

Nos. 238 to 266, Nos. 268 to 276 and

Nos. 278 to 311

5.30 p.m.

Remaining Lords Amendments

7.00 p.m.

(4) Paragraph 7 of the Order [6th February] (extra time on allotted days) shall not apply to the allotted days for the proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments; but where the conclusion of any of those proceedings is postponed until a time after Ten o'clock under paragraph 9(4) of that Order (Motions under Standing Order No. 20), paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to those proceedings until that time.
2.—(1) For the purposes of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 above —

(a) Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided and, if that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment, shall then put forthwith the Question on any further Amendment of the said Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown and on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in the said Lords Amendment or, as the case may be, in the said Lords Amendment as amended;

(b) Mr. Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining Lords Amendments as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

(i) put forthwith the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment and then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in their Amendment or, as the case may he, in their Amendment as amended;

23

(ii) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in a Lords Amendment;

(iii) put forthwith with respect to each Amendment designated by Mr. Speaker which has not been disposed of the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Amendment; and

(iv) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments;

(c) as soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to that Lords Amendment.

(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
Stages subsequent to first Consideration of Lords Amendments
3.—(1) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill shall be brought to a conclusion one hour after the commencement of the proceedings.
(2) For the purpose of bringing those proceedings to a conclusion—

(a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided, and shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair;

(b) Mr. Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining items in the Lords Message as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

(i) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on any item;

(ii) the case of each remaining item designated by Mr. Speaker, put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Proposal; and

(iii) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

Supplemental provisions with respect to certain proceedings
4.—(1) In this paragraph "the proceedings" means proceedings on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill, on the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the Report of such a Committee.
(2) Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the consideration forthwith of the Message or for the appointment and quorum of the Committee.
(3) A Committee appointed to draw up reasons shall report the conclusion of the sitting at which they are appointed.
(4) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.
(5) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings shall be made except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
(6) If the proceedings are interrupted by a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on the Motion shall be added to the period at the end of which the proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion.
(7) If the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the expiry of the period at the end of which any proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under this paragraph, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.
I move the motion as the House comes to the end of the
24
long and exhaustive consideration of a Bill which fully honours our election manifesto commitment to return water authorities to the public and to establish a National Rivers Authority. We shall shortly see scenes of synthetic outrage from the Opposition about the time that is allowed for consideration of the Lords amendments. I want to start by getting some facts on the record.
The Bill has already been debated in this House for two days on Second Reading, for 153 hours in 35 Committee sittings, and for three full days on Report and Third Reading—a total of 198 hours before today.
Mr. David Winnick: Will the Minister explain why, despite the massive amount of money that has been spent to publicise the Bill, all the propaganda and so on, the latest poll shows that 79 per cent. of the population are totally opposed to water being privatised? Is it not clear that the Government have no mandate for it? If there were a free vote tonight, the Bill would not receive majority support, and the Minister knows that.
Mr. Howard: I welcome Opposition Members' new-found enthusiasm for opinion polls. However, opinion polls may come and opinion polls may go. By the time the only opinion poll that matters takes place the proposals will be working well in practice and their advantages will be apparent to all our people.
Although the Bill has been guillotined, we have used the timetable procedure not to impose unreasonable restraints on debate but to allow for a sensible allocation of time to the different elements of the Bill. That would not have occurred if Opposition Members had continued with the pace that they set in Committee, when they managed to go so slowly that, after 75 hours, only nine clauses had been debated. The Bill has also been examined in great detail for more than 100 hours of debate over 13 days in another place. It is simply not possible to argue that the Bill had not been fully considered. Throughout those many hours of debate, the Government have listened carefully and sympathetically to all reasonable arguments put before them. We said at the outset that if sensible improvements were suggested, we would respond positively to them. That is precisely what we have done, and that is why it now falls to this House to consider these amendments.
Mr. Jeremy Hanley: Does my hon. and learned Friend consider that we have sufficiently discussed the protection of land that is currently owned by Thames Water? The assurances that he gave at the beginning of last month have recently been withdrawn, thus making a great deal of Thames Water's land available for redevelopment rather than protection by the local authority because of its conservation or environmental use.
Mr. Howard: It is not right to say that assurances that were given earlier in the month or about a month ago were withdrawn. We shall no doubt debate this matter more fully when we consider the amendments relating to land. When we put forward our original amendments relating in particular to specific protection for land in national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty, we were met with a chorus of opposition on the basis that sites of special scientific interest should be specifically designated and that the reserve power to which we pointed as being available to deal with that aspect of the problem was, in effect, a waste of time and not worth the paper that it was written

25
on. We responded to those criticisms as we have responded to so many other criticisms. We have inserted specific protection in the Bill for sites of special scientific interest and removed the reserve power that met with disapproval when it was introduced.
I invite the House to consider the nature of the amendments which were inserted into the Bill in another place. There are 341 of them, but many of them are so technical that they do not even warrant grouping other than in one large group. Even some of those technical amendments are to meet points raised by the Opposition. Of those that are grouped, we have difficulty with only two. Of the rest. well over half the groups of amendments on the Notice Paper are Government responses to arguments that had the support of all sides in another place. Many of the rest represented minor tidying-up points. The nature of the amendments before the House today can be judged by the fact that only once in another place were the Government obliged to go through the Division Lobby in support of them. In this House the Opposition have not put down a single motion of disagreement with any of the amendments that were made in another place.
That is the background against which the protest that we shall doubtless shortly hear from Opposition Members needs to be assessed. We have, of course, known from the outset that the Opposition were committed to a policy of delay and frustration, but we wish to press on with the Bill which provides the key to cleaner rivers and beaches and purer drinking water. It is this Bill which gives the industry access to the private capital that it needs to complete the clean up; it is this Bill which puts an end to the gamekeeper-poacher conflict that has so bedevilled the operations of the water authorities; and it is this Bill which gives the workers in one of our most important industries a real stake in the future.
The time has come to deal with the few remaining issues and to move on to the next stages—putting the regulatory framework in place, vesting the functions, assets and liabilities of the authorities with the new companies and, in November, selling the shares in those companies to the public so that they can take a direct stake in the industry that lies at the heart of so many of our environmental concerns. I commend the motion to the House.
3.41 pm
Dr. John Cunningham: I am sorry to disappoint the Minister so early in my remarks, but I assure him that none of the synthetic anger that he was forced to mention so often in his brief remarks will emanate from the Opposition. There may be some synthetic support, however, from Conservative Members in the Division' Lobby.
It is eight months this week since the Second Reading of the Water Bill in the Chamber. The Secretary of State's parting words then were:
"This is a good Bill for consumers, for future shareholders, for taxpayers, for workers in the industry; above all, it is a good Bill for the environment."—[Official Report, 7 December 1988; Vol. 143, c. 344.]
The Opposition feel rather sorry for the Secretary of State and those who have had to do the Prime Minister's dirty work on this very dirty Bill. After the Football Spectators Bill, one might say that this is the flood. Over those months, the Minister and the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mr.
26
Moynihan), who is not present now, although I am sure that he will be around later in the proceedings, have had to prop up a case in support of privatising the nation's water assets which, frankly, is so ramshackle as to have no hope of surviving for very long. They have spent eight months on the pathetic task of trying to persuade the British people that water privatisation is a good or even a desirable thing for consumers, taxpayers and the environment. It seems, however, not only from the responses from the public during those eight months, but even from a survey this weekend, that they have failed to persuade anyone. The Observer Harris poll showed yesterday that 79 per cent. of people remain implacably opposed to privatisation; 79 per cent. are worried or very worried about the quality of our bathing beaches; one third of people are dissatisfied with the quality of their drinking water; 69 per cent. think that water should meet new European standards before any sell-off is even contemplated; 68 per cent. think that the Government's record on pollution control is not at all good or not very good; and 85 per cent. think that water will cost them more after privatisation.
Whatever else Ministers have been doing during the past eight months, they have singularly failed to persuade the British public that there is much good, if any, in the Bill.
Mr. Winnick: My hon. Friend will be the first to agree that the Opposition should always be fair. Does he blame, as the Prime Minister blames, the Secretary of State and the Minister for Water and Planning? Could they be responsible for the public's failure to accept water privatisation? Does not the real responsibility lie with the Prime Minister? Were it not for her, such dangerous nonsense would not have been pursued in the first place. Does my hon. Friend agree that the public will not buy this rubbish, whoever puts it forward, and that the responsibility does not lie with the Secretary of State or the Minister, however much one recognises that the Secretary of State is the last person to persuade anyone?
Dr. Cunningham: I agree with my hon. Friend. The Bill, like the Football Spectators Bill and the poll tax before it, is here because the Prime Minister has insisted on its being placed on the statute book against all the advice of independent people and, I am sure, much private advice from many of her right hon. and hon. Friends. The Secretary of State and the Minister are scapegoats for the Prime Minister's dogmatic attitudes. Too bad, one might say, for the Secretary of State and the Minister; too bad that they are forced to push through the Prime Minister's views; too bad that their campaign to persuade even the City that water is a worthwhile and desirable investment has collapsed with only a few months to go before the predicted sell-off date. Matters have become worse for the Secretary of State and the Minister following the Prime Minister's magisterial rebuke in February over their handling, or mishandling, of the issue.
This colossal and vital Bill has been guillotined at every stage. It was curtailed in Committee and on Report, and today, as we are presented with 341 amendments from the other place, debate is curtailed again, less than a week since the other place finished considering the Bill. We shall have a mere day and a half in which to debate 341 amendments and to try to amend some of them. I thank the Minister for having the courtesy and for taking the

27
trouble to give us sight of the amendments as early as possible. I place on record our appreciation of that. His task was obviously incredibly difficult because he was able to provide information to us only as late as Wednesday evening of last week. Had it been provided to us any later, the opportunity for the Opposition to consider and table subsequent amendments would not have existed. That is not acceptable and I have no doubt that others outside the House will perceive that to be so.
The real reason for guillotining this stage of the Bill's consideration is that this is one of the most damaging pieces of legislation around, and the Government want it out of the way as quickly as possible. On every occasion on which the Bill is discussed in Parliament and outside, damage is done to the Government's credibility. I assure the Government that the fact that they may be curtailing debate today and tomorrow does not mean that the issue will go away or that the Labour party will stop opposing it and campaigning against it in the country over the weeks, months and years between now and the next general election.
We have a day and a half, and a number of important questions remain to be asked. I almost said "answered", but I suspect that there is little, if any, hope of getting answers to some of the questions. For example, when will the British people's drinking water meet minimum European standards? Almost 11 million British people are served with water that is below European minimum standards. The position for those people is unsatisfactory and it is likely to remain so.
The Minister went to Brussels last week. There was some publicity in advance of his visit, but almost a cloak of secrecy has been drawn over what happened while he was there. Almost uniquely for the Government and for the Minister's Department, there has been no press statement or announcement following his discussions with the Environment Commissioner Carlo Ripa Di Meana. That suggests that relations are not what they might be between the Government and the Commissioner about the provisions in the Bill.
No doubt the Government will later attempt to overturn an amendment carried in the House of Lords that provides for a date of 1993, already several years late, to meet the objectives for drinking water quality. We look forward to hearing from Ministers why they cannot accept even that modest attempt to put matters right. Indeed, I wonder whether the guillotine will allow time for a proper and adequate debate on that matter.
—When will we hear more from the Government—they have not yet answered our questions—about the drinking water inspectorate? The House is entitled to some meaningful details about the operation of that body, hidden away somewhere in the Department of the Environment, whose job it will be to regulate the quality of our drinking water. As yet, there have been almost no details about that body.
When will we hear the final decisions and the whole truth about the so-called cost pass-through—that provision in the appointment to allow companies to make extra charges outside the price control formula? We all remember the Secretary of State's claim at the outset that
28
prices would rise in real terms by no more than 10 per cent. a year. That is obviously a hopelessly inadequate assessment of what the public will face.
At the end of Third Reading, in a speech when the Minister read out everything except the London telephone directory, he said that my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Callaghan of Cardiff did not mention the water industry in his memoirs. I wonder whether the Secretary of State will mention this Bill in his memoirs when he comes to write them. I doubt it. I do not think that he will regard the past eight months as a purple passage in his parliamentary and ministerial careers.
What about the flotation itself? Some kind, anonymous person today sent us a copy of a document produced by J. Henry Schroder Wagg and Company Limited, the Government's advisers on the flotation, entitled "Offer Structure". The document sets out the advice that is no doubt being given to Ministers about the structure of the offer and the flotation of the nation's water assets. Unlike previous flotations, the document recommends:
"There will be no maximum application value for the separate offers."
The Government are obviously so concerned to ensure that they receive at least some offers to purchase that they are not setting a limit. The document continues:
"the Stock Exchange has agreed that neither form of prospectus need be advertised in the national press; only application forms".
Presumably, the Government do not want to advertise the prospectus because they do not want people to know exactly what it is they are being invited to buy.
I do not have time to read all the document into the record, but on page 4 it states:
"The need to underwrite all ten offers is expected to give rise to some new variations on the now familiar structure.
Early investigation suggests that the UK underwriting unit may be worth between £10,000 and £25,000, representing between 8 and 20 package units each comprising 1,000 shares in the ten WSHCs."
In other words, underwriters will be obliged to buy shares in all 10 water authorities whether or not they want to do so.
Underwriters, like the rest of us, know very well that some of the water organisations are not saleable. Who, left to his own devices, would buy North West Water, Yorkshire Water, or some of the other authorities that have huge backlogs of problems in respect of pollution, inadequate plant and collapsing infrastructure? The authorities will be sold off to the underwriters in little parcels, so there will be no escape.
I wonder what Mr. Roy Watt of Thames Water thinks about his organisation being underwritten along with all those less saleable assets? Even the fund managers themselves do not want that to be done, as a poll published yesterday confirms. Seventy-nine per cent. of them want to pick and choose which water authority stock they underwrite because they, too, know that otherwise they are likely to be left with unsold stock on their hands.
Perhaps the most amusing and revealing part of the document is the outline offer timetable on page 6, which is a far more important timetable than that which the Government are talking about today in connection with the Lords amendments. The outline timetable begins:
"1st September. VESTING
6th September. Earliest date for launch of flotation marketing campaign.
2nd October. Institutional lunches and dinners begin."

29
Some underwriters are about to find out that there is no such thing as a free lunch. The outline continues:
"31st October. All documentation in near final form.
1st November. Publication of pathfinder prospectus.
2nd November. Commencement of national and regional roadshows.
21st November. Pricing meeting. Completion meeting.
22nd November. IMPACT DAY
29th November. Prospectuses generally available.
6th December. OFFER CLOSES.
12th December. Basis of allocation announced …
20th December. Posting of documents of title…
So for the man who has everything, at Christmas this year buy him a sewage works.
Given the taxpayers' interest, the national interest and the environmental interest in water privatisation, that timetable is far more important than the fatuous, shoddy little timetable that we are debating.
Mr. Nicholas Baker: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will explain to other right hon. and hon. Members who have not been so privileged as to see the document from which he quotes—it sounds as though the hon. Gentleman is indulging in mere variations on its theme—whether that document is confidential. Was the advice that it contains given confidentially? When the hon. Gentleman becomes a Minister in some future Labour Administration, what action will he take if private and confidential advice is leaked in the same way?
Dr. Cunningham: I shall answer the hon. Gentleman's last question first. The action that I shall take as a Minister will be to support in the Lobby at the earliest opportunity a freedom of information Bill.
The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): The hon. Gentleman will lose his job if he does.
Dr. Cunningham: The Secretary of State says that I would lose my shirt, and he is wrong about that, too. A freedom of information Bill is one of the Labour party's principal commitments. On matters concerning environmental pollution, the British public will never be satisfied until all the facts and information are honestly and accurately presented to them. Ministers would be far better advised to be more candid about the problems of this hopeless legislation than to sit there baying their opposition to a freedom of information Bill.
Let me return to the first question asked by the hon. Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker). He is welcome to a copy of this document if he would like one. As I said, it is headed
"J. Henry Schroder Wagg and Co. Limited … Offer Structure".
It says nothing about confidentiality or secrecy. I have no idea of the origins of the document; I am not claiming that it is a leak from the Civil Service, or even that it is a Government document. It is an interesting document, however, and one about which people are entitled to know.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: As the water stock will be no-growth because there will be so little opportunity for development, will not high dividends have to be paid to the investing public? Will not water charges have to reflect an exorbitant level of dividends as, in effect, the value of the company will not increase?
Dr. Cunningham: I agree with my hon. Friend's analysis. Moreover, because of the problems that need to be resolved, there will be additional increases in the cost to water consumers.
Whatever the time available for our deliberations today and tomorrow, the Government will never be able to guillotine public opinion. They cannot guillotine the views of the City, or its huge and adverse reaction to the proposals. However hard they may try, they cannot guillotine the European Commissioner and the views in Europe about the inadequacies of the Bill; nor will they be able to guillotine the environmental damage and pollution problems inherent in the legislation, especially as it contains a provision to excuse private enterprise water monopolies from polluting the environment and to give them immunity from prosecution.
The Government cannot guillotine our emphatic opposition to the legislation or the political reaction against them when they come to explain all this at the polling station—and fail.
4.2 pm
Mr. Keith Raffan: It is difficult to take seriously the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) when he describes the Bill as one of the most damaging pieces of legislation. It has been widely credited—even by Opposition Members—with containing significant environmental advances, as the hon. Gentleman knows very well. His hon. Friends who were not members of the Standing Committee and clearly have never read the Bill and do not appreciate the long period of gestation before it was published may talk in gimmicky-slogan terms. The fact is, however, that the Bill represents important environmental advances.
The first main advance, alluded to briefly by my hon. and learned Friend the Minister, is the ending of the position where water authorities are both poacher and gamekeeper. When the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs looked into coastal sewage pollution in 1985, one of the main points on which Opposition Members —not at parliamentary level, but at local government level—petitioned us was the need to end that position. They said that there was no way in which water authorities could monitor sewage discharges effectively when they were discharging sewage themselves.
Mr. Peter L. Pike: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Raffan: Not now.
The setting up of a National Rivers Authority will therefore create a position that Labour Members have long requested. That is the first significant environmental advance in the Bill.
The second is one to which Opposition Members would not be expected to allude. The water authorities. as water companies, will automatically be freed from the restraint of Government external financing limits. In plain language, that means that they will not have to compete with other Government Departments for finance for important capital expenditure on water infrastructure and sewage works. Opposition Members do not refer to that because the last Labour Government cut capital spending on water infrastructure by a third and on sewerage infrastructure by a half. Let me respond directly to the point made by the hon. Member for Copeland.

31
Compliance by 1993 might have been possible but for the gross, inexcusable and highly irresponsible neglect of the last Labour Government who slashed capital spending on water infrastructure by a third and on sewerage infrastructure by a half.
I do not want to indulge during my brief speech in non-parliamentary language, but what the hon. Gentleman said was bordering on hypocrisy. I do not think that that word is outside the parliamentary code.
Mr. Allan Roberts: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Raffan: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in a second, if he will sit down for a moment. I am sure that he does not want to hear this, but he is going to hear it, whether he likes it or not.
It is time that the Opposition and the country heard these things. If the quality of our water is not as good as it should be, although it is improving, and if our beaches are not of as good a quality as they should be, although they, too, are improving, the responsibility and the blame lie with the Opposition for their gross neglect during their period in office.
Mr. Allan Roberts: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us, because he has obviously been sleeping for some time, how long the Conservative Government have been in power and why they did not do something about the problem long before this?
Mr. Raffan: That is the kind of weak intervention which one would expect from the hon. Gentleman. I am not quite sure why he is not on the Opposition Front Bench today. Perhaps he has been demoted. Capital expenditure on the water infrastructure has been steadily increased during the last 10 years to make up for the gross neglect of the Opposition when they were in power. They ought to give credit to the Government for the two significant environmental advances that are included in the Bill. They will be of major importance to all water consumers.
In his normal spirit of generosity, which those of us who were members of the Standing Committee came to expect, my hon. and learned Friend alluded in his speech only to the number of hours in both Houses that have been devoted to the Bill. He did not refer to the tidal wave—to continue my watery metaphor—of irrelevant points that were made by Opposition Members in Committee. Today the Opposition have complained about the time for debate being restricted, yet they wasted so much of their time in Committee. The hon. Member for Copeland referred in Committee to netting 24 salmon with his English setter Sam. I am glad that the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) is here because he updated us in Committee about the Pol Pot regime in Kampuchea.
Dr. Cunningham: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Raffan: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in a minute. He can wait. He has given us his dissertation. I am not finished yet with the Opposition.
The hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) told us all about his mother being an Owen and his uncles and aunties being Evanses, about Tommy Steele and "Half a Sixpence", about the landscape of William Tell and about
32
undrinkable British tea. We had all that from the Opposition, yet they expect us to take them seriously when they ask for more time to debate the Bill. It is a bit rich of them to expect us to provide that when they wasted so much time in the first place.
Dr. Cunningham: The hon. Gentleman has a particularly short, inaccurate and limited memory, as we know from previous exchanges. If he thinks back to our exchanges in Committee about my ability to catch salmon, he will remember that that matter arose only because of the question—I shall not say the allegation—of his hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) that I am not a salmon fisherman.
Mr. Raffan: That is another lame intervention. I also remember the hon. Gentleman saying to the Chair that he realised that he was being diverted into irrelevancies. We do not think that he is such a weak-minded individual that he cannot resist challenges by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh), which are never of a highly provocative nature and which most of us are able to resist. If most of my hon. Friends are able to resist them, surely the hon. Gentleman is not so weak-minded that he cannot resist them.
There have been few pieces of legislation in this Parliament or in the previous Parliament that have had such a long period of gestation. The Government's first mention of water privatisation was as long ago as 1985, after which a consultation document was published. There was then a discussion document, and after the announcement in 1986 there was a White Paper, two consultative papers and wide Government consultation. This led to a manifesto commitment which has been widely ignored by the Opposition.
The Opposition are highly selective. They choose their opinion polls to suit them. One opinion poll which used a far wider sample than that published in The Observer yesterday was the one on 10 June 1987 using a sample of some 25 million people as opposed to just over 1,000 people. We believe in an opinion poll sample of half the electorate while the Opposition pick and choose one of between 800 and 1,000 people. We have a strong manifesto commitment which has been backed by the people. The Government have an absolute right to see the legislation passed through both Houses of Parliament so that it receives Royal Assent in time for privatisation to take place. As my hon. and learned Friend the Minister said, by the next general election the new water plcs will be up and running and working extremely effectively. I doubt that it will remain a party political issue for long, and probably will not be raised the next election.
There have been few examples of privatisation for which the argument is stronger than it is for water. Of course the Opposition have conveniently ignored the arguments against them, as they always do, especially the fact that one in four consumers already receives water from private statutory water companies, and therefore from a private source. They receive their water efficiently and they do not complain about its quality. That situation will prevail for everyone in this country after privatisation. We have heard nothing but humbug and hypocrisy from the Opposition. Let us get on with debating the amendments.
4.11 pm
Mr. Matthew Taylor: The hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan) spoke with great virulence, but it was not always clear whether he was waving or drowning.
The Government are in serious difficulty with the Bill for a number of reasons. It is certainly an unpopular Bill. We have heard at length about the opinion poll evidence that the British people are opposed to it. Hon. Members on both sides of the House must be aware that many members of the public who are against the Bill have been motivated to write to their Members of Parliament. Many of those people do not normally write to their Members of Parliament. but feel sufficiently strongly about this issue to do so.
The most recent opinion poll shows that four out of five people are still steadfastly opposed to what the Government are doing, while millions of pounds of their money is being spent on promoting the issue on their television screens and on poster hoardings. Perhaps more significant, and of greater concern to Ministers, who have never shown great signs of being worried by public opinion and what ordinary people think, is the fact that six out of 10 fund managers are also opposed to the privatisation of water, certainly until EC standards are met. The experts in the City know a dead duck in the water when they see one. That is what the Government are bringing to the people by producing a Bill which is unpopular and is unlikely to be a success, even in the Government's limited terms.
In response to all that, the Government are not reconsidering whether to go ahead; they are not looking to the British people, or the fund managers if they prefer, and saying, "Maybe we have got something fundamentally wrong." Instead, they squirm around within the Bill looking for ways in which they can reduce the duties that they were originally proposing to place on the water industry in order to buy off their worries and doubts and sell down the river the people who seek improvements in the water industry. At the last minute, an amendment has been sneaked in to wipe the slate clean and to give private water companies immunity from prosecution for at least a year after the sell-off.
Mr. Nicholas Baker: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Taylor: The lion. Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker) has intervened many times, and there is little time for debate.
The Minister may wish to take into account the strong feelings that have been expressed in my part of the country. Given South West Water's record locally, I suspect that it will experience difficulty in finding buyers. This week, the police will probably be giving the findings of their investigation into the Camelford incident, so it is a poor gesture for the Government to be offering water companies further immunity in order to make the sell-off work. Few people in my part of the world will be satisfied by that. Anyone considering water privatisation would do well to consider what happened to the people of Camelford and the Government's action in offering water companies immunity from prosecution.
Mr. Roger Knapman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Taylor: Time is short, so I will not give way.
The Government have stated that they wish to reverse a Lords amendment that aims to bring Britain's drinking
34
water standards up to EEC standards by 1993, which is already eight years late. The commitments that we thought might he given and the opportunities for change that we expected are receding further into the distance.
The Government propose to legalise thousands of spillages of raw sewage into rivers and streams. One cannot have confidence in a Government who are so sternly led on the water privatisation course by a Prime Minister who is unaware that untreated sewage is being pumped into seas around our coast. More sewage is pumped into the sea in my area than any other throughout the country. I recently spoke at a meeting in my constituency at Gorran Haven, which was organised by local residents who by no means are stern opponents of the Government. The water authority attended to present its case. My constituents still see water being polluted by raw sewage and must still pull their children out of the water when they see turds floating in the sea. The most striking aspect of that meeting was the feeling that such pollution needed to be tackled and that the Government's approach was fundamentally wrong. People of all backgrounds and political persuasions rightly believed that the Government's approach was fundamentally wrong.
Once again, debate is being guillotined, as it has been throughout every stage of the water privatisation proposals, thereby not only putting private profit before public debate but gagging debate on the Bill. That is not acceptable, but it should come as no surprise as the Minister, despite all his soft words, knows that he does not carry the British people with him. However much the Government cut debate and rush the Bill through, they do not and will not carry the British people with them. People in my part of the country are rising up and saying that they want public investment to solve public problems. They are clear that the pollution of our seas and water courses and the trouble that we have had with our water authority are not private but public problems. Nothing that the Minister does in selling off water authorities will change their opinion.
4.19 pm
Mr. Leigh: I thought that a hint of desperation entered the speech of the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor). I would be desperate if my party went down to 7 per cent. in the opinion polls.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: It is down to 3 per cent. in the Boy Scouts' poll.
Mr. Leigh: I will not add to my hon. Friend's comment. Unfortunately, he is disbarred from speaking in this debate. He would bring great knowledge to it, particularly about salmon fishing.
The Liberal party is not doing well because it has lost much of its green vote. Once the Bill becomes an Act we shall recoup much of the ground which, according to the Opposition, we may have lost. Fundamentally, this is a green Bill. It is a matter of pride to Conservative Members that we are setting up, for the first time, a national environmental protection agency.
Mr. Geraint Howells: What about the blue vote?
Mr. Leigh: At the next general election it will be clear that the Conservatives have not lost any support because of the Bill. As Bills go through it is necessary for the

35
Government to explain their case. Sometimes people are genuinely worried about a radical measure, but once this Bill becomes an Act and people see how things settle down, they will come to thank the Government because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan) has said, for the first time the gamekeeper-poacher problem has been tackled.
I shall not deal with the financial record of the previous Labour Government, but the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) failed to answer some questions. No doubt the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), as an upwardly mobile member of the Labour party, will answer them when she replies on behalf of the Opposition.
This is a green, environmental Bill. Perhaps the hon. Member for Dewsbury will tell us why the Labour Government failed to list a single bathing beach for the purposes of the 1975 bathing waters directive. Can she explain why Labour took no action to implement part II of the Control of Pollution Act 1974? Perhaps she will explain why the previous Labour Government prevented members of the public from initiating prosecutions of river polluters. I note that the hon. Lady is busy talking to her hon. Friends on the Front Bench. It is clear that she does not want to explain, but the House wants answers. We are the green party because we are setting up an environmental protection agency. It is no good the hon. Lady looking round desperately as I have a couple of other questions for her. How did the previous Labour Government discharge their responsibilities for monitoring involuntary pollution by sewage treatment works when they kept no record of the adequacy of their performance?
Ms. Joan Walley rose—
Mr. Leigh: I shall give way with pleasure, but can the hon. Lady explain why the Labour Government kept the details of discharge consent applications secret from the public and refused to allow the public to participate in the process of granting them?
Ms. Walley: As the hon. Gentleman has claimed that the Conservative party represents green votes, will he admit that the only thing that is green about this Bill are the green worms that came through London's tap water and the people whose hair turned green in Camelford as a result of aluminium poisoning? What has he got to say about that?
Mr. Leigh: If the hon. Lady wants to be a member of the next Labour Government she must do much better than that. She must answer the five questions that I put, which were perfectly reasonable. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley) is not prepared to answer them, but I hope that the hon. Member for Dewsbury will.
Debates such as this always follow the same pattern. I think that I shall scream if someone again, says that, on one day, the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) moved five guillotine motions. I accept that it is a good point, but it is always made. Usually the right hon. Gentleman attends such debates, which are, fundamentally, always the same.
If there were a Labour Government in the future and if the hon. Member for Dewsbury decided to renationalise electricity, water and British Telecom and, by that stage,
36
perhaps British Rail and British Coal, would she produce five guillotine motions in one day? We shall have to wait and see.
I believe that I now know something about how Standing Committees work. I was not only a member of the Committee that considered the Water Bill, which sat for more than 150 hours, but a member of the Standing Committee that considered the Self-Governing Schools Etc (Scotland) Bill, which also sat for 150 hours. It was also guillotined and we heard the same arguments as we have heard today. Television is about to enter the Chamber and no doubt it will cover our Standing Committees. It is about time, therefore—this is a non-party political point—that we considered timetabling Bills from the very start. Once television comes into the Standing Committees, we cannot have the procedures and speeches that we have had not only on this Bill, but on others of whose Committees I have been a member.
I am surprised that no hon. Member has so far mentioned the irrelevant speeches and the speeches on the Tatler of the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng). When I was a member of the Committee on the Self-Governing Schools Etc. (Scotland) Bill, the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) talked for several hours in his lilting Gaelic on a matter totally irrelevant to the Bill because Labour Members had to prove to the people of this country that they were a powerful, virile Opposition who would continue to speak ad nauseam. As soon as a timetable motion for this Bill was introduced the quality of debate improved markedly, as it did on the Self-Governing Schools Etc. (Scotland) Bill. I am convinced that we should bring in timetable motions at the beginning of Bills.
My hon. and learned Friend the Minister will remember that I tabled several amendments in Committee. I suspect that once the timetable motion has been accepted, there may have been some collusion between the two Front Benches.
Mr. Soames: No, surely not.
Mr. Leigh: My hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) says no. However, once a Bill has been timetabled, it is far easier for the Front-Bench spokesmen to ensure that the main Labour party amendments are discussed. It keeps them happy, and they can then go to their constituents and say that they are doing their job. However, serious amendments tabled by Conservative Back-Bench Members, which do not make a party political point, but merely wish to improve the Bill, are frozen out. If Bills are to be timetabled regularly, it should be done near the beginning of the Bill. In addition, the Chairman should be given more authority in deciding how the Bill should be split up so that Conservative, Labour and minor party Back-Bench Members are given time to debate the Bill.
In principle, after so much time has been devoted to the Bill, there is no reason why we should not have a timetable motion. Most of the amendments that we are to discuss today are technical. On that basis, I support the timetable motion. My plea to my hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench is for them to consider for next year, once our proceedings are televised, whether Bills should be timetabled far earlier.
4.26 pm
Mr. Peter L. Pike: The hon. Members for Delyn (Mr. Raffan) and for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) are kidding themselves if they believe that this is a green Bill as it does nothing to solve the problems facing the water industry. They know that they will pay the price for this legislation at the next general election, not only because of the Bill's unpopularity, as shown in the opinion poll, but because it will not deal with the problems facing the water industry.
The timetable motion is outrageous in that it seeks to limit our ability to debate the many important principles that we still need time to consider adequately. As I have said several times recently, the Government increasingly dislike democracy and the opportunity for debate because they do not want people to have the opportunity to voice opinions in any way different from their own. So long as they remain in power, democracy will become a sham as they remove the opportunity for genuine debate.
Mr. Paul Boateng: It is already a sham.
Mr. Pike: My hon. Friend says that it has already become a sham, and to some extent he is right.
The hon. Member for Delyn also referred to the National Rivers Authority. He must remember that Labour Members never opposed the establishment of that authority. From the outset we have accepted that it is right that the roles of poacher and gamekeeper should be separated. We have said, however—and we shall say it again tomorrow—that if the Government are serious about the N RA, they should give it the powers to carry out the functions for which it is being established. We know that steps are already being taken to remove the ability of the NRA to prosecute water authorities for sewage pollution once privatisation takes place and that there will be derogations and exemptions. Already, the Government are trying to remove the authority's teeth.
The hon. Member for Delyn also referred to investment and said that the last Labour Government reduced investment. I have never denied that. Like the Minister and other Conservative Members, however, he failed to point out that as the Government have been in office for 10 years they must accept responsibility for the fact that investment in the water industry, in real terms, is still only two thirds what it was in the mid-1970s.
The Government must also accept that the Select Committee on the Environment proposed a National Rivers Authority and referred to the investment problems mentioned by the hon. Member for Delyn and the clash with the public sector borrowing requirement. The Select Committee suggested changing the borrowing powers of the water industry and allowing it to remain in the public sector. Both the developments that the hon. Member for Delyn regards as important—establishing a National Rivers Authority, and changing the way in which we finance it—could thus have been achieved if the industry had been allowed to remain in the public sector. That would have gained our support because we believe it to be the right way forward. After the many hours of debate on the Bill. it is clear that changing the ownership of the industry will not solve its problems, but that investment in it will. If the Government were prepared to put in the investment to deal with the problems of drinking water quality, river pollution, sewage works and beach pollution, those problems could be solved.
38
Instead, the Government are considering a long sea outfall at Rossall point at Fleetwood. It is outrageous that the Government believe that long sea outfalls are the right way to deal with sea pollution in 1989 when we should be moving towards constructions that will serve the country well into the 21st century. It is wrong that in 1989 the Government still believe that long sea outfalls are the answer. They simply shift the pollution a little further out to sea, but it will still be washed back on to our shores. That is not an acceptable solution for the next century.
Later this afternoon we shall discuss amendments dealing with land. As my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) has said, who would want to buy the North West water authority with the River Mersey and all its problems? The only attraction of buying that water authority lies in selling off its land to make money while removing access to the countryside and the free rights over the land that people enjoy at present.
I have raised the question of appointing a land development officer with the North West water authority, and in questions to the Minister. Brian Alexander the managing director of that authority and its acting chief executive—its former chief executive, who was also its deputy chairman, has been retired, neatly removed, because he opposed privatisation—has replied:
"The appointee's role is to look at surplus land to see what development opportunities there may be and, to ensure that we obtain the maximum returns possible from these possibilities."
The next sentence refers to the need
"to ensure that we get the best returns from surplus land."
Mr. Barry Porter: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have listened with interest to the hon. Gentleman's speech, which is partly a Second Reading speech and partly more appropriate to Committee stage but the hon. Gentleman is not addressing his mind or his speech to the timetable motion. Is it not time that somebody intervened—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I have heard nothing out of order from the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike).
Mr. Pike: I have been following the arguments of other hon. Members who have spoken. This is one of the important issues that we shall not be able to debate sufficiently because we have only an hour and a half on this important principle.
Many organisations, such as the Ramblers Association, anglers' associations, and many others, are still extremely fearful about the consequences of the legislation.
Tomorrow we shall discuss sewage treatment works and the problems of pollution entering the rivers because the use of storm overflows is exceeding consent and they are being used on too many occasions. We need time to debate such problems, but the Government are afraid to debate them because they know that they are responsible for the present position and that they must accept—
It being one hour after commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to order [6 February.]
The House divided: Ayes 285, Noes 168.

Division No. 271]

[4.34 pm

AYES

Adley, Robert

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Aitken, Jonathan

Amess, David

Alexander, Richard

Amos, Alan

39

Arbuthnot, James

Forth, Eric

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

Fox, Sir Marcus

Ashby, David

Freeman, Roger

Aspinwall, Jack

French, Douglas

Atkins, Robert

Fry, Peter

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Gale, Roger

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Gardiner, George

Baldry, Tony

Gill, Christopher

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Glyn, Dr Alan

Batiste, Spencer

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Bendall, Vivian

Goodlad, Alastair

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Gow, Ian

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Boswell, Tim

Gregory, Conal

Bottomley, Peter

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Grist, Ian

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Ground, Patrick

Bowis, John

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

Hague, William

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Hanley, Jeremy

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Hannam, John

Brazier, Julian

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

Bright, Graham

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Haselhurst, Alan

Browne, John (Winchester)

Hayes, Jerry

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

Buck, Sir Antony

Hayward, Robert

Budgen, Nicholas

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Burns, Simon

Heddle, John

Burt, Alistair

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Butcher, John

Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

Butler, Chris

Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

Butterfill, John

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Hind, Kenneth

Carrington, Matthew

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Carttiss, Michael

Holt, Richard

Cash, William

Hordern, Sir Peter

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Howard, Michael

Chapman, Sydney

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Chope, Christopher

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Churchill, Mr

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Hunter, Andrew

Colvin, Michael

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Conway, Derek

Jack, Michael

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Jackson, Robert

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Janman, Tim

Cope, Rt Hon John

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Cormack, Patrick

Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

Couchman, James

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Cran, James

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Critchley, Julian

Key, Robert

Curry, David

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

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

Kirkhope, Timothy

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Knapman, Roger

Day, Stephen

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Devlin, Tim

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Dickens, Geoffrey

Knowles, Michael

Dicks, Terry

Knox, David

Dorrell, Stephen

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Latham, Michael

Dover, Den

Lawrence, Ivan

Dunn, Bob

Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

Durant, Tony

Lee, John (Pendle)

Dykes, Hugh

Leigti, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Eggar, Tim

Lightbown, David

Emery, Sir Peter

Lilley, Peter

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Evennett, David

Lyell, Sir Nicholas

Fallon, Michael

McCrindle, Robert

Favell, Tony

Macfarlane, Sir Neil

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Fishburn, John Dudley

Maclean, David

Forman, Nigel

McLoughlin, Patrick

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

40

Madel, David

Sainsbury, Hon Tim

Major, Rt Hon John

Sayeed, Jonathan

Malins, Humfrey

Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

Mans, Keith

Shaw, David (Dover)

Maples, John

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Marland, Paul

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Marlow, Tony

Shersby, Michael

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Mates, Michael

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Maude, Hon Francis

Speller, Tony

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

Miller, Sir Hal

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Mills, Iain

Squire, Robin

Miscampbell, Norman

Stanbrook, Ivor

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Mitchell, Sir David

Stern, Michael

Moate, Roger

Stevens, Lewis

Monro, Sir Hector

Stokes, Sir John

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Moore, Rt Hon John

Sumberg, David

Morrison, Sir Charles

Summerson, Hugo

Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Moss, Malcolm

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Moynihan, Hon Colin

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Mudd, David

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Neale, Gerrard

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Nelson, Anthony

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Neubert, Michael

Thorne, Neil

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Thurnham, Peter

Nicholls, Patrick

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Norris, Steve

Tracey, Richard

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Trippier, David

Oppenheim, Phillip

Twinn, Dr Ian

Page, Richard

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Paice, James

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Patnick, Irvine

Waldegrave, Hon William

Patten, John (Oxford W)

Walden, George

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Pawsey, James

Waller, Gary

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Walters, Sir Dennis

Portillo, Michael

Ward, John

Powell, William (Corby)

Warren, Kenneth

Raffan, Keith

Watts, John

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Wells, Bowen

Rathbone, Tim

Wheeler, John

Redwood, John

Whitney, Ray

Renton, Tim

Widdecombe, Ann

Rhodes James, Robert

Wiggin, Jerry

Riddick, Graham

Wilshire, David

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Wolfson, Mark

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Wood, Timothy

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Woodcock, Dr. Mike

Roe, Mrs Marion

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Rossi, Sir Hugh

Younger, Rt Hon George

Rost, Peter

Rowe, Andrew

Tellers for the Ayes:

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and

Ryder, Richard

Mr. Alan Howarth.

Sackville, Hon Tom

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Allen, Graham

Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

Anderson, Donald

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Buckley, George J.

Armstrong, Hilary

Caborn, Richard

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

Callaghan, Jim

Ashton, Joe

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Canavan, Dennis

Battle, John

Cartwright, John

Beckett, Margaret

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Beith, A. J.

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Bidwell, Sydney

Clay, Bob

Boateng, Paul

Clelland, David

Boyes, Roland

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Bradley, Keith

Cohen, Harry

41

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Madden, Max

Corbyn, Jeremy

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Cousins, Jim

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Cox, Tom

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Crowther, Stan

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Cryer, Bob

Martlew, Eric

Cunningham, Dr John

Maxton, John

Dalyell, Tarn

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Darling, Alistair

Meacher, Michael

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Meale, Alan

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Michael, Alun

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

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Dewar, Donald

Morgan, Rhodri

Dixon, Don

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Dobson, Frank

Mullin, Chris

Doran, Frank

Murphy, Paul

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Nellist, Dave

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

O'Brien, William

Evans, John (St Helens N)

O'Neill, Martin

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

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

Pendry, Tom

Fisher, Mark

Pike, Peter L.

Flannery, Martin

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Flynn, Paul

Prescott, John

Foster, Derek

Quin, Ms Joyce

Foulkes, George

Randall, Stuart

Fraser, John

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

Fyfe, Maria

Reid, Dr John

Galloway, George

Richardson, Jo

Garrett, John (Norwich South)

Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

Robertson, George

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Rogers, Allan

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Rooker, Jeff

Gould, Bryan

Sedgemore, Brian

Graham, Thomas

Sheerman, Barry

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Grocott, Bruce

Skinner, Dennis

Harman, Ms Harriet

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

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

Haynes, Frank

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

Henderson, Doug

Snape, Peter

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Soley, Clive

Hood, Jimmy

Steinberg, Gerry

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Stott, Roger

Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

Strang, Gavin

Howells, Geraint

Straw, Jack

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Turner, Dennis

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Vaz, Keith

Ingram, Adam

Wall, Pat

Janner, Greville

Wallace, James

Jones, Barry (Alyn S Deeside)

Walley, Joan

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Kennedy, Charles

Wareing, Robert N.

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Wigley, Dafydd

Livingstone, Ken

Williams, Rt Hon Alan

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Wilson, Brian

McAllion, John

Winnick, David

McAvoy, Thomas

Wise, Mrs Audrey

McCartney, Ian

Worthington, Tony

Macdonald, Calum A.

Wray, Jimmy

McFall, John

Young, David (Bolton SE)

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

McKelvey, William

Tellers for the Noes:

Maclennan, Robert

Mr. Ken Eastham and

McWilliam, John

Mrs. Llin Golding.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Water Bill
  1ST ALLOTTED DAY
  Lords amendments considered.
  Clause 2

    REGIONAL RIVERS ADVISORY COMMITTEES
    Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 2, line 34, after "committees" insert,
    consisting of persons who are not members of the Authority,"
    4.47 pm
    The Minister for Water and Planning (Mr. Michael Howard): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 2, 146 and 147.
    Mr. Howard: The amendments are concerned with the membership of the National Rivers Authority's three regional committees—the rivers advisory committee, the flood defence committee and the fisheries advisory committee—and ensure that the membership of the NRA board will not overlap with the membership of those committees.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords amendment No. 2 agreed to.

    TRANSFER OF THE WATER AUTHORITIES' FUNCTIONS ETC.
    Lords amendment: No. 3, in page 4, line 10, leave out subsections (2) and (3) and insert—
    "(3) The Secretary of State shall, by order made before the transfer date, nominate a company in relation to each water authority as that authority's successor company; but a company shall not be so nominated unless it is a limited company and, at the time when the order is made, is wholly owned by the Crown."
    Mr. Howard: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 7 to 9, 11, 12, 36, 37, 56, 60, 61, 65 to 74, 78, 81 to 85, 88, 97, 98, 128, 129, 133, 137 to 144, 153, 154, 162 to 165, 167 to 170, 173 to 175, 179 to 181, 185, 186, 189, 191, 192, 206, 207, 211, 212, 229 to 232, 241 to 248, 278 to 282, 284, 287 to 289, 291, 292, 294, 297 to 301, 303 to 311, 313 to 316, 321, 322, 324 to 333, 335 to 341.
    Mr. Howard: The amendments in this group are purely technical. I am sure that the House would not wish me to dwell on them, although I should be happy to answer any points which hon. Members might wish to raise.
    Question put and agreed to.

    CUSTOMER SERVICE COMMITTEES
    Lords amendment: No. 4, in page 5, line 20, leave out subsection (1).
    Mr. Howard: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 5 and 6.
    Mr. Howard: The purpose of the amendments is to make it absolutely clear that it is a duty of the director general to establish and maintain customer service committees and to allocate companies to those committees. I commend the amendments to the House.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords amendments Nos. 5 to 9 agreed to.

    Clause 7

      GENERAL DUTIES WITH RESPECT TO WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE SERVICES
      Lords amendment: No. 10, in page 6, line 33, leave out "or 71" and insert
      ", 71 or (duty to move pipes etc, in certain cases)
      Mr. Howard: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 161.
      Mr. Howard: This new clause, after clause 155 and the consequential amendment to clause 7, will require a water and sewerage undertaker to alter or to remove its pipes in response to a reasonable request by any person with an interest in the land where the pipe is installed or adjacent land. The person may require the pipes to be altered or moved if that is necessary to develop the land in question. The new clause therefore goes a long way to ensuring that the presence of undertakers' pipes on private land does not unreasonably hinder development. An undertaker will be able to recover from the person any expenses reasonably incurred in carrying out the works involved. I commend the amendment to the House.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 agreed to.
      Lords amendment: No. 13, in page 7, line 12, after "particular," insert
      "that the interests of customers and potential customers in rural areas are so protected and"
      Read a Second time.
      Mrs. Ann Taylor: I beg to move, as an amendment to the Lords amendment, amendment (a), to leave out second 'and' and insert
      `such that charges for domestic consumers are at the same level for the same level of service throughout the area supplied or serviced by any undertaker, and'.
      As I understand it, Lords amendment No. 13 is a concession which arises from the debate in another place when some of my noble Friends and also some Conservative peers expressed concern about the possibility of differential charging for rural consumers. An amendment was moved in the other place and lost by only two votes. It would have ensured that charges to consumers in rural areas were the same as those for consumers in urban areas. The amendment, which was so narrowly lost, is similar in terms to amendment (a).
      Amendment No. 13 falls short of ensuring that prices will be standard in any one area, merely placing the director general under a duty to take account of the interests of rural consumers when assessing whether there
      44
      has been any undue discrimination between consumers in a proposed charging scheme by an undertaker. The words "take account" are not strong enough to guarantee that the interests of rural consumers or other consumers are properly safeguarded.
      Ministers in another place repeated pledges given to us in Committee that there should be no discrimination at all against one type of consumer, be it a rural consumer or any other consumer. The Minister made it clear, however, that the present concession in amendment No. 13 did not represent a standard charge for a standard level of service—hence our amendment (a) to tighten the matter up and to ensure that the principle of equity is followed in the charging policy.
      Opposition Members believe that the supply of water and the disposal of sewage is important not only for individuals and families but for all of us. It is in everyone's interests that we should all have proper services, for obvious public health reasons, and it is particularly important to establish principles of fairness in charging. We know what is likely to happen to prices generally as a result of privatisation. Everyone, except Ministers speaking in public—I suspect that some are franker when speaking in private—accepts that prices will rise as a result of privatisation.
      Ministers have often sought to give assurances about what will happen to prices following privatisation. For example, we have been told that the Director General of Water Services will decide everything and will look after the consumer, and that the new theory of comparative competition will ensure that the consumer gets a fair bill. I should happily give way to the junior Minister—the Minister with responsibility for sport—were he here, so that he could give us another entertaining session. His struggles to define the theory of comparative competition are about as convincing as the Secretary of State's assurances that prices will rise no more than 7·5 per cent. to 12–5 per cent. by the end of the century. That is what the Secretary of State told us last year on Second Reading.
      Of course, that was before we had the latest round of increases in water authority charges—increases that averaged 10 per cent., in many instances, concealing much higher increases. For example, in Yorkshire not only was the average increase nearly 33 per cent. higher than that, which was hard to disguise, but the balance of charging is changing in many water authority areas. Those with a lower rateable value property have seen increases far higher than those with high rateable values. As in Yorkshire, there have been additional increases—increases in standing charges of about 33 per cent. It is easy to see where the sting is and where the real hardship will be caused because of the increases already in the pipeline.
      Mr. Chris Mullin: Has my hon. Friend seen recent reports in the Isle of Wight, where bills are now being delivered as a result of metering tests being conducted there and elsewhere? Bills that are two, three and four times the previous size are now hitting the doormats. It is a pity that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field), who intervened in a vitriolic and trivial way, is not present to explain that to his constituents.
      Mrs. Taylor: The whole House would have enjoyed the comments of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) explaining the impact of metering in his constituency. All the information on metering that we

      45
      have had so far shows that we were right to move our amendment in Committee, saying that there should be no compulsory metering of anybody's property. The metering experiments currently taking place do not take account of all the heavy fixed charges associated with metering. Many people are in for a severe shock when they realise what they will have to pay if metering is introduced.
      Mr. Dafydd Wigley: The hon. Lady mentioned the substantially increased charges that may be incurred through the introduction of metering. Given that the legislation has stated that there is a responsibility for charges to reflect costs, is there not a real danger that if an authority decides to have cost centres which subdivide its area, areas with the highest costs will lead to a higher charge? That is the very reason why we need the amendment.
      Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) is quite right. That is one of the dangers of the legislation and the proposals on how things will work after privatisation. There is also the possibility that investment will not take place in areas which have the greatest problems. That could also affect the level of later charges and discrimination in charges.
      I am glad that the Minister for Water and Planning is here to reply to the debate. During the earlier part of the year we had a most entertaining few weeks with the Minister telling us—with as near straight a face as he could manage—that he was appalled by the increases in water charges being proposed by statutory water companies. He firmly told us that he intended to stop them, that he would lay down the law and act the bully to tell statutory water companies what they should do. As it worked out, meetings took place and the Minister saw some of the chairmen of the statutory water companies. They not only told him where to get off but they clearly told the public that the severity of the price increases that they were imposing was a straightforward result of the privatisation proposals. Far from the water companies being savaged by the Minister, we saw the Minister squirming in his attempt to prove that increases of up to 42 per cent. could have been even worse but for his intervention. It is no wonder that the Prime Minister has said that the matter has been badly dealt with.
      Mr. Howard: Is it because the hon. Lady thought that the increases levied by the statutory water companies were so admirable that her party voted for them to be the model for privatisation in another place?
      5 pm
      Mrs. Taylor: The Minister well knows that what was said in another place was that that was not our preferred option. It would, however, have meant the end of the privatisation proposals. We made no bones about the fact that we did not like the proposal, but anything that would have scuppered the Bill was worthy of support.
      Mr. Edward Leigh: That is an interesting question which we should look into further. Does not the very ease with which the statutory water companies put up their charges prove that that is not a model that we should follow, whatever our views on the rightness or wrongness of the Bill? Will the hon. Lady comment on that?
      Mrs. Taylor: It is not the ideal model to follow, but the reason why the statutory water companies put up their prices by such significant amounts was the reason that they made clear to their consumers and to the public. It was because of the consequences of the Government's privatisation proposals. It is clear that what has happened with the statutory water companies so far this year will happen to other water consumers as time goes by if the water authorities are pushed into the private sector.
      It is important to have that background to the starting point of prices in the water industry. We have seen significant increases this year, but there is far worse to come for all of us as water consumers. One reason why the amendment is important is that it will ensure at least some fairness in the treatment of consumers.
      One interesting aspect of working on the Bill during the last year has been the amount of interest in the legislation from many different quarters. That is why, when it comes to estimating the impact of the legislation or its cost, we have an impressive array of advice, some of which my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) has quoted. One recent report on the financial impact of privatisation which I recommend to hon. Members has been prepared by an independent expert—an accountant—who has worked in the industry for many years. Mr. Stanley William Hill's work, which has been widely acknowledged by the City and financial journalists, shows clearly that the cost of privatisation alone will add at least 27 per cent. to water charges across the board immediately on privatisation.
      That cost includes several items that outraged the public, not least the completely inept and ridiculously expensive advertising campaign upon which, at the Government's insistence, the water authorities have embarked. It is outrageous for Ministers still to claim that that water advertising campaign has nothing to do with them. I do not believe that one person in the country would accept as a coincidence the fact that the water authorities have spent as much in one four-week period on television advertising as Coca-Cola, Nescaféand Renault together—what a coincidence that that should happen just when the Government are putting through their privatisation proposals.
      Mr. Allan Roberts: It is our money.
      Mrs. Taylor: As my hon. Friend said, it is our money. At the moment, the water authorities are still in the public sector. Yet they are behaving as though they were answerable to shareholders and as though they might sell more water as a result of their advertisements.
      Mr. Hill's estimate ties in very much with other estimates which have been given in another place. The Conservative peer, Lord Nugent, estimated that the first year increases in prices as a result of privatisation would be between 30 and 40 per cent. That was the estimate of a Conservative peer, not of any Labour spokesman. All that is before we take into account the costs of investment to improve the service, whether as a result of EEC directives, which we shall be discussing later, or of the backlog of problems and liabilities being faced by the industry.
      The backcloth of prices is not optimistic. The increases that we shall be facing may fall more harshly on certain types of consumer. I have mentioned the pricing policy adopted this year by Yorkshire Water. There are also the

      47
      problems with metering and the possibility of discrimination against rural consumers or, indeed, any consumers in high-cost areas. Those may include regions which have a large backlog of liabilities and may be forced to pay disproportionately for improvements within their areas.
      The Minister could tell us a lot about pricing post-privatisation. I expect that we shall get all the critical announcements on prices once the legislation has gone through and, possibly, only once the House has risen for the summer recess. The Minister could tell us now the basis for K for the next 10 years if he chose to do so. All the discussions have taken place and recommendations have been made and discussed with the existing water authorities. I hope that the Minister will be forthcoming during our debate and tell us what the likely levels of K will be. We spent some time in Committee talking about K, but I hope that the Minister will tell us more about how cost pass-through will operate, because that is just as important. As the Bill is written, and as we have discussed it on several occasions, cost pass-through should be allowed only for new and unforeseen circumstances, not for existing liabilities which have not been met. Yet in an answer to me recently the Minister made it clear that the Director General of Water Services could take into account with regard to cost pass-through our existing commitments to the EEC, simply because those liabilities have not yet been budgeted or accounted for and plans have not been made. That would be an abuse of cost pass-through, but I believe that the Government are looking to move in that direction to disguise the real level of K that is necessary to go ahead with the Government's plans.
      One other issue that I hope the Minister will deal with is very relevant to the amendment that he will be moving, because it concerns potential consumers. Amendment No. 13 refers to existing and potential consumers. I hope that the Minister will tell us a little more about his plans for the connection charge for water services after privatisation. On 11 May, after the Bill had left the House, the Minister announced that a new scheme of connection charges was to be drawn up. That is a completely new scheme which has not been discussed in the House. We have not as yet seen the full details of the scheme, and we do not know—nor do the builders involved know—when payments will have to be made, whether they will have to be made when the builder applies for a service for a particular site or after the houses have been built. I hope that the Minister will tell us what the likely connection charges will be. In the initial statement, it was said that the connection charge would be about £800 on average, but investigations have shown that some water authorities are thinking of charging an average of about £2,000, or even more in certain circumstances. That would obviously have an impact either on the price of housing or on the production of houses, if builders found it difficult to absorb that cost.
      Mr. Nicholas Baker: I think that the hon. Lady is in danger of misinforming the House. We discussed the scheme in Committee because I tabled and moved an amendment bearing on it. The hon. Lady is clearly right to say that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister did not put the scheme forward to take account
      48
      of her argument. Does she agree that it is fair that the developer, rather than existing water consumers, should pay a one-off charge to cover capital costs?
      Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman said that I was wrong to suggest that the scheme had not been discussed. He then acknowledged that I was right to suggest that it had not been discussed. I accept that he raised the issue in Committee, but at that stage—not surprisingly—the Minister chose not to give us any information. Instead, he held a press conference, or issued a press release, at a later stage. I cannot talk about the details of the scheme because the Minister has not been forthcoming with the details. I am only asking the Minister, for once, to clarify what he is proposing. People who are not necessarily the natural allies of the Labour party—for instance, the Building Employers Confederation—are extremely worried about what the Minister is proposing and would like more information. Local authorities and housing associations which are still trying to build homes, despite the difficulties put in their way by the Government, would like to know what is to happen about connection charges. The Minister has said that there will be full consultation, but, as I understand it, there has been little consultation so far. Even the Building Employers Confederation is extremely worried about the Government's proposals.
      Mr. Nicholas Baker rose—
      Mrs. Taylor: No, I shall not give way. We are running short of time and I must get on.
      I hope that the Minister will tell us whether the Government intend to add new sums to the local authorities' capital allocation programme and to the funding of housing associations to take account of the new costs which will fall especially heavily on first-time buyers and purchasers of small properties. If we are talking about £2,000 as an addition to the cost of a small terraced house in Yorkshire, that will be a significant proportion of the final price. I hope that the Minister can tell us that more money will be made available to local authorities if they are to be faced with costs of that kind.
      The public are well aware that privatisation of the water industry is likely to lead to a reduction in standards and an increase in charges. All that has happened in the past year points in that direction, as does every financial survey and economic study of the industry. Privatisation will cost ordinary consumers a great deal of money. We want a water industry which is accountable to consumers, not one which is accountable to shareholders. I hope that the Minister will reconsider his position.
      Mr. Howard: I invite the House to agree with Lords amendments Nos. 13 and 15 and to reject amendment (a). Before I explain the effect of the amendments which were passed in another place and the reasons why I think that it would be unwise to accept the Opposition's amendment, it is important that we all understand the context in which the amendments fall to be considered.
      The unavoidable fact, much though the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) would like to avoid it and much though she wriggled in answer to my questions and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh), is that when the Bill was being considered in another place the Opposition voted for the removal of all price control measures. It avails the Opposition nothing to pretend today to be the friend of

      49
      consumers when they voted in another place for the removal of the price control measures which afford consumers safeguards for the pricing of water and for the circumstances in which services are to be provided by the new water companies from which consumers will benefit greatly.
      5.15 pm
      Mrs. Ann Taylor: The Minister is coming up with a remarkable answer to what happened in another place. Had the relevant amendment secured a majority in that place, the Government would have been defeated and would have dropped the Bill. I can think of no better service to consumers than to kill the entire Bill.
      Mr. Howard: I do not know how the hon. Lady can speculate on what the Government's reaction would have been if the amendment had been passed. It is clear from what she has said that, if there is any hope of defeating the Government in a Division, any protection for the consumer will go out of the window along with any sensible measure of price control. Apparently the Opposition will vote for anything if they think that it will lead to some embarrassment for the Government. That is a scandalous admission. It says more about the irresponsibility of the Labour party than volumes of pretended concern for consumers who will be anxious to obtain the services of the industry under the improved terms and conditions that will result from the Bill.
      I turn to the amendments. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Director General of Water Services have a general duty under clause 7(3)(a) to use their regulatory powers under part I of chapter II so as to ensure that customers' interests in respect of charges are protected and that, in particular, there is no undue discrimination or undue preference shown by undertakers in fixing charges. That duty already provides the basis for a robust framework of consumer protection. Amendment No. 13 supplements the duty by requiring that, in particular, the interests of customers in rural areas are to be protected.
      Mr. Wigley: As I said in an intervention in the speech of the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), under this Bill a company could reasonably argue that it was not discriminating against rural areas if the ratio of the cost of provision of service to the charge was the same in a rural area as in an urban area. That could lead to a gross difference in the charges being levied. Will the Minister apply himself to that?
      Mr. Howard: The point of amendment No. 13 is that, should any company come forward with any proposition of that sort in future, the director general would have to consider it against the general duty to prevent discrimination. I understand the hon. Gentleman's argument that, in the way in which he formulated the approach, the general duty to prevent discrimination conceivably might not be enough to defeat such a proposition. The effect of the amendment is that the director general will have a duty, in addition, to protect the interest of rural consumers. It is against that background that any proposition of the sort referred to by the hon. Gentleman would have to be considered. A direct consequence of the amendment is a substantial additional reinforcement for consumers in rural areas. I have no
      50
      doubt that it would be regarded as especially relevant by the director general in the context of any approach such as that to which the hon. Gentleman has referred.
      Amendment No. 15 would require the Secretary of State and the director general, in the exercise of their duty, to protect customers under clause 7 and to take into account the particular interests of those who are disabled or of pensionable age in respect of the quality of any services provided by a company in the course of carrying out the functions of a water or sewerage undertaker. I commend the amendments to the House.
      Amendment (a), which has been tabled by the Labour party, would add a further gloss to amendment No. 13. It would require my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the director general, when carrying out their duties under clause 7, to ensure that charges for domestic customers in rural areas are at the same level for the same level of service throughout the area supplied or serviced by any undertaker.
      The amendment is both defective and undesirable. What does the same charge for the same level of service actually mean? Does it mean that every customer who receives the same quantity of water at the same pressure should pay the same charge? If so, the water industry would have to introduce very quickly an elaborate water metering system to measure both volume and pressure, in addition to an equally elaborate tariff. The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), with his usual perspicacity, no doubt appreciates the force of that point. At the other extreme, does the phrase mean that undertakers would have to introduce a flat-rate, unmeasured charging system for all their domestic customers, regardless of the consumption of each customer?
      The Opposition's amendment could have an adverse effect on many customers of water authorities that have adopted a policy of differential charging to alleviate the impact of the anomalies of the domestic rating system. To take just one example, Thames Water makes a rateable value-based sewerage charge at 8·9p per pound of rateable value in the inner area of north London but 19·5p per pound in its western division. That difference of 119 per cent. is intended to allow for the differences in rateable values of similar properties in the two areas to ensure that broadly comparable bills will result. That might well fall foul of amendment (a). The thinking behind amendment (a) is characteristically confused. It would be unworkable and it would not lead to the result that I think the hon. Member for Dewsbury intended.
      The hon. Lady raised a number of other matters, with which I shall deal briefly. She referred to some of the consequences of metering, but she knows that metering is not a consequence of either this legislation or of privatisation. It is necessary that water undertakers devise an alternative method of charging for water services on the abolition of domestic rateable values. They have been given up to the year 2000 to come up with an alternative method. Many may wish to consider metering. Indeed, we introduced metering trials because we thought it important that the undertakers should have the advantage of such experience before reaching decisions.
      The correspondence pages of newspapers have disclosed widely differing experiences. Many people think metering to be an excellent system, while others have reservations. I do not doubt that the undertakers will

      51
      carefully consider the results of those trials before reaching any final decisions about an alternative method of charging.
      Mrs. Ann Taylor: If the Minister accepts that there are differences of opinion on the benefits or otherwise of metering, why did he turn down our amendment to ensure that there was no compulsory metering?
      Mr. Howard: At the end of the day, the undertakers will have to decide upon an alternative method of charging to the current system, which is based on domestic rateable values. They might decide that metering is the fairest and most sensible system to adopt and they would then need powers to introduce compulsory metering in their areas. That is such an obvious point that I am astonished that the hon. Lady questioned it.
      Mr. Allan Roberts: Water authorities already have the necessary powers to introduce compulsory water metering; they were introduced in the paving legislation. Water authorities, such as the North-West water authority, are using those powers for new dwellings.
      Mr. Howard: It is true that the undertakers can already use those powers, and they are sensibly doing so for new dwellings. However, they will want to consider the results of the trials before deciding whether metering should be introduced compulsorily throughout the whole of their areas.
      Mr. Mullin: The Minister speaks of metering as though it were an academic exercise. In fact, metering has been introduced in a dozen or so areas and the bills are now hitting the doormats. We do not need to speculate: we know that many people are receiving bills two, three or four times higher than their previous bills. How does that square with the Minister's repeated assurances in Committee about the legislation's effect on prices?
      Mr. Howard: As I have already said, metering is not a consequence of privatisation; it is an alternative method of charging to that based on domestic rateable value, which is being abolished. Experimental metering is taking place in several parts of the country and we shall benefit from the experience. It is by no means self-evident that water should be treated differently from food, for example, which is paid for on the basis of the amount consumed. Opposition Members appear to regard it as absolutely self-evident that there should be a system of charging for each and every commodity that has absolutely nothing to do with the amount consumed. There is no self-evident rule of law, justice or morals that suggests that people should not pay for such commodities according to the quantities consumed, provided that proper arrangements are made for the least-well-off members of the community. Such arrangements should be made through the social security system and not through some arbitrary method of charging that does not attempt to correlate use and cost.
      The hon. Lady referred to some estimates of the likely effect of water privatisation on the prices charged. The estimates are erroneous—as the hon. Lady will realise, no doubt to her acute disappointment, when the prices are announced. She will have to wait a little longer before being given that information.
      Mrs. Ann Taylor: What about cost pass-through?
      Mr. Howard: Costs will not simply be arbitrarily shifted to cost pass-through. The arrangements for cost pass-through are set out in detail in the licence, which has been available in the Library for some days. It is clear that it is not possible for cost pass-through to be used to deal with matters that were foreseeable from the outset. In some instances the obligation will not have been foreseeable. In some instances, no doubt, the cost of meeting the obligation will not have been foreseeable. Both cost pass-through and benefit pass-through—the mechanism that will give to the companies and their customers a proportion of the proceeds from the disposal of their assets—are intended to deal with unforeseen circumstances. The detailed provisions for that are set out in the draft licence.
      The hon. Lady's final point related to connection charges. The introduction of that measure was a typical example of what I referred to during my speech in the guillotine debate earlier—of the Government listening to reasonable and sensible amendments put forward while the Bill was proceeding through Parliament. It was not the Government's intention to introduce that measure, but the arguments put forward in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker) and others of my hon. Friends were so sensible that I was persuaded that it would improve the Bill.
      One of my most enjoyable memories of the Committee stage was the sight of the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael)—the leading Opposition spokesman—in a state of exquisite equivocation as he wondered what on earth to say in response to the sensible proposals put forward by my hon. Friends. The hon. Gentleman could not decide what to say or what to do. His was a remarkable speech in a remarkable Committee. We have set out our responses and conclusions, and we are holding consultations before the detailed regulatory arrangements are finalised. We shall of course take into account the views of bodies such as the House-Builders Federation that have a direct interest before final regulations are made.
      I invite the House to reject the Opposition's amendment as being undesirable and unworkable, and I commend Lords amendments Nos. 13 and 15.
      5.30 pm
      Mr. Paul Boateng: In his opening remarks, the Minister charged the House—as though addressing a recalcitrant and incredulous jury—that it should take into account the context in which the Lords amendments fall to be considered. My right hon. and hon. Friends want to take the context into account, because it is one in which the City of London has given water privatisation what one respected financial columnist described over the weekend as a "thumbs down". That is the context in which we should consider the Lords amendments and the Minister's rejection of the Opposition amendment to protect and to preserve equity as between the rural and the urban consumer. The Government have brought forward their own sham amendments relating to pricing because they know that the share issue can be successful only if the Government create a situation in which the water industry can exploit its monopoly control over prices to make the flotation attractive to prospective investors.

      53
      It is worth while considering the state in which the Government find themselves in relation to their friends in the City. A recent survey by Harris revealed that 59 per cent. of fund managers believe that the domestic water industry should not be privatised before it meets European standards. More than half the fund managers polled expect the dividend yield to exceed 7 per cent., which compares with a current average equity yield of only 4·4 per cent. Meanwhile, 91 per cent. of respondents to the Harris poll have not even set aside specific funds to invest in water. That is the context in which the Lords amendments are presented by the Government and in which they oppose our amendment. The Government are in a blind funk.
      Mr. Nicholas Soames: A blind what?
      Mr. Boateng: The hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) mutters and moans in his usual sedentary and stultifying manner. I repeat that Government Members are in a blind funk over what will happen when the water industry is privatised and they seek to float that offer. They do not know what is about to hit them. In their desperation they attempt to preserve a pricing mechanism that will maximise the yield to shareholders.
      The great mischief and evil about the Bill is the way in which, in a natural monopoly, it sets the shareholder against the consumer. The Bill creates a situation in which consumer interests in respect of health, safety and water quality will be subordinated to the greed and avarice of shareholders.
      Mr. Leigh: Nonsense.
      Mr. Boateng: It is no use the hon. Gentleman shouting "Nonsense" because I have described the reality of the position. The Government's amendments are designed to avoid the fiasco that is in store for them.
      The Minister can take one crumb of comfort from the Harris opinion poll. I suspect from the glimmer of recognition in his eyes, which those of us who served in Committee came to know all too well, that he has been feasting on that crumb—as well he might. The crumb is that when people were asked to identify the politician responsible for water privatisation, 18 per cent. identified the Secretary of State for the Environment, and only 3 per cent. identified the Minister for Water and Planning. That must be a great comfort to him—certain, as he must be, that his vocation and the Bill are an unmitigated disaster. Only 3 per cent. of the population will blame the Minister, but unfortunately for him it is not the people of this country who will determine his fate in the near future—although they may do so in the medium term. It is her upstairs who will determine the Minister's fate, and she has both him and the Secretary of State for the Environment well in her sights because of the consequences of the disastrous privatisation of the water industry.
      Mr. Tim Boswell: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman feels better now that he has got that little joke off his chest. The hon. Gentleman referred to a lack of a sense of identity as between shareholders and consumers. How much sense of identity was there between the public authorities, with the Labour Government behind them, and consumers when water prices were bumped up by 40 per cent. in a single year in the 1970s? Is the official view that he is peddling today that the water industry will be
      54
      unsaleable because its prices are too low, or saleable because its prices will be too high? It is impossible even for the hon. Gentleman to sustain both propositions.
      Mr. Boateng: As the hon. Gentleman knows only too well, the gap between water prices and the retail price index has increased dramatically under the present Government, whereas under the previous Labour Government it closed. The hon. Gentleman makes an entirely spurious argument.
      On the basis of what occurred in Committee and in another place, and of today's proceedings, consumers are right to be fearful of the fact that hidden within factor K is a remedy for increased prices. Factor K gives those who want to acquire the water industry the ability to boost profits, pass on any unforeseen costs, and avoid any risk that might otherwise arise in meeting required European standards. Built into the Government's proposals are practices that are discriminatory as between the urban and rural consumer and that will exploit the water companies' monopoly at every turn. The public know of that, which is why they are overwhelmingly opposed to water privatisation and to the pricing mechanism that the Government try to defend.
      Only this morning I received a letter
      Mrs. Alice Mahon: I know that my hon. Friend is about to say that this morning he received a letter from the chair of a water authority. Is my hon. Friend aware that over the past five years river and sewage pollution in Yorkshire has doubled, yet the chair of Yorkshire Water spends taxpayers' money hand over fist on advertisements that have got up my constituents' noses? Everyone who has written to me is outraged about the doubling of pollution.
      Mr. Boateng: My hon. Friend has put her finger on the speciousness of the propaganda put out by the chairmen of the water authorities. The letter that I received today from the chairman of Thames Water contained the usual series of anodyne points seeking to justify the unjustifiable—and, one is bound to add, to obscure the truth, which is that there is no way in which consumers will benefit from the sale.
      One of the Government's proposals for the price mechanism attempts to buttress the advice already seized upon by Warburg Securities, the Government's broking adviser. Of course, the Government must work hand in hand with the brokers, who are the only people likely to benefit from privatisation. The main selling point for shares that already seem
      "to have been condemned to slow profit growth"
      is that
      "'stable and, probably, highly in elastic demand allied to rising prices make the revenue characteristics of the industry extremely attractive,' says Warburg, making the best of a difficult task."
      It is a difficult task, but one thing that we know for certain is that it will be made even more difficult for the consumer who will have to meet the rising prices.
      The chairmen of the water authorities have not always spoken with quite the pleasant, reasonable voice with which they purport to speak in the letter. I cannot but refer to the position in the north-west, and to a report that appeared in The Independent on 22 May, headed
      "Where there's mucky water there may be investors' brass".

      55
      That has a familiar ring, when we think of the muck and the worms that now infest our water.
      What the chairman of Thames Water says is interesting and worthy of consideration. According to The Independent,
      "one water authority chairman described it"—
      the flotation and purchase of shares in water—
      "as better than a gilt because it will be inflation-proof, with a little bit of sparkle and risk added by the diversification opportunities—'like safe sex'."
      The mind boggles. That we should have sunk to such depths that chairmen of public bodies describe share flotations in terms of safe sex! It raises the spectre of Messrs Howard and Ridley as the Masters and Johnson of water privatisation. They are trying to sell the unsellable, and, whenever possible, to exploit the consumer for the benefit of the shareholder. We shall oppose them at every turn.
      Mr. Nicholas Baker: We heard a good deal from the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) in Committee, and were vastly amused by most of what he had to say—especially the bits that related to opera, which constituted the greater part of his speeches. Today, however, he finally told us his real concern, which is not for the consumer but for the shareholder.
      The hon. Gentleman gave away the secret at the start of his excellent speech by expressing anxiety about the report that the Bill had received a thumbs-down from the City. It is a bit early for him to worry—the industry has not yet been privatised, so there is hope for his children sitting in the car park about which we heard so much. I advise him to go for the shares when they eventually appear.
      5.45 pm
      Lords amendment No. 13, which I welcome, is about consumers. We have heard remarkably little from Opposition Members about the consumer's interests. We have not even heard that the director general is to control prices, although that is surely one of the greatest consumer measures ever devised.
      My hon. Friend the Minister mentioned another consumer measure—the connection charge. As he kindly said, my hon. Friends and I suggested that in Committee, but apparently the Opposition were not listening at that point. The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) got into some difficulties in his speech—it is a great pleasure to see the hon. Gentleman in his place now—because he did not realise that the connection charge was a consumer measure. It is a one-off charge to be paid by developers on new properties to cover the capital costs of water and sewerage services. I will anticipate the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), who has a pencil ready to write down her question. The price will come out of the land. If the hon. Lady talks to developers, that is the answer that she will hear from them.
      Mrs. Ann Taylor rose—
      Mr. Baker: Perhaps the hon. Lady will allow me to finish as there is not much time.
      It is existing consumers who will benefit from the connection charge, and it is right that they should not pay extra capital costs from new developments in their areas, and that the charge should be paid from the new land, with its inflated building costs. The measure will also replace the
      56
      section 52 agreements arrived at by many local authorities, and will end uncertainty and some of the less desirable deals done by local authorities and developers involving new capital costs. I therefore reject amendment (a) and reiterate my support, and that of my hon. Friends, for Lords amendment No. 13 which, like so many of the Government's amendments to the Bill, is a consumer-friendly measure.
      Mr. Allan Roberts: This has been a wide-ranging debate. The Minister has accused Labour Members in the other place of voting against measures designed to protect the consumer, but that is not possible as there are no such measures in the Bill. The powers of the Director General of Water Services are such that the consumer will be far from protected.
      The party of so-called choice is introducing compulsory metering. In Committee, Conservative Members said that they wanted metering. They can have meters now. Metering is not compulsory, so if people choose to have water meters there is nothing wrong with that.
      The Minister claims that the likelihood of the introduction of compulsory water metering in many areas has nothing whatever to do with privatisation. He believes that that exonerates the Government from blame. But it has everything to do with the poll tax legislation. If rateable values are abolished by the poll tax legislation, another means of charging has to be found. When compulsory water meters are installed in every home—at a capital cost of £1·6 billion—that will be a good way of providing the private water companies with a licence to print money. The compulsory water meter, which is a direct consequence of the poll tax legislation, is thoroughly unfair, switching the burden of taxation from the rich to the poor, who will be charged for the amount of water that they use.
      The Minister extols that fact as a virtue, but the cost of water bears no relation to the amount that is used. Unlike electricity, which is expensive to produce but cheap to distribute, water is cheap to produce but expensive to distribute. As soon as the infrastructure is paid for and the pipes are there to take water to households, people can use twice as much water without it costing the water companies twice as much. The extra cost is negligible. It is the cost of getting the water there in the first place that is the problem. If people economise and use half as much water as their next door neighbours, the water companies will not save half the cost. Once the pipe has been laid and the water provided, the cost has already been met. There are no savings to be made by water metering. If the Government are concerned about economising and getting people to think about saving water, they should do something about the 20 to 30 per cent. of water which is leaking out of an aging system. That is the amount of water that leaves the reservoirs but never reaches people's taps because the system is out of date. The £1·6 billion capital cost of installing meters would be better spent on mending an aging leaking system so that water is no longer wasted.
      Water metering is a tax on bath time. Large families will be reluctant to use water to bath their children as often as they should so as to cut down their water bills. The elderly, who already economise on electricity and other forms of energy for heating their homes because they are worried

      57
      about the size of their bills, will economise on the use of water as well. They will be reluctant to flush the loo or to bath as often as they would like.
      If compulsory water metering is not introduced, the alternative is a water poll tax. That is the prospect that the Government are offering in this Bill, which they say shows their concern for the consumer. There will be a flat rate water charge—another shifting of the burden of costs and taxation from the rich to the poor. North-West Water is determined to introduce compulsory water metering for all industrial and commercial users immediately after privatisation. It is already determined to compel any new dwelling to have a water meter, and it has made plans for the compulsory fitting of water meters over a period of years throughout the whole of its area. North-West Water is not concerned about the consumer. There will he an army of meter readers. Huge capital expenditure will be involved, which will lead to a tax on the use of water—a tax on cleanliness and a switch in the burden of taxation from rich to poor.
      With the 27 per cent. price increase that all independent experts have calculated is likely after privatisation, we shall have the Government's disgraceful cut-off regime. The policy statements by the Department of the Environment on disconnections and guaranteed standards of service by private water companies are also a disgrace. The water industry clearly expects an increase in the number of disconnections from the domestic water supply. That is how much the Government care about the consumer. Last year, 9,000 people supplied by water authorities and 6,000 supplied by water companies had their water supply disconnected. The Labour party believes that water disconnection should never be necessary. Water is fundamental to the health and wellbeing of the nation. Giving privately owned monopolies wider scope and greater powers to disconnect customers who have difficulty paying for their water has no place in a civilised society. Yet that is what the Government and the Ministers are proposing. According to their revised code of practice, people on low incomes with a history of payment difficulties will be legally discriminated against. Their case will not be heard in the county courts. It is essential that every water consumer should at least have the option of a county court hearing to explain the circumstances of non-payment.
      The Bill ought to provide much stronger safeguards for the sick and the disabled who are large users of water. Payment by instalments should be an option for every water consumer, not just those with payment difficulties. It is outrageous that the provisions were drafted by the industry and the Government without consulting consumer organisations. Privatisation of the water industry is already leading to huge price increases, which will inevitably lead to financial hardship for many consumers and to the likelihood of more people on low incomes being denied access to a domestic water supply. The prospects for families with children, for the disabled and for the elderly are horrendous. The social and health consequences of water supplies being cut off are so great that in many areas the Government are putting at risk the health and the wellbeing of whole communities. It is amazing that the Government are so callous about their cut-off regime and about the potential difficulties that people will face in paying their water bills as a result at having to meet the costs of privatisation and water metering.
      Mr. Allen McKay: Does my hon. Friend recall that we were able to produce water bills in the Sheffield area which proved that 67 per cent. of the water charges for single pensioners were not for water but for water metering? The Minister referred to the payment of welfare benefit, but I recall the Department of Social Security saying that there would be no financial help to meet water bills.
      Mr. Roberts: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Our concern for people in such difficulties is clear. The Government's lack of concern is equally clear. They claim that this is an environmental measure because it will release water authorities from the constraints of the public sector borrowing requirement, but that can be done at a stroke anyway. Privatisation is not needed for water authorities to be able to borrow on the open market. One can imagine what will happen after flotation. During the lunch break at the Stock Exchange, the developers, the speculators and others in the City will be saying, "What shall we invest our money in today to make a quick buck or a long-term gain? Let us invest in the problems of cleaning up the river Mersey. Let us put our money into cleaning up Britain's bathing beaches and drinking water. We can borrow money on the open market as we are sure to make a packet out of it because it is very profitable."
      My car broke down last week outside the House of Commons. It had a puncture. The police did not help me, so I got out and jacked up the car. I was about to take the wheel off when the Secretary of State for the Environment came by, opened the front door of my car and started to remove the radio. When I said, "What are you doing, mate?" he replied, "If you're having the wheels, I'm having the radio." Then the Prime Minister came along. She opened the bonnet of the car and was messing about underneath. The Secretary of State for the Environment and I asked, "What are you doing?" She replied, "Taking the water out of the radiator—you don't know how much this will cost very soon."
      6 pm
      Mr. John Heddle: I wish briefly to pursue the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker). I agree with him absolutely that the cost of connection for new homes will ultimately have an impact on the value and cost of building land. Anything that can legitimately keep down the cost of building land must ultimately be to the benefit of the consumer, particularly first-time buyers, whom we must protect.
      May I press my hon. and learned Friend the Minister a little further? If I heard the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) correctly, she said from the Dispatch Box that the cost of connection could well be some £2.000 per dwelling. As I understand it—
      It being Six o'clock, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the order this day, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
      The House divided: Ayes 188, Noes 303.

      Division No. 272]

      [6 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Allen, Graham

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Anderson, Donald

      Ashton, Joe

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      59

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Hoyle, Doug

      Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Battle, John

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Beckett, Margaret

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Beith, A. J.

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Ingram, Adam

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Janner, Greville

      Blunkett, David

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Boateng, Paul

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      Boyes, Roland

      Kennedy, Charles

      Bradley, Keith

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

      Livingstone, Ken

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Livsey, Richard

      Buckley, George J.

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Caborn, Richard

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Callaghan, Jim

      McAllion, John

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      McCartney, Ian

      Canavan, Dennis

      Macdonald, Calum A.

      Cartwright, John

      McFall, John

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      McKelvey, William

      Clay, Bob

      McLeish, Henry

      Clelland, David

      McWilliam, John

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Madden, Max

      Cohen, Harry

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Marek, Dr John

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Cousins, Jim

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Cox, Tom

      Martlew, Eric

      Crowther, Stan

      Maxton, John

      Cryer, Bob

      Meacher, Michael

      Cunningham, Dr John

      Meale, Alan

      Dalyell, Tarn

      Michael, Alun

      Darling, Alistair

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Morgan, Rhodri

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

      Morley, Elliott

      Oewar, Donald

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Dixon, Don

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Dobson, Frank

      Mullin, Chris

      Doran, Frank

      Murphy, Paul

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

      Nellist, Dave

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      O'Brien, William

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

      O'Neill, Martin

      Fisher, Mark

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Flannery, Martin

      Pendry, Tom

      Flynn, Paul

      Pike, Peter L.

      Foster, Derek

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Foulkes, George

      Prescott, John

      Fraser, John

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Fyfe, Maria

      Radice, Giles

      Galloway, George

      Randall, Stuart

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Reid, Dr John

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Richardson, Jo

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

      Gordon, Mildred

      Robertson, George

      Gould, Bryan

      Rogers, Allan

      Graham, Thomas

      Rooker, Jeff

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Sheerman, Barry

      Grocott, Bruce

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Skinner, Dennis

      Haynes, Frank

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Heffer, Eric S.

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

      Henderson, Doug

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

      Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

      Snape, Peter

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Soley, Clive

      Hood, Jimmy

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Howells, Geraint

      Stott, Roger

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Strang, Gavin

      60

      Straw, Jack

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Wilson, Brian

      Turner, Dennis

      Winnick, David

      Vaz, Keith

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Wall, Pat

      Worthington, Tony

      Wallace, James

      Wray, Jimmy

      Walley, Joan

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

      Mr. Ken Eastham and

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie.

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

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

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Alexander, Richard

      Day, Stephen

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Devlin, Tim

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      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)

      Dykes, Hugh

      Ashby, David

      Eggar, Tim

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Atkins, Robert

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Evennett, David

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

      Baldry, Tony

      Fallon, Michael

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Favell, Tony

      Batiste, Spencer

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Bendall, Vivian

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Forman, Nigel

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Forth, Eric

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      Body, Sir Richard

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Freeman, Roger

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      French, Douglas

      Boswell, Tim

      Fry, Peter

      Bottomley, Peter

      Gale, Roger

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Gardiner, George

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Bowis, John

      Gill, Christopher

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Brazier, Julian

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Bright, Graham

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Gorst, John

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

      Gow, Ian

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Gregory, Conal

      Burns, Simon

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Burt, Alistair

      Grist, Ian

      Butcher, John

      Ground, Patrick

      Butler, Chris

      Grylls, Michael

      Butterfill, John

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Hague, William

      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

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Hayes, Jerry

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

      Colvin, Michael

      Hayward, Robert

      Conway, Derek

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Heddle, John

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Cope, Rt Hon John

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Couchman, James

      Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

      Cran, James

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Critchley, Julian

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Curry, David

      Holt, Richard

      61

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Mellor, David

      Howard, Michael

      Miller, Sir Hal

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

      Mills, Iain

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Mitchell, Sir David

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Moate, Roger

      Hunter, Andrew

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Irvine, Michael

      Moore, Rt Hon John

      Jack, Michael

      Morrison, Sir Charles

      Jackson, Robert

      Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

      Janman, Tim

      Moss, Malcolm

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Moynihan, Hon Colin

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Mudd, David

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Neale, Gerrard

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Nelson, Anthony

      Key, Robert

      Neubert, Michael

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Knapman, Roger

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Norris, Steve

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Knowles, Michael

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Knox, David

      Page, Richard

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Paice, James

      Latham, Michael

      Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Patnick, Irvine

      Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

      Patten, John (Oxford W)

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Pawsey, James

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Lilley, Peter

      Portillo, Michael

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Price, Sir David

      Lyell, Sir Nicholas

      Raffan, Keith

      McCrindle, Robert

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Macfarlane, Sir Neil

      Rathbone, Tim

      MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

      Redwood, John

      Maclean, David

      Renton, Tim

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Rhodes James, Robert

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Riddick, Graham

      Madel, David

      Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Malins, Humfrey

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      Mans, Keith

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Maples, John

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      Marland, Paul

      Rost, Peter

      Marlow, Tony

      Rowe, Andrew

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Ryder, Richard

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Mates, Michael

      Sainsbury, Hon Tim

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      62

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Trippier, David

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Trotter, Neville

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Shersby, Michael

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Wakeham, Rt Hon John

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Waldegrave, Hon William

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Walden, George

      Speller, Tony

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      Waller, Gary

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Walters, Sir Dennis

      Squire, Robin

      Ward, John

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Warren, Kenneth

      Steen, Anthony

      Watts, John

      Stern, Michael

      Wells, Bowen

      Stevens, Lewis

      Wheeler, John

      Stokes, Sir John

      Whitney, Ray

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Sumberg, David

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Summerson, Hugo

      Wilshire, David

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Wolfson, Mark

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Wood, Timothy

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Woodcock, Dr. Mike

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Yeo, Tim

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Younger, Rt Hon George

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Thorne, Neil

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Mr. Tony Durant and

      Thurnham, Peter

      Mr. David Lightbown.

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Question accordingly negatived.
      MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Question necessary for the disposal of the business to he concluded by Six o'clock.
      Lords amendment No. 13 agreed to.

      Royal Assent
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

      Police Officers (Central Service) Act 1989.

      Hearing Aid Council (Amendment) Act 1989. Dock Work Act 1989.

      Kingston upon Hull City Council Act 1989.

      Tees (Newport) Bridge Act 1989.

Water Bill
Lords amendments again considered.
Lords amendment: No. 14, in page 7, line 19, at end insert—
—"( ) to ensure that the interests of every such person are further protected as respects benefits that could be secured for them by the application in a particular manner of any of the proceeds of a disposal (whether before, on or after the transfer date) of any of that company's protected land or of any interest or right in or over any of that land;"
Read a Second time.
6.15 pm
Dr. Cunningham: I beg to move, as an amendment to the Lords amendment, amendment (a), in line 4, leave out 'any of the proceeds' and insert
'not less than fifty per cent of the proceeds'.
" .—(1) The Authority shall not dispose of any of its compulsorily acquired land, or of any interest or right in or over any of the land, except with the consent of, or in accordance with a general authorisation given by, the Secretary of State or the Minister.
(2) A company holding an appointment under Chapter I of Part II of this Act shall not dispose of any of its protected land, or of any interest or right in or over any of that land, except with the consent of, or in accordance with a general authorisation given by, the Secretary of State.
(3) A consent or authorisation for the purposes of this section shall be set out in a notice served by the Secretary of State or the Minister on the person who is or may be authorised, by virtue of the provision contained in the notice, to dispose of land or of interests or rights in or over land or, as the case may be, on every such person.
(4) A consent or authorisation for the purposes of this section may be given on such conditions as the Secretary of State or, as the case may be, the Minister considers appropriate.
(5) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (4) above and subject to subsection (6) below, the conditions of a consent or authorisation for the purposes of this section may include—

(a) a requirement that, before there is any disposal, an opportunity of acquiring the land in question, or an interest or right in or over that land, is to be made avaialbe, in such manner and on such terms as may be specified in or determined under provision contained in the notice setting out the consent or authorisation, to such person as may be so specified or determined;

(b) a requirement, in the case of a consent or authorisation for the purposes of subsection (2) above, that the company making the disposal has complied with such of the conditions of its appointment under Chapter I of Part II of this Act as relate to the disposal of its protected land or of any interest or right in or over that land;

(c) a requirement that such a company, before making a disposal in a case in which the land in question is situated in a National Park, in the Broads or in an area of outstanding natural beauty or special scientific interest, should do one or both of the following, that is to say—

(i) consult with the Countryside Commission and, in the case of an area of special scientific interest, with the Nature Conservancy Council; and

(ii) enter into such agreements under section 39 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (management agreements) or such convenants under subsection (7) below as the Secretary of State may determine;

(d) provision requiring determinations under or for the purposes of the consent or authorisation to be made, in such cases as are mentioned in paragraph (c) above, either by the Countryside Commission or only after consultation with that Commission.

(6) A consent or authorisation shall not be given on any such condition as is mentioned in subsection (5)(a) above except where the Secretary of State or the Minister is satisfied that the condition will have effect in relation only to—

(a) land which, or any interest or right in or over which, was acquired by—

(i) The Authority;

(ii) the water undertaker or sewerage undertaker in question; or

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to take amendment (b) to the Lords amendment, in line 4, leave out 'any of the proceeds' and insert 'all of the proceeds'.
Lords amendments Nos. 41 to 43, 151 and 157.
Lords amendment No. 158, after clause 147, to insert the following new clause—restriction on disposals of land—

(iii) any predecessor of the Authority or undertaker, either compulsorily or at a time when the Authority, undertaker or predecessor was authorised to acquire it compulsorily; or

(b) land situated in a National Park, in the Broads or in an area of outstanding natural beauty or special scientific interest.

(7) Where a company holding an appointment under Chapter 1 of Part II of this Act is proposing, in such a case as is mentioned in subsection (5)(c) above, to dispose of, or of any interest or right in or over, any of its protected land, it may enter into a covenant with the Secretary of State by virture of which it accepts obligations with respect to—

(a) the freedom of access to the land that is to be afforded to members of the public or to persons of any description; or

(b) the use of management of the land;

and a covenant under this subsection shall bind all persons deriving title from or under that company and shall be enforceable by the Secretary of State accordingly.
(8) Section 8 above shall have effect for the purposes of this section as if every proposal which—

(a) is made by a company holding an appointment as a water undertaker or sewerage undertaker with respect to land in a National Park, in the Broads or in an area of outstanding natural beauty or special scientific interest or with respect to any interest or right in or over any such land; and

(b) is a proposal for which the Secretary of State's consent or authorisation is required under this section,

were a proposal relating to the functions of that undertaker.
(9) In this section "compulsorily acquired land", in relation to the Authority, means any land of the Authority which—

(a) was acquired by the Authority compulsorily under the provisions of section 147 above or of section 150 below;

(b) was acquired by the Authority at a time when it was authorised under those provisions to acquire the land compulsorily;

(c) being land which has been transferred to the Authority in accordance with a scheme under Schedule 2 to this Act, was acquired by a predecessor of the Authority compulsorily under so much of any enactment in force at any time before the transfer date as conferred powers of compulsorily acquisition; or

(d) being land which has been so transferred, was acquired by such a predecessor at a time when it was authorised to acquire the land by virtue of any such powers as are mentioned in paragraph (c) above.)

(10) In this section—
"area of outstanding natural beauty or special scientific interest" means an area which—

(a) is for the time being designated as an area of outstanding natural beauty for the purposes of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949; or

(b) is an area in relation to which a notification given, or having effect as if given, under section 28 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (areas of special scientific interest) for the time being has effect;

and the reference in subsection (5)(c) above to an area of special scientific interest shall, accordingly, be construed as a reference to an area such as is mentioned in paragraph (b) of this definition; and
"the Broads" has the same meaning as in the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Act 1988."
Amendment (a) to the Lords amendment, in line 14, at end insert—
(3A) Before granting any consent or authorisation under this section, the Secretary of State shall undertake public consultation, and for the purposes of such consultation shall—

(a) invite representations from such individuals or organisations as appear to him to be concerned; and

(b) publish a notice of the applications for consent or authorisation in the London Gazette and such local newspapers and other publications as appear to him to be relevant and no period for representations shall be specified which is less than 42 days.'.

Amendment (b) to the Lords amendment, in line 35, in subsection (5)(c), after 'Broads', insert in a designated area'.
Amendment (c) to the Lords amendment, at end of subsection (1). Add—
'"designated area" means any area which is for the time being designated by an order made by the Secretary of State by
66
statutory instrument as an area in relation to which this section should apply as if it were in a National Park, the Broads or an area of outstanding beauty.'.
Lords amendments Nos. 171 and 172.
Dr. Cunningham: I shall discuss amendments (a) and (b) to Lords amendment No. 14 and amendments (a), (b) and (c) to Lords amendment No. 158.
Lords amendment No. 14 places a duty on the director general to secure something for water consumers from the profits made from the sale of protected land. Amendments (a) and (b) offer the Government two choices: first. that 50 per cent. of the proceeds should be given to the consumer, which would be in line with a statement made by the Minister for Water and Planning and Ministers in another place but which was not written into the legislation; and, secondly, that 100 per cent. of the proceeds from the sale of such land should be given to the consumer.
Lords amendment No. 158 is a new clause relating to land disposals and introduces new procedures tor land

67
sales in national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty, sites of special scientific interest and the Norfolk broads. Amendments (a), (b) and (c) introduce an important measure of consultation into the land proposals and reinstate a provision for the Secretary of State to designate other areas as though the categories apply.
It never fails to astonish people here and abroad when they learn that a British Government are offering tracts of our national parks for sale. The idea behind the creation of national parks was to establish areas that should be given the utmost protection in law by the Government. Until the Government introduced the Bill, that was the generally agreed procedure, whatever party was in office.
Mr. Boswell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Dr. Cunningham: In a moment.
Huge areas of our national parks, areas of oustanding natural beauty and other sensitive ecosystems are now up for sale. I readily accept that currently they are not all publicly owned and controlled, but they are strenuously and, in some cases, rigorously controlled. The Bill clears the way for not only the sale of such land but its potential exploitation, about which there is legitimate and widespread concern.
The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): That is wrong.
Dr. Cunningham: The Secretary of State says, "That is wrong." If he has read today's newspapers he will be aware that the director general of the National Trust agrees not with him but with us. In a letter that appeared in today's newspapers he said:
"The Government's retreat from its own measure means that a significant proportion of outstanding fine countryside could be under threat if, as seems likely, the new water companies decide to sell."
That is exactly the point that Labour Members are making, and the director general of the National Trust shares our view.
Mr. Howard: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that, far from sharing his view, the director general of the National Trust is seeking an extension to further areas of the protection that the Bill provides for areas of
outstanding natural beauty, national parks and sites of special scientific interest? The hon. Gentleman has just
suggested that those areas would be up for grabs as a result of the legislation. He does not even understand the letter written by the director general of the National Trust.
Dr. Cunningham: Of course, I understand. I also understand the Council for the Protection of Rural England which has said:
"Third Reading in the House of Lords saw the Government reneging on previous commitments in a quite remarkable way. Amendments introduced by the Government only two weeks previously at Report Stage were turned on their heads as the Government apparently had second thoughts. These actions cause CPRE to seriously question the Government's commitment to protecting the environmental quality of the water industry's land assets."
It is no good the Minister saying that the Labour party does not understand. We have understood from the outset. On Second Reading and during a long Committee stage that same Minister told us that no changes to the Bill were necessary. In Committee he told us that all the
68
amendments were irrelevant. He said that the Bill was perfect as it stood and that there was no question of weakness in respect of safeguarding our national heritage and environment, but then in the House of Lords his right hon. and noble Friends changed their minds. The Government then moved amendments, but subsequently went back on some of those very amendments.
Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman is wrong again. Clearly he has a dim recollection of what transpired in Committee, but I invite him to recall that I always said that we would listen to the arguments advanced on this matter and that we would introduce further protections if they were required. Given that the hon. Gentleman has been wrong in the past five minutes, will he now answer the question that I put to him a moment ago on the proper understanding of the letter in today's papers from the director general of the National Trust?
Dr. Cunningham: I understand that letter and I also understand what the CPRE has said. It is not good enough for Ministers always to come to the House, as they did on Second Reading and in Committee, and say that the Opposition always fail to understand. Every time Government legislation is criticised, apparently that criticism is never valid and is never borne out by the evidence. The answer always given is that the Opposition do not understand. The Minister's problem is that we understand only too well. So do the British people; that is his difficulty.
My memory is at least as good as the Minister's and better than that of the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan) who was ranting earlier and could not even remember the date of the previous general election. We understood the proceedings in Committee and—
Mr. Howard: Answer the question.
Dr. Cunningham: I have answered the question. If the Minister goes back and reads the record, he will see that all the arguments that he dismissed in Committee were suddenly conceded in the House of Lords.
Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman must be made to come to the point instead of flapping and wriggling. Earlier he said that large parts of the national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty would be up for sale to anyone who wished to exploit them. That is not what the director general of the National Trust said. He commended the system of protection in the national parks and he said that he wanted it to be extended to areas other than the specified areas. The hon. Gentleman should withdraw his allegation that large parts of the national parks will be up for grabs. That is not true and he knows it. For once he should make an honest man of himself and withdraw that remark.
Dr. Cunningham: I am well aware, and I think the Secretary of State is, too, that the regional water authorities of England and Wales own about 500,000 acres of land.
Mr. Ridley: Flannel.
Dr. Cunningham: It is not flannel to state a fact. I did not think that anyone would dispute that the regional water authorities own about 500,000 acres of land, much of it in the national parks, in areas of outstanding natural beauty—in sites of special scientific interest and in fragile

69
ecosystems. That is not a Labour party view; it is fact. As a result of the proposals, that land is for sale. Its future well-being is also outwith the direct control of those proposals as that consideration will not be part of the so-called "core activities". That was the argument on Second Reading eight months ago. The Secretary of State cannot run away from the facts. That is why we have argued about those issues since the Bill was published.
Mr. Ridley indicated dissent.
Dr. Cunningham: No matter how hard the Secretary of State shakes his head that is why almost all environmental groups, including anglers, ramblers, the Open Space Society and the National Trust, have persistently bombarded Parliament and his Department for much tighter controls and safeguards. No matter what he says, the Secretary of State cannot get away from that.
We believe that the Government's amendments are something of a victory for the energetic way in which the issues have been pursued, notably by the Ramblers Association and the CPRE. I read in one newspaper article that the Government's advisers had said that the Bill as it originally stood was not good enough. The Countryside Commission and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds were also at the forefront in pressing for more safeguards. I also suggest that my hon. Friends and our colleagues in the other place deserve a little of the credit for the changes that are being made, although I know that the Secretary of State would not concede that for a moment.
On Second Reading we raised the issue of the land held by the water authorities and we have continued to do so because, from day one, we have said that the land—our national heritage—was in danger and represented a deliberate sweetener in the Bill. We warned that taxpayers were in danger of being ripped off.
During the Bill's proceedings the Government have huffed and puffed and they have insisted that the environment, recreation and conservation duties in the Bill apply to the land even when transferred to a subsidiary. The Ramblers Association has obtained two legal opinions to show that the Minister has simply got it wrong. One legal opinion stated:
"I can find nothing in the Bill that so provides. The duty does not attach to the land and does not automatically pass with the transfer of the land."
We believe that the Government amendments—incidentally, they were not even introduced until the penultimate stage of the Bill's proceedings in the other place—are a limited and belated recognition of the dangers. In that sense, they are welcome. We are also aware, however, that some people in the City believe that restricting the opportunities for potential development will obviously make the assets less attractive as a purchase. Those views were highlighted again in the Harris poll in The Observer which found that more than 80 per cent. of fund managers were concerned that any legislation that curbed the water authorities' ability to make profits from their sizeable land and property portfolios would reduce the investment attractions.
Ministers are in a dilemma. They are trying to grab some vestige of public confidence by seeming to protect the land and the taxpayer, given that the scandal of the Royal Ordnance sale is still fresh in people's minds, while saying to the City and those who see land as the only possible money-spinner, "It is all right. We will not make it too difficult for land assets to be stripped and sold for profit".
Mr. Peter L. Pike: My hon. Friend may be interested in the answer given to me today by the Minister to a written question which says that all nine water authorities in England have property or estate managers whose responsibilities include the disposal of surplus land. The function of those officers who are studying land disposal to make the profits to which my hon. Friend referred has concerned the Ramblers Association and others.
6.30 pm
Dr. Cunningham: My hon. Friend is right. Had the Government wanted to give safeguards and tough protection, they would have had far more rigorous proposals in the Bill from the outset. We now have a fudge. We had a ministerial statement to tell the public that the Government recognise that much land might be sold, but that if it was consumers would have perhaps 50 per cent. of the proceeds of the sale. However, there is no guarantee of that in the Bill and that is why we have tabled amendments (a) and (b).
There is no guarantee either that the House or the public will know the value of that land. We have fresh in our minds the experience of the sale of Royal Ordnance, which was heavily criticised some months ago by the Public Accounts Committee and more recently by the Comptroller and Auditor General. The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), who is not in his place at present, said of that experience:
"Whether a going concern or not, surely the vendor of any business must pay full regard to the potential for appreciation in the value of the land as a result of the granting of planning permission?"
The taxpayer lost millions of pounds as a result of the Royal Ordnance sale. Taxpayers are in danger of losing hundreds of millions of pounds from this sale, which is a potential scandal. As far as we know, there will be no public statement of the assessment of the value of all this land to the taxpayer, even though we know that the Government have just instructed their advisers, Schroder Wagg, to produce such a land valuation report. Why is that report not before the House? Why cannot the public and Parliament be told the exact value of our assets before they are disposed of? That is a germane question.
The proposals of the Secretary of State would carry a little more force if he were more open and honest about what is at stake. Everyone understands that the 500,000 acres to which we refer were bought, established, maintained and nurtured over decades at public expense and are a huge public asset. People would rightly argue that in many cases they are a priceless public asset. The House and the public are entitled to know exactly what the land is worth. If it is to be sold and if we are to try to safeguard the interests of the taxpayer and the consumer, the legislation should refer specifically to the benefit.
As everyone knows, I and my hon. Friends do not want the land to be sold at all. But if it is to be sold, should not the public have a guarantee about the benefit? As the Bill stands, they have no guarantee. Perhaps the Minister will tell us why it cannot be written into the Bill that a minimum of 50 per cent.—or, better still, 100 per cent. —of the proceeds will go to consumers. After all, it is our land. Why should we not have the proceeds from its sale?
The Government's concession on the land deal has been to introduce a new consent mechanism for land disposal, whereby the Secretary of State has powers to introduce

71
various conditions on land sales including, for some areas, an option for conservation organisations to purchase and for the imposition of management agreements. That is fine as far as it goes, but it does not go far enough. In some respects, it obscures rather than illuminates the position and there are some serious defects, to which other people have referred, too.
The powers given to the Secretary of State are powers, not a duty to exercise those powers. He will have no statutory obligation to exercise them. He only has to make conditions on disposals that he "considers appropriate." The Ramblers Association believes that that is court-proof, legally sanitised wording. As the Bill stands, Ministers do not even have to announce that the land is up for sale in the first place. The transactions could go ahead without anyone knowing what is happening. If that were to be challenged, the Secretary of State would fall back on the Act and say that he had made conditions that he considered appropriate. Parliament would not be involved and there would be no proper discussion on the merits or otherwise of what was happening. Everything would be done quietly behind closed doors.
Mr. Boswell: Surely it is at that point that the obligations the Minister assumes under his general duty to protect the environment, among other considerations, would come into play. He could be tested in the exercise of the power of withholding consent to disposal.
Dr. Cunningham: I do not agree with that interpretation. If the hon. Gentleman studies the Bill again, perhaps he will agree with me.
There is no provision for public consultation on or notification of land disposal proceedings at any stage. That is an extraordinary omission and raises the possibilities of everything being done secretly. Our amendments provide for full consultation. If the Government want to be taken seriously on the issue, they should accept the amendments before it is too late.
The Secretary of State will also have discretion to designate areas as sites of special scientific interest or areas of outstanding natural beauty, such as the Broads. However, once again, it is at the discretion of the Secretary of State. Organisations such as the Council for the Protection of Rural England and the Countryside Commission consider the power to designate essential for the 200,000 acres of land that will not be covered by the new clause. The Government have tried to make much of the last-minute addition of SSSIs to the clause, which replaces the power to designate, but we and the conservation bodies consider it inadequate. It is an attempt, apparently, to deal with the problem while removing a potentially vital additional power. It is a sleight of hand and our view is widely shared outside the House.
Our discussions on the land issue are affected by a further major reservation. Under any other Secretary of State, and certainly under a Labour Secretary of State, the powers could and almost certainly would be exercised to give far tougher and more meaningful protection to land. I say that now so that no one can be in any doubt about our intentions. However, under the present Secretary of State, who has a laissez-faire attitude not only to these issues but to planning generally, the Government's
72
amendments are simply an attempt to pay lip service to the notion of needing to give more rigorous protection to our land. They introduce, over and above the current flawed planning system, a mechanism for the Secretary of State, if he wishes, to slip through land sales to anyone he wishes, in any circumstances he wishes, without the necessity of public notification, public consultation or a public right of appeal. That is wholly unsatisfactory and that is why we have tabled our amendments.
Mr. Jeremy Hanley: I wish to speak to several amendments, but to refer specifically to the fate of Barn Elms reservoir, which is currently under the control of Thames Water.
Barnes itself is only seven miles from Westminster and still possesses a village atmosphere in an ever-more frenetic world. Although it is blighted by incessant aircraft noise, few residents know of a more pleasant urban environment. We fiercely hold on to our metropolitan open land and, despite high-density housing, relief is at hand in the natural environment, with the river Thames on two sides, Barnes common to the south and Barn Elms reservoir to the east.
Barn Elms comprises nearly 70 acres of reservoir, split into four almost equal quarters. There are approximately 80 acres of surrounding land, including filter beds, allotments and recreational open land. One major problem of the site, and the source of its main threat, is that its status as a site of special scientific interest, granted by the Nature Conservancy Council in June 1985, has recently been lifted. Although there is some argument about whether SSSI status has legally been removed when that status is lifted, it is obvious that removing the cast-iron SSSI status poses an additional threat to that part of London. Because of its proximity to the centre of London, the potential value of the land to a developer is exceptionally high. It must be a gleam in the eye of some official at Thames Water.
I ask my hon. and learned Friend the Minister to consider what Barnes might be like if a large housing estate were built on the site at Barn Elms. The only exit from Barnes to the north is Hammersmith bridge, which has a severely restricted weight limit. Two new crossings over the Thames would be needed to deal with what would be a doubling of the size of the population of Barnes. At the moment one has to wait upwards of half an hour to cross Hammersmith bridge in the morning. If the population of Barnes were doubled, the environmental considerations would be absolutely grotesque—
Mr. Mullin: I have considerable sympathy with the case outlined by the hon. Gentleman, but I invite him to raise his horizons slightly and to recognise that we are talking not only about Barn Elms reservoir—important though that may be to his constituents—but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) has said, about 500,000 acres of some of our prime land.
Mr. Hanley: I readily accept that. However, it is up to each hon. Member to address those general problems in any way that he or she chooses. This matter is of urgent consideration to the people of Barnes and is symptomatic of the general position. Therefore, in choosing this particular area of difficulty caused by the legislation, I am addressing the more general points—
Mr. Mullin rose—
Mr. Hanley: No, I shall not give way again because this is only a short debate.
Mr. Mullin rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order.
Mr. Hanley: I do not want to give way because this is a short debate—
Mr. Mullin: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. I suspect that this is an example of the phenomenon. known as "not in my back yard". It is distasteful to those of us who oppose the Bill root and branch to see special pleading from hon. Members who represent constituencies that are a good deal more leafy than those that many Opposition Members represent.
Mr. Hanley: In a strange way I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention. I can now point out to my constituents that the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) believes that hon. Members should not fight fiercely for the interests of their constituents. The hon. Gentleman is saying that I should not care about my own back yard. That is disgraceful—
Mr. Mullin: No, I am not saying that.
Mr. Hanky: I hope that Labour party supporters in my constituency will regret the hon. Gentleman's words.
Mr. Mullin: I have said that I was not saying that.
6.45 pm
Mr. Hanley: In a debate on Barn Elms reservoir on 29 July 1988, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley), stated, on her very first day as a Minister:
"I assure him"—
that is, me—
"that that is a very premature fear at this stage, although it is entirely understandable and right that people living in or near areas of wildlife interest wish those areas to be properly protected and looked after. That is especially true in urban areas, where opportunities to see and enjoy wildlife are greatly valued …
If the water authority decides that Barn Elms reservoir is no longer required for operational purposes, it could still be managed positively for wildlife benefit by the local authority or a conservation group. The NCC is well able to assist with such arrangements as a result of its expertise and professionalism.…
Whatever the future ownership of the site, any proposals for a change in its current use would have to be considered in accordance with the guidance given in circular 27/87 entitled `Nature Conservation'. That reinforces the advice given to local authorities that they should take full account of the needs of nature conservation not only in determining individual planning applications but in formulating general planning policies. An awareness of conservation should be built into the whole range of their activities affecting the use of land.
I hope that I have been able to reassure my hon. Friend that, even if the site should eventually be de-notified as an SSSI, there are a number of other ways of protecting its wildlife interest".—[Official Report, 29 July 1988; Vol. 138, c. 860–63.]
That view was reinforced by my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Water and Planning who, in a letter to me dated 8 June 1989, stated that the amendments that we are discussing
"will ensure that the conservation and recreation duties will apply to the management of all land owned by water companies even if they no longer need it for their statutory
74
functions. If such land is disposed of in areas of environmental importance the Secretary of State will have wide powers under the Bill to impose, as a condition of sale, any measures necessary to ensure continued protection of special conservation and amenity features of the land. These will include an obligation that the land be first offered to a conservation body, or that it is indefinitely protected by covenants or management agreements with National Parks authorities or local authorities. These provisions have been warmly welcomed by the Council for the Protection of Rural England."
Towards the end of the letter he stated:
"It is worth stressing that local authorities which prepare up to date local plans in line with regional guidance can decide where development shall and shall not take place. We have made it clear that we will be guided by them on appeal if developers ignore such plans."
That last sentence is crucial because it shows that, contrary to some of the rumours circulating in my area, it is up to the local authorities to decide whether metropolitan open land is used for building. I am asking my hon. Friend to give an assurance to my constituents that if the local authority decides that the metropolitan open land should remain as such, the Department of the Environment will not try to maximise any benefit for the consumers of Thames Water and decide to overturn the local authority's decision. In the various guidelines that it has issued, the Department has said that it wants to protect metropolitan open land even more stringently than that land has been protected in the past. The draft guidance further protects such property.
There are two major reasons why the rumours of the dangers to this site have been given credence. The first is that Thames Water has apparently said to Richmond upon Thames council that its plans for the disposal of Thames Water, by giving it to the Wildfowl Trust at Slimbridge, have had to be abandoned because of these amendments. The money allocated by the Metropolitan water board for the establishment of a wildfowl trust in the area can no longer be used for that purpose; it must now be used for the benefit of the consumer. In other words, Thames Water was providing cash to set up a wildfowl trust but now believes that it cannot do so because the money must be given to Thames Water consumers. That is a wrong interpretation of the current position and I call on my hon. Friend to give an assurance on that point.
The other main reason why the rumour has been circulating is as follows. The Minister for Water and Planning said in his letter:
"The Government has also asked Debenham Tewson and Chinnocks to conduct a thorough valuation of water authority land. Sites which are surplus to requirement or likely to become so within the next 5 years have been identified. Few of these have planning permission for alternative use which could, if secured, significantly increase their present open market value. This exercise will ensure that the valuation of the companies contained in individual prospectuses includes a reasonable amount for land holdings."
A valuation of Barn Elms has produced a high hope value, as it is known. That must imply a strong possibility that the land will be used for housing, and that high hope value will affect the value of Thames Water in the prospectus. If my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State says that there is a great likelihood that metropolitan open land will remain as metropolitan open land and will not be used for high-density housing, the high hope value for Barn Elms is inaccurate and the value to be given to Thames Water in the prospectus will therefore be exaggerated.

75
I seek an assurance that the Government will carefully consider the amenity value of the area and the unique nature of the wildlife, which includes more than 40 different types of bird, in an area that would otherwise be entirely built-up urban environment. I ask the Government to continue to ensure that such areas are valued and protected, for the benefit of our constituents and local residents and the population of London in general.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the House that we have a lot of ground to cover in a very short time.
Mr. Richard Livsey: I support the amendments. Amendments (a) and (b) would ensure that half the proceeds and 100 per cent. of the proceeds of land sales, respectively, would go to the consumer. There is no doubt that that is right, although it is regrettable that it has been necessary to table such amendments. We are witnessing the land sale of the century. Unfortunately, in the other place, the Government reneged on their previous commitments by removing the discretionary powers of the Secretary of State and thus made a mockery of their previous promises.
I am especially concerned about what will happen in Wales. My constituency contains two thirds of the land holdings of Welsh Water—21,000 acres in the Brecon Beacons national park and 45,000 acres in the Elan valley. Both locally and nationally it is feared that that land will be sold off. The Council for the Protection of Rural England has said that at least 15 per cent. of the Elan valley—7,000 acres—is in danger as a result of the exclusion of a number of exceptional landscape areas from possible protection. Those areas need to be protected, but it is feared that they will be exploited and farmers in the Elan valley already see signs to suggest that their rents will escalate.
The land should be properly valued. Amendments were tabled in Committee to involve district valuers in the valuation of the land and to prevent the involvement of too many commercial interests. We can only hope for a fair valuation and that we shall all know what the valuation is and when and where land is to be sold. The process should not take place behind closed doors.
I draw the attention of the House to the fact that on 23 March 12 merchant bankers were helicoptered around Wales to look at the real estate for sale. Obviously, they did not know where the land was, so they decided to take a look at it. I think that some of them want to get their hands on it, although according to a report about the attractions of the sale for the City, which appeared in The Observer yesterday, some of them are not so keen as they were before. I believe that there is skulduggery afoot.
An interesting advertisement appeared in The Daily Telegraph on 1 June. A managing director of Welsh Water Enterprises was sought, at an annual salary of £40,000 plus bonus, car and benefit, the location to be Cardiff or Brecon. The advertisement said:
"Welsh Water is looking for a Managing Director for Welsh Water Enterprises, intended to be one of four subsidiary companies of the proposed new group."
We do not know what the four subsidiary companies will do, but I bet my bottom dollar that some of them will be
76
involved in the sale and exploitation of land. That is what this part of the Bill is all about, and that is why I support the amendments.
Mr. Elliot Morley: I wish to refer to land sales and the way in which they will be conducted. I share other hon. Members' concern that, although the Lords amendment would extend the arrangements for the protection of land and in that sense is welcome, the protection needs to be taken very much further. In particular, we should deal with extensions of notification of sites of special scientific interest and the potential damage that might be done to them. We should also incorporate the code of environmental practice in the water undertakers' licence. Those important issues were not dealt with adequately in the other place. They are not especially controversial, and I hope that the Minister will deal with them when he winds up the debate.
Amendment (b) would require the transfer of 100 per cent. of the assets from land sales to the water companies for reinvestment in infrastructure. That is both sound and sensible. If the Government are convinced of the need for more money to be raised to provide for investment in infrastructure, they should accept our amendment. If they do not, they will be acknowledging the fact that they are handing over the proceeds of land sales to private speculators. If that happens, the benefits of the sales will not go to consumers or—more important—to improve the infrastructure to the necessary standard.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Colin Moynihan): I shall deal first with Lords amendments Nos. 14, 41, 43, 157, 158, 171 and 172, and then with the Opposition amendments. I shall be brief because I know that hon. Members on both sides wish to speak in this short debate. The Lords amendments achieve two purposes—to ensure that the special environment quality of much of the land in water authority ownership can be indefinitely protected, and to ensure that the customers of the appointed water and sewerage undertakers share the benefit of any disposals of surplus land.
It is a distinctive feature of this privatisation that the water authorities have very extensive landholdings—more than 430,000 acres—the majority of which lie in national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty and sites of special scientific interest. The amendments meet various concerns about the future of this land. The Government listened carefully to all that was said, in this House and in another place, and by conservation and other bodies outside this House. That is reflected in the amendments which now come for the approval of the House, and which we believe provide a full answer to the concerns that have been expressed.
Amendment No. 14 would impose an additional duty on the Secretary of State and the Director General of Water Services to ensure that the interests of customers are protected in the application of proceeds from disposals of protected land. Protected land is defined in amendment No. 172. Amendments Nos. 41, 42 and 43 make it possible to entrench certain conditions of appointment relating to disposals of land.
The new clause is the centrepiece of this group of proposals. Water and sewerage companies will be able to dispose of their protected land and interests in that land only with the consent of the Secretary of State, or in

77
accordance with a general authorisation given by him. There is a consent requirement for the National Rivers Authority as well. but that applies only to compulsorily acquired land.
The consent mechanism serves three important purposes. First, it will enable the Secretary of State to require that the Crichel Down rules are observed when there are disposals of land which was compulsory acquired. The rules are designed to protect the interests of the former owners of land. They require that when any land which was acquired by compulsory purchase is to be sold, it should be offered first to the person from whom it was acquired. Disposals to former owners under these arrangements will be at a price reflecting current market value, as determined by the district valuer.
The second purpose of the consent provisions relates to the new duty concerning the proceeds from land disposals in amendment No. 14. The intention is to enable customers to benefit from the net receipts from future disposals or land, while preserving incentives for land to be released or developed. It is essential that the arrangements ensure that customers are not prejudiced by two-stage disposals via sister companies, with the sister company realising all of the development gains. This is where the consent mechanism in amendment No. 158 plays a part.
7 pm
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State intends to give the Director General of Water Services a role in disposals through a consent procedure which will be constructed to allow as much self-policing as possible. There will in effect be three categories of disposal. In the first, directors of appointed companies will be able to provide the director with a certificate that the disposal is an arm's length disposal, with no continuing interest in the land by the appointed company or any related company, and that the best price reasonably obtainable has been obtained.
Where such a certificate cannot be provided, but the disposal is below a certain threshold fixed in relation to the value or area of the land concerned, the company will need a certificate from an independent valuer approved by the director general that the best price has been obtained. The independent valuers will report in particular on any prospect that the value of the land may be enhanced by a future planning permission.
In the third category involving disposals above the threshold which are not arm's length disposals, a specific consent will be needed. As a last resort, the director would be able to block inappropriate disposals at less than the best consideration reasonably obtainable, especially where sister companies are involved.
The consent requirements are designed to make sure that the best price is realised by the appointed company. There will be conditions of appointment determining how that value is to be taken into account in price control, so that customers share the benefit of proceeds. The intention is to set a target allowance for disposals when the RPI plus K price control formula is first set. This will be discussed with each authority and company, but it is proposed that it should reflect 100 per cent. of the open market value of identified surplus sites. Where actual receipts vary from the forecast amount a further adjustment of K will be made reflecting 50 per cent. of the excess or shortfall.
Companies will therefore have an incentive to dispose of their surplus land, and to the extent that they can
78
improve on the value of land by obtaining planning permission or selling with clawback conditions that operate in the event of a future planning permission, the improvements of value will be shared 50–50 between customer and shareholder.
Mr. Wigley: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Moynihan: If I do not answer the point that the hon. Gentleman wishes to make, I will give way in a minute.
The third purpose of the consent mechanism is to enable the Secretary of State to impose special requirements when there are disposals of land of particular environmental quality. The essential elements are as follows Within the national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty, the broads, and sites of special scientific interest, special environmental controls will apply to any disposal of land. For any such disposal the Secretary of State's consent will be required, and in deciding whether to give that consent he is to be bound by the clause 8 duties, to further conservation, and to have regard to access.
Within those areas, there is to be a range of special conditions which the Secretary of State can impose on any disposal. He can require that the land be offered m the first instance to a conservation body approved for this purpose by the Countryside Commission—a proposal originally put forward by the National Trust and other conservation bodies. He can also require, as a condition of any disposal, that management agreements can be entered with the relevant park authority or local authority, to the satisfaction of the commission. Finally, he can require covenants for the protection of particular features of the land.
The consent procedures will give the Secretary of State a means of ensuring that the special environmental quality of water authority land can be protected indefinitely. That is in addition to the powerful framework of environmental duties already provided for in clauses 8 to 10.
Mr. Wigley: What concerns me and what may concern other hon. Members who listened carefully to the Minister a few moments ago is that the Minister described the structure as one which can encourage holders of land to dispose of land. Surely the whole thrust of what we were looking for in Committee and in the House of Lords was to avoid any encouragement towards disposal, no matter what conditions apply, and to impose conditions only when disposal is for some reason inevitable. Are the Government now claiming that disposal is a mechanism whereby funds may be raised to make up for the shortfall which might otherwise occur?
Mr. Moynihan: I totally reject that analysis. I f the hon. Gentleman looked at the small print, he would realise that, no matter who owns national parks land now or the water authorities if they wanted to dispose of land in the national parks, there have never been such rigorous controls as those that will be applied now as a result of this measure. There have never been such rigorous controls on the sale of any land in national parks, let alone on private land which may be held after privatisation. Those rigorous controls are welcomed, as the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) stated, as a victory for conservation and recreation. They are a victory because they go further

79
in the protection and enhancement of land for conservation and recreation than anything ever produced before.
Mr. Christopher Hawkins: It is crucial that we get this point clear because, as the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) said, some bodies concerned with the environment and access to the countryside are confused about this part of the Bill. It has changed so often that I am not surprised that they are confused. I am confused as well.
Is the Minister saying that voluntary access agreements which exist only in the Peak District national park in my constituency will definitely be protected on the sale of land even to a company other than that which buys from the water board even on transfer of that land to a subsidiary? Or does the Secretary of State have discretionary powers to protect that access? I should like to know that those access agreements will definitely be protected. If they are to be protected, I do not need to speak again on this amendment and I welcome the changes wholeheartedly.
Mr. Moynihan: For the first time with regard to the sale of any land in national parks, the Secretary of State will have the power to protect access to that land—
Mr. Hawkins: Discretionary power?
Mr. Moynihan: It is important that the Secretary of State ensures that any change in the use of that land is taken into account and that he considers the options that I have outlined to the House today when he exercises his powers. In clause 8, the Secretary of State has a duty to enhance and protect conservation and recreation. There is an important backcloth to that discretionary power, which goes further than any measure with regard to private land sales inside or outside national parks. The Government have also recognised the importance of bringing SSSIs into the category. That will include a large amount of land. The House should welcome that and it should be celebrated as a victory by hon. Members on both sides.
Mr. Hawkins: There are 70 square miles of voluntary access agreements in the Peak District national park. My constituents and I want to know whether that land will be protected by the Bill. I cannot see why we cannot have it on the face of the Bill that the voluntary access agreements will be protected. Some of those agreements run out very soon, in 1991. It is not enough to say that the Secretary of State has discretion to protect them. I do not like discretionary powers of that kind. I want to know that those agreements are definitely protected.
Mr. Moynihan: I give my hon. Friend a clear assurance that those rights of access are protected by the Bill. I have also outlined to the House the precise position that would occur on the sale of any of that land in future. It is very important for me to repeat what I said at the Dispatch Box a few months ago and to reinforce this point. Voluntary rights of access and the right to roam are continued and are protected by the Bill. The safeguards that I discussed when arguing in support of the major environmental safeguards which have been proposed and debated in the House of Lords and which we are considering today—they
80
have been welcomed by the Opposition as a victory for conservation and recreation—apply also to the sale of land.
Dr. Cunningham: Before the Minister slips into the error of saying that the Opposition welcome what has happened in the House of Lords, I remind him that I said that it was a victory in so far as it went, but that the amendments did not go far enough. What would be the circumstances if the Secretary of State—whoever that may be—elects not to use his discretionary powers in those matters? They are, after all, discretionary powers.
Mr. Moynihan: As I have outlined, if the Secretary of State is at odds with the clause 8 duties to which he is subject, he would be clearly out of order in respect of the duties—they are not discretionary—which are outlined in the Bill and are potentially subject to judicial review. That is not a discretion to ignore clause 8 duties. That is right at the heart of the debate and empowers the enhancement of conservation and recreation and the protection of conservation and recreation duties under clause 8.
I have outlined the safeguards for the sales that are being proposed. The hon. Member for Copeland conveniently and completely ignored the clause 8 duties, which are rigorous and were the subject of comprehensive debate. They are absolutely central to what we are debating as the backbone of protection for the land under consideration.
Mr. Churchill: Will my hon. Friend the Minister confirm that when land is offered for sale at the Secretary of State's direction an opportunity will first be given to a conservation group to buy it? Will he confirm also that it will be at the undeveloped site value?
Mr. Moynihan: It will be at market value. That is obviously important in ensuring that the sale of plc land is at market value. That is recognised to be in the interests of customers and of the company. It is important that there is protection on the 50–50 arrangements that we propose to make sure that customers gain if more than 50 per cent. of the actual value of the land is realised after privatisation. It does not become 100 per cent. It is protection to ensure that we never see the problems that we have sometimes seen in the past with potential windfall profits after privatisation. That cannot happen because of the protection in the Bill. Money will be adjudged, reported on and audited in prospectuses. It is nonsense to say that there will be no knowledge of the value of the land. Of course land must be valued, audited and put before potential investors when it comes to privatisation proceeds and the sale of the water plcs.
The hon. Member for Copeland made a point about the letter of the director general of the National Trust in the press today. According to the hon. Gentleman, as a result of our proposals large areas of what have been described as jewels in the crown will be bereft of protection. The Countryside Commission identified 15 such jewels. Because of the important measures that we have taken today in supporting the Lords amendments, 12 of them are fully covered, one is a proposed area of outstanding natural beauty and another is covered as to 80 per cent. of the total—and most of the remaining one is covered. It would therefore be more accurate to say that the vast majority of land in those jewels in the crown is covered, and that is because of the extension and inclusion of SSSIs.

81
Finally, it has been suggested that 7,000 acres of the Elan valley will not qualify for environmental safeguards. That is contrary to what the Government stated in the House of Lords and is not correct. Lord Hesketh stated that inclusion in SSSIs would bring in almost all of the Elan valley. It will bring in about 80 to 90 per cent. My noble Friend's statement was perfectly fair.
7.15 pm
Ms. Joan Walley: These amendments do not give full protection. The Minister may suggest that there is a victory, but the safeguards that are being offered are hollow. Opposition Members believe that our land—our national heritage—remains in danger. The Government must decide where their priorities lie. They should ask any of the 2,000 people who follow the activities of the National Trust each day in June what their priorities are. They should ask members of the Ramblers Association and of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds what price they put on that outstanding land—land that is our natural and national heritage. What is most important—the commitment to conservation and environmental inprovement which is shared by the overwhelming majority of the population, or the commitment to shareholders?
If there is to be a sell-off of any of the land that is presently owned by the water undertakers, why cannot the House know how much it is worth? If it is to be sold, why cannot the full proceeds be passed on to consumers? Those issues are important.
For Opposition Members—certainly those who were on the Committee—there is a sense of déjà vu about the debate. We are paying and will continue to pay the price of the Minister's error in Committee on the arrangements for the disposal of land. It was not clear in Committee and it is not clear now—it will not be clear after the Bill has gone through Parliament—exactly what will happen about access to the countryside and the disposal of land.
Despite what the Minister has told us, there still remains a gaping loophole in the Bill. At the heart of it is our access to the countryside. Currently, water authorities have recreational duties for the land. The weakness is that that land can be transferred and, on doing so, a subsidiary company can evade recreational duties. We pressed the Minister on that matter time and again in Committee. All that he could do was to give incorrect answers. The Minister and counsel said two different things about the disposal of land. We have the Ramblers Association and other organisations to thank for counsel's opinion. The Minister was wrong then; the loophole existed. The Lords amendment attempts to plug that loopnole. We criticise it because it gives the Secretary of State great power to which the Minister has referred, but that power is discretionary. There is no duty on the Secretary of State to exercise it.
Mr. Hawkins: The danger is that we will again confuse the public. The hon. Lady's speech was clearly written before the debate. The Minister has said that there is a duty on the Secretary of State in clause 8. I should be delighted if the hon. Lady would clarify that duty for my constituents. To assert that there is no duty is contrary to what the Minister said.
Ms. Walley: As usual, we are restrained by lack of time in this debate. The hon. Gentleman made a point about whether the power is discretionary and whether there is a
82
duty. One depends upon the other. The Secretary of State, the Ramblers Association and other voluntary associations may have to consult further. Matters relating to the disposal of and access to land are not clear at this stage when Parliament is discussing it. I ask the Minister where that duty is.
Mr. Morley: Will my hon. Friend explore clause 8, because it is not enforceable in law and also contains the words "take notice of"? Will she explore, too, whether clause 8 will apply to the holding companies into which the water authorities will put the land?
Ms. Walley: As always, I thank my hon. Friend for bringing those points so well to the attention of the House. They are on record and will be continuously mentioned.
Sir Nicholas Bonsor: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Ms. Walley: No, because time is short.
Our amendment recognises that the Government were wrong. The Lords amendment is nowhere near good enough and does not put matters right, despite what the Minister has said. It is true that the Secretary of State will be given a vast power, but how is it intended that he should use it? What criteria should he be required to use when determining requests for land disposal? Our concern, too, is that no one will know when or whether the Secretary of State is using that power. Will the Minister tell us whether the Secretary of State is under any requirement to consult the public, the local authorities or the organisations which have done so much to make access to the countryside a key issue in the opposition to the sell-off of the water industry? Are we really going to see secret land deals? How shall we know what conditions the Secretary of State has imposed before land is sold off'? Will the Minister say why he has confused the issue by referring to protected and designated land, and why in his comments earlier he did not make the situation abundantly clear, as he was requested to do in the letter of the director general of the National Trust to The Independent?
What signposts are the Government following? They say that they are following the conservation signpost, hut, in effect, they are following the one marked "shareholders' profits". Is that not why there are no requirements for public consultation when it comes to the sell-off of land transferred to the subsidiary bodies? Is it not the case that that is precisely the place where the Government lost their way before? We have heard much about the general duties that exist to protect the SSSIs. How can we even believe what the Government say when the Minister responsible for water and planning in another place said no substantial damage has been done to SSSIs in the past three years? However, the plain facts are that, in the four years to 1988, 700 have been damaged and 200 substantially damaged.
The sell-off of the water industry is one more example of the Government's complete disregard for our national heritage. Will the Minister give us a commitment now to effective public participation over this issue of the disposal of our national heritage? If not, the millions of us who care about the threats facing our countryside and access to the land will have to wait until we have the opportunity to vote with our feet on this matter.
Mr. Pike: I must say to the hon. Members for High Peak (Mr. Hawkins) and for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) that I believe that the Minister has dodged very

83
skilfully through the minefield that has been set by his hon. Friends, but he has not answered any of the questions put to him. His words will not give the type of guarantee that those hon. Gentlemen are seeking on the disposal of land, or the protection of access to land and the existing concessions. If those hon. Gentlemen want to ensure that such protection is safeguarded, they must vote with us for some of our amendments.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) will try to withdraw amendment (a), so that we can vote on amendment (b). It is important that amendment (b) is put to the vote because there will be no reason—
Mr. Moynihan: I should have liked to respond to all the points, and not only those made by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) to whom I shall reply in full, for example, in drawing out the critical point that it will be an irrelevant consideration to take account of financial benefits towards consumers when determining a planning appeal. There were many other points such as that to which I wanted to respond to my hon. Friend, but I shall do so in writing. I am sure that the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) will appreciate that the reason why I did not do so was to allow the hon. Gentleman and others to contribute to the debate.
Mr. Pike: I also appreciate that the Minister voted for the guillotine that the Government imposed, which prevented us from having sufficient time to debate the issues. If there had not been a guillotine, we would all have had time to make our points to which the Minister could have replied. Once again he is leading us astray.
I was making the point that clearly, if there was no financial incentive in selling land, there would be no reason for water authorities wanting to dispose of land. The Minister has said that there have been concessions, and we welcome the fact that the other place has moved in the right direction. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland made clear that those concessions do not go far enough in protecting the land and access to the land that the Opposition would wish to see.
Mr Livsey: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Minister's points have been specifically addressed to the national parks? He has said very little about the areas outside national parks, except perhaps those in the constituency of the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley). That gives us great cause for concern, because there are large tracts of land outside the national parks and SSSIs but about which he has given us little guarantee.
Mr Pike: The hon. Gentleman has made an important point. I accept that we are concerned about land both outside and inside national parks. As with the hon. Gentleman's constituency, the moorland around Burnley and in north-east Lancashire would not be protected by the type of concession that was made in the other place.
Mrs. Mahon: Twenty per cent. of the land in my area will be up for grabs. Far from it being the sale of the century, we are referring to it as the great land robbery.
Mr. Pike: My hon. Friend's constituency is, of course, on the other side of the Pennines from mine and has identical problems to those of Burnley.
We are concerned about how the phrase "surplus land" will be interpreted. I wanted to mention specifically amendment (a), which concerns consultation. If we wrote into the Bill that consultation would be required, that would be a major step forward. The Opposition believe that local authorities and bodies such as the Ramblers Association and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, who have given admirable advice to both sides of the House, should be consulted. It must be remembered that those organisations have fought for many of the things that have been achieved.
Much of the access to the lands owned by the water authorities was not conceded readily but has had to be fought for over many years by such organisations as the Ramblers Association. Such organisations fear that, if the Bill goes through in its present form, even with the concessions made in the other House—despite what the Minister has said—those things will be in jeopardy. The Minister knows that he cannot assure us that none of our land will be disposed of and that existing accesses will be maintained. He knows that wherever possible the value of the land will be realised, because that is the way that privatisation will proceed. The Minister knows that the only reason for that being put into the Bill now is that moving the industry from the public to the private sector has introduced a new factor—making a profit. It is only when one needs to make a profit that one starts to look at the sale of land. I hope that the amendment is carried.
Dr. Cunningham: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: (b), in line 4, leave out 'any of the proceeds' and insert 'all of the proceeds'.—[Dr. Cunningham.]
Question put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 193, Noes 302.

Division No. 273]

[7.29 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Caborn, Richard

Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

Callaghan, Jim

Allen, Graham

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Anderson, Donald

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Canavan, Dennis

Armstrong, Hilary

Cartwright, John

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Ashton, Joe

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Clay, Bob

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Clelland, David

Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Battle, John

Cohen, Harry

Beckett, Margaret

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Beith, A. J.

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

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

Cousins, Jim

Bermingham, Gerald

Cox, Tom

Bidwell, Sydney

Crowther, Stan

Blunkett, David

Cryer, Bob

Boateng, Paul

Cunningham, Dr John

Boyes, Roland

Dalyell, Tam

Bradley, Keith

Darling, Alistair

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

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

Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

Dewar, Donald

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Dixon, Don

Buckley, George J.

Dobson, Frank

85

Doran, Frank

Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

Morgan, Rhodri

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Morley, Elliott

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

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

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Fisher, Mark

Mowlam, Marjorie

Flannery, Martin

Mullin, Chris

Flynn, Paul

Murphy, Paul

Foster, Derek

Nellist, Dave

Foulkes, George

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Fraser, John

O'Brien, William

Fyfe, Maria

O'Neill, Martin

Galloway, George

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Garrett, John (Norwich South)

Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Pendry, Tom

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Pike, Peter L.

Golding, Mrs Llin

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Gordon, Mildred

Prescott, John

Gould, Bryan

Quin, Ms Joyce

Graham, Thomas

Radice, Giles

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Randall, Stuart

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Reid, Dr John

Grocott, Bruce

Richardson, Jo

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

Heffer, Eric S.

Robertson, George

Henderson, Doug

Rogers, Allan

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Rooker, Jeff

Hood, Jimmy

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Rowlands, Ted

Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

Ruddock, Joan

Howells, Geraint

Sedgemore, Brian

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

Sheerman, Barry

Hoyle, Doug

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Skinner, Dennis

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Ingram, Adam

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

Janner, Greville

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

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Snape, Peter

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Soley, Clive

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Spearing, Nigel

Kennedy, Charles

Steel, Rt Hon David

Kirkwood, Archy

Steinberg, Gerry

Leadbitter, Ted

Stott, Roger

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Strang, Gavin

Livingstone, Ken

Straw, Jack

Livsey, Richard

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Lloyd, Tony (Strettord)

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Turner, Dennis

McAllion, John

Vaz, Keith

McAvoy, Thomas

Wall, Pat

McCartney, Ian

Wallace, James

McFall, John

Walley, Joan

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Warden, Gareth (Gower)

McKelvey, William

Wareing, Robert N.

McLeish, Henry

Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

McWilliam, John

Wigley, Dafydd

Madden, Max

Williams, Rt Hon Alan

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

Marek, Dr John

Wilson, Brian

Marshall, David (Shettieston)

Winnick, David

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Worthington, Tony

Martlew, Eric

Wray, Jimmy

Maxton, John

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Meacher, Michael

Meale, Alan

Tellers for the Ayes:

Michael, Alun

Mr. Frank Haynes and

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Mr. Ken Eastham

Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

NOES

Adley, Robert

Amos, Alan

Aitken, Jonathan

Arbuthnot, James

Alexander, Richard

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Ashby, David

Amess, David

Aspinwall, Jack

86

Atkins, Robert

Fry, Peter

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Gardiner, George

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Gill, Christopher

Baldry, Tony

Glyn, Dr Alan

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Batiste, Spencer

Goodlad, Alastair

Bellingham, Henry

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Bendall, Vivian

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Gorst, John

Bevan, David Gilroy

Gow, Ian

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Body, Sir Richard

Gregory, Conal

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Grist, Ian

Boswell, Tim

Ground, Patrick

Bottomley, Peter

Grylls, Michael

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Hague, William

Bowis, John

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

Hanley, Jeremy

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Hannam, John

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

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

Brazier, Julian

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Bright, Graham

Haselhurst, Alan

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Hawkins, Christopher

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

Hayes, Jerry

Browne, John (Winchester)

Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Hayward, Robert

Buck, Sir Antony

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Budgen, Nicholas

Heddle, John

Burns, Simon

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Burt, Alistair

Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

Butler, Chris

Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

Butterfill, John

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Hind, Kenneth

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Carrington, Matthew

Holt, Richard

Carttiss, Michael

Hordern, Sir Peter

Cash, William

Howard, Michael

Chapman, Sydney

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

Churchill, Mr

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Colvin, Michael

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Conway, Derek

Hunter, Andrew

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Irvine, Michael

Cope, Rt Hon John

Jack, Michael

Couchman, James

Janman, Tim

Cran, James

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Critchley, Julian

Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Curry, David

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

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

Key, Robert

Davis, David (Boothferry)

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Day, Stephen

Kirkhope, Timothy

Devlin, Tim

Knapman, Roger

Dicks, Terry

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Dorrell, Stephen

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Knowles, Michael

Dover, Den

Knox, David

Dunn, Bob

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Dykes, Hugh

Lang, Ian

Eggar, Tim

Latham, Michael

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

Lawrence, Ivan

Evennett, David

Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

Lee, John (Pendle)

Fallon, Michael

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Favell, Tony

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Fishbum, John Dudley

Lightbown, David

Forman, Nigel

Lilley, Peter

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

Forth, Eric

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Lyell, Sir Nicholas

Fox, Sir Marcus

Macfarlane, Sir Neil

Franks, Cecil

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Freeman, Roger

Maclean, David

French, Douglas

McLoughlin, Patrick

87

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

Madel, David

Shaw, David (Dover)

Major, Rt Hon John

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Malins, Humfrey

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

Mans, Keith

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Maples, John

Shersby, Michael

Marland, Paul

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Marlow, Tony

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Speller, Tony

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

Mates, Michael

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Maude, Hon Francis

Squire, Robin

May hew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Stanbrook, Ivor

Mellor, David

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Miller, Sir Hal

Steen, Anthony

Mills, Iain

Stern, Michael

Miscampbell, Norman

Stevens, Lewis

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Stokes, Sir John

Mitchell, Sir David

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Moate, Roger

Sumberg, David

Monro, Sir Hector

Summerson, Hugo

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Moore, Rt Hon John

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Morrison, Sir Charles

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Moss, Malcolm

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Moynihan, Hon Colin

Temple-Morris, Peter

Mudd, David

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Neale, Gerrard

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Nelson, Anthony

Thorne, Neil

Neubert, Michael

Thornton, Malcolm

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Thurnham, Peter

Nicholls, Patrick

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Norris, Steve

Tredinnick, David

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Trotter, Neville

Oppenheim, Phillip

Twinn, Dr Ian

Page, Richard

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Paice, James

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Patnick, Irvine

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Patten, John (Oxford W)

Waldegrave, Hon William

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Walden, George

Pawsey, James

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Waller, Gary

Porter, David (Waveney)

Walters, Sir Dennis

Portillo, Michael

Ward, John

Powell, William (Corby)

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Price, Sir David

Warren, Kenneth

Raffan, Keith

Watts, John

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Wells, Bowen

Rathbone, Tim

Wheeler, John

Redwood, John

Whitney, Ray

Renton, Tim

Widdecombe, Ann

Rhodes James, Robert

Wiggin, Jerry

Riddick, Graham

Wilshire, David

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Wolfson, Mark

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Wood, Timothy

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Woodcock, Dr. Mike

Roe, Mrs Marion

Yeo, Tim

Rossi, Sir Hugh

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Rost, Peter

Younger, Rt Hon George

Rowe, Andrew

Ryder, Richard

Tellers for the Noes:

Sackville, Hon Tom

Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and

Sayeed, Jonathan

Mr. Tony Durant.

Question accordingly negatived.
It being after half-past Seven o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to order this day, to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.
Lords amendment No. 14 agreed to.
Lords amendment No. 55 agreed to.—[Special entry.]
Lords amendments Nos. 15 to 43 agreed to.

Clause 20

  ORDERS FOR SECURING COMPLIANCE WITH CERTAIN PROVISIONS
  Lords amendment: No. 44, in page 20, line 39, leave out "subsection (5)" and insert "subsections (2) and (5)".
  Mr. Ridley: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we shall discuss Lords amendments Nos. 45 to 48.
  No. 49, in page 21, leave out lines 45 to 47.
  Amendment (a) to the Lords amendment, at end add
  'and insert "except that the Secretary of State or Director as the case may be shall have regard in any case to which paragraph (b) of this subsection applies to any report submitted to the Director by a technical assessor appointed under section 60 below in respect of the contraventions concerned, and the Director shall within two weeks of receiving any such report submit a copy of it to the European Commission"'.
  Lords amendments Nos. 50 to 53 and No. 58.
  Mr. Ridley: I understand that it would be for the convenience of the House if we also discussed Lords amendments Nos. 62 and 64. Does the House agree that I should speak to those two amendments?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With the agreement of the House, that is in order.
  Mr. Ridley: The amendments arise out of discussions that we have had with the European Commission which, I am happy to report, is now satisfied that the clause, with these amendments, is fully consistent with Community law. Essentially, the amendments place the holder of my office and the director general under a duty to make a final or provisional order if they believe that a water undertaker is breaching certain statutory duties except in the circumstances specified in subsection (5). In addition, companies will now have to give and comply with undertakings under subsection (5)(b) concerning compliance programmes instead of entering into agreements. If the Secretary of State is not satisfied with an undertaking he is obliged to take enforcement action under the clause.
  There have been some rather confusing reports on this issue, and I believe that it would be helpful if I put that right. Clause 20, after all, is only one element of a wider process that also needs to be appreciated. Clause 20(5) provides a powerful and effective mechanism—which I think has no parallel in other European countries—whereby, for example, water undertakers set out in detail their programmes for meeting the standards of the drinking water directive and the Secretary of State ensures that the programmes are carried out. We are at this moment discussing with each water undertaker its long-term investment programmes for drinking water quality, including measures to comply with the EC directive. It is the Government's firm policy that those supplies that do not meet the directive's strict standards will be improved as quickly as possible. However, they involve designing and building new treatment works in some places and replacing or re-lining water mains in others. While that work is taking place, it is essential to maintain water supplies, to protect people's health and to minimise the disruption to the general public.
  Provided that the water company is carrying out a compliance programme acceptable to the Secretary of

  89
  State. there would be no point in his taking enforcement action against it. Nor would there be any point in the European Commission taking action against the United Kingdom Government, because the programme would be being implemented as fast as possible. The undertaker could proceed faster only if we were prepared to accept adverse consequences for water consumers and for the public generally.
  7.45 pm
  Mr. John Redwood: Although I agree that there is no point in persistently attacking a water authority that is trying to put right something that has been demonstrated to be wrong in a court of law, does my right hon. Friend agree that it could send the wrong signals if the consent limits were moved downwards at exactly the point where a works was undertaking investment to meet the old consent levels which were those that the public wanted it to achieve?
  Mr. Ridley: Yes, but that is not what is being proposed. We are proposing to raise consent levels to the standard of the directive—and, in some cases, to higher standards. When we see a programme to implement the necessary works in the shortest possible time, it is only then that the so-called protection would arise.
  Only last week, my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Water and Planning had a constructive and fruitful discussion with Commissioner Ripa di Meana, during which he reaffirmed the Government's determination to comply with the drinking water directive as soon as is reasonably practicable. For his part, Commissioner Ripa di Meana said that he accepted the Government's resolve in the matter. Moreover, he accepted that these major programmes could not be carried out overnight, a view that he had previously expressed in a letter that was placed in the Library on 23 May.
  The water undertakers must convince the Secretary of State that they are doing all that they can to comply speedily with the drinking water directive, and the European Commission will want to see the programmes because it has a role in ensuring that European legislation is properly implemented. The undertakers' programmes are now being drawn up and will be made public later this year, as soon as we have them. The programmes will contain the dates by which compliance with the remaining standards in the directive will be achieved. The details of those programmes will be set out in formal undertakings. The Commission will be interested to see those programmes, and I am sure that it will recognise that the United Kingdom is proceeding conscientiously and swiftly with them. No other member state complies with the drinking water directive, and no member state, as far as I am aware, has examined its investment needs in the rigorous way that forthcoming privatisation has required. Nor does it have such a powerful and effective mechanism for ensuring that the compliance programmes are carried out according to plan and date. If a water company defaults on its undertaking for no good reason, the Secretary of State will be obliged to take enforcement action, which could ultimately lead to the loss of a company's licence. That is, of course, a last resort, but the threat is there. I hope that the House will agree to the amendment.
  I shall invite the House to disagree with Lords amendments Nos. 62 to 64 at the appropriate time because they are seriously flawed in a number of respects. They are
  90
  the result of the famous ambush one night in another place, when Opposition peers turned up late and in large numbers, although I make no complaint about that—[Interruption.] I have organised such events in previous incarnations. However, it does not give any respectability to the argument in favour of the amendments.
  Mrs. Ann Taylor: It is interesting that the Secretary of State thinks that the amendments were carried in another place only because of an ambush. If he is so confident that the other place would have agreed with his position had it known that the vote would take place, why did he not try to reverse the decision in the Lords?
  Mr. Ridley: I am not skilled in the procedures of another place, but I am informed that their Lordships preferred the matter to be dealt with the other way.
  Amendments Nos. 62 to 64 specify 1 September 1993 for compliance with the drinking water directive. However, specifying such a date in legislation is contrary to the directive, which set a much earlier date in 1985. The only possible legal duty must be to comply now, and the Bill provides for that through the regulations made under clause 65, setting quality standards, and under the duty placed on undertakers in clause 52 to provide wholesome water.
  We propose a much tighter legal requirement than that in the amendments, as wholesomeness extends beyond the standards specified in the directive. To leave the Lords amendments in the Bill would create doubt about the undertakers' responsibility in that very important respect. We already have a perfectly adequate mechanism in the Bill to ensure that supplies that do not yet meet the requirements are brought up to standard as quickly as practicable—the enforcement duty placed on the Secretary of State in clause 20. That clause was amended in another place to put it beyond doubt that it is fully consistent with European law, and that it has the agreement of the House as well as the European Commission. Water undertakers must agree to take steps acceptable to the Secretary of State to secure or facilitate compliance with Community directive requirements. If they do not, I am bound to take enforcement action.
  We are all in agreement that the necessary steps should be taken as quickly as possible, and the Government have given a public commitment to do so. On 15 May, my noble Friend Lord Hesketh made an explicit commitment in another place that I am happy to repeat. The Government are fully committed to complying with the drinking water directive and will accept undertakings under clause 20(5)(b) only if satisfied that they contain proposals for achieving compliance as quickly as possible, taking the practicalities into account.
  The amendments ignore the question of practicality. Large investment programmes cannot be carried out overnight for very practical reasons that have nothing to do with the money involved. We all agree that we must avoid, for example, severe disruption of water supplies while work is carried out. We must avoid putting people's health at risk during that time, and ensure that necessary planning approvals have been obtained. We must allow time for projects to be planned and designed properly. In the case of nitrate and pesticides, we must ensure that new technology has been tested and proven. So far, it has not. Those essential factors must be taken into account, which means that timetables must be set for every individual case. A single date for compliance across the country

  91
  would completely ignore that requirement. In some cases it would mean slowing down improvements, and in others jeopardising the health of customers. I am sure that that is not something that the House would want to happen.
  The amendments are flawed for other reasons. Regulations made under them would automatically entitle customers to a payment if any of the quality standards was exceeded after 1993, which ignores certain scientific facts. It is not technically possible to guarantee 100 per cent. compliance with standards that have nothing to do with health but affect the taste and appearance of the water. Standards for colour, turbidity and iron can be exceeded simply because of a change in water pressure or because of an unexpectedly large demand for water, perhaps due to a fire in the area. In such instances there is no justification for making payments to customers, as the undertaker is not technically able to do anything about them—and the change in quality may barely be noticeable. Nor would there be any justification for making payments if the customer caused the breach by using, for example, excessive nitrate or pesticides on his land in the catchment area of the water source and then claimed compensation for the effect that it had on his water supply.
  Amendments Nos. 62 to 64 are impracticable because they give enormous scope for dispute over whether payment is due. If the lead standard is breached there could be a dispute as to whether it was due to the customer's or the undertaker's lead pipe, or even over how the sample was taken. If the microbiological standard is breached in one sample, there could be a dispute as to whether it was due to contamination in the house or at the treatment works. If the sample was taken by the customer, for how much would it count? What if analysis showed that the water was just over the standard? Even the best analytical technique is not very precise. There are many other common instances of how disputes and injustices could arise.
  The basis of our guaranteed standard scheme is that it will be simple to operate and easy for the customer to understand, and will provide a no-nonsense form of redress. The Lords amendments would produce the opposite.
  I apologise for taking so much time, but it was necessary to explain the Government's position in respect of both groups of amendments. To sum up, amendments Nos. 62 to 64 are flawed, impracticable and impossible to implement. The House would be wise not to agree with them.
  Mrs. Ann Taylor: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for agreeing to take the group headed by amendment No. 62 with that headed by amendment No. 44, because it is right to debate the effect of the directive's implementation at the same time as we discuss its transposition into our own legislation.
  The Secretary of State's concluding remarks do not convince me that he is taking the problem of drinking water quality seriously enough. The problems that concern the European Community and consumers in this country are not related simply to appearance and taste but range from lead in Scotland, nitrate in Norwich and aluminium in Bradford, Calderdale and other parts of Yorkshire, to nitrate in Redbridge, and to problems in Birmingham in the west midlands as well. None of them is a minor
  92
  problem, and they all usually arise when there is a breakdown in the system, because the backlog in investment has not been cleared since the directive was introduced in 1980.
  Opposition amendment (a) aims at exploring and suggesting ways in which defects in water supplies can be reported. The Government amendments attempt to effect the transposition of the drinking water quality directive into our own legislation. As that is something that we suggested in Committee, we welcome it—although at that time such a provision was rejected by the Minister for Water and Planning. We all accept that the directive should be incorporated in British law, but that takes us no further forward in implementing Community standards. My noble Friends in another place were able to persuade their Lordships to accept amendments to implement the directive by 1993. The Government's amendments take us no further towards achieving that goal. That is why we learned with dismay of the Government's intention to overturn the Lords amendments.
  Drinking water quality is a matter of major public concern, and one that has an added dimension in terms of Britain's relationship with the EEC. It is a matter of regret that so many individuals in this country have found it necessary to voice their concern about drinking water standards to the Community because they do not believe that they can look to the Government to protect them. That aspect has prompted some of the most remarkable statements ever uttered by the Minister in Committee. Right hon. and hon. Members who did not serve on the Committee missed a number of gems. I suggest that they read Hansard to follow the Minister's strangely convoluted logic.
  In 1980 the British Government were willing parties to an EC directive—No. 80/778/EEC—on the quality of drinking water for human consumption. That directive laid down the parameters for the maximum levels of certain substances to be permitted in drinking water, and was due to be implemented some four years ago in 1985.
  8 pm
  In Committee we pressed the Minister of State about his plans and expectations for meeting EC standards. Throughout our proceedings his response was somewhat mixed and contradictory, and I do not think that the Secretary of State has done much better this evening. We are told that the standards will be observed, although the Government have repeatedly used delaying tactics in Brussels to put off the evil day—as they see it—when the commitment has to be met. I suspect that they have simply been playing for time to delay the day when the EC takes further legal action against this country for noncompliance, which I fear is what it will come to in the end.
  The Minister of State has promoted the idea—only in this country, not in Brussels—that the parameters of the drinking water directive of 1980 are to be relaxed. In Committee he told us that relaxation was likely, and, perhaps to match his ignorance about sewage—he said that if people could not see so much sewage that they did not want to swim in the sea, there was no danger—set himself up as a medical expert on drinking water and told us not to worry about aluminium. He told Labour Members that they were "scaremongering" when they expressed concern about aluminium levels in water and about the possible link with Alzheimer's disease. The Minister's PPS—who, unlike the Minister, is here this

  93
  evening—took comfort from the fact that the Minister was able to tell us that people were not dying. That was one of the rare contributions that he was allowed to make to the Committee proceedings.
  EC officials in the relevant department in Brussels, directly responsible for the implementation and review of the parameters of the drinking water directive, have said that in no circumstances will a general relaxation of standards be allowed. There may be some clearer specifications of the individual parameters for certain pesticides, which are currently the subject of a general pesticide parameter, but the only change that the Commission seeks for aluminium is a tightening rather than a relaxation of standards. I had hoped that the Minister of State would pursue that in Brussels last week, but I do not believe that he did.
  I cannot believe that the message from EC officials as to their attitude on relaxations has not been transmitted to Ministers by their officials. We can only conclude that the Minister has chosen to ignore the facts. I think that I accept the Commission's view that the Government are using the regulatory committee as an excuse for delaying tactics. We do not have even the standards aimed at in the 1980 directive, and we should ask what is the purpose of the Government's amendments if the Government will not agree a reasonable timetable to meet the directive. If, later this evening, the Government move to reject the Lords amendment on the 1993 deadline—as we understand that they will—we shall have made very little progress. The Government seem to think that it is easier to whip Members in this House than in the other place, which is no doubt why they have chosen to overturn the amendment here rather than there.
  I believe that the reason why the Government will not allow the amendment to stand is that a privatised water industry will not wish to be saddled with such commitments and liabilities. That tells us that the Government's priorities are clearly decided. Their main priority is not to safeguard the drinking water supplies of the estimated 10·8 million people whose water does not meet EC standards, but to ensure that nothing stops the sale from proceeding. As interest, even in the City, is luke warm to say the least—as we heard earlier, and have read in The Observer and other serious newspapers—the Government want to make the British people put up with any standards to avoid damaging the prospects for the sale. If Conservative Members feel comfortable about voting for such priorities, their constituents will know where they stand. They will know that their interests are second to Conservative Members' anxiety to sell the industry and to obey the Government Whips.
  Mr. Nicholas Baker: May I ask the hon. Lady two questions? First, is the Bill in its totality putting standards up or down? Secondly, what advantage would be secured by the imposition of the 1993 deadline?
  Mrs. Taylor: I intend to tell the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends shortly why we need the deadline, but the totality of the Bill is certainly not intended to protect consumers or to raise standards. At an early stage we offered to support part I to establish and, indeed, strengthen the National Rivers Authority, but all our attempts were rejected by the Government. That gives a clear indication of their priorities as well as explaining their decision to vote down our proposals.
  Mr. Keith Raffan: The hon. Lady says that the Bill will not take any steps to protect the consumer, but it makes it a criminal offence to supply drinking water that is unfit for human consumption. That has never happened before. Why does the hon. Lady not talk about the Bill instead of delivering the fiction that we have been hearing for the past 15 minutes?
  Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman served on the Committee, although he probably did not make as many interventions in that time as he has made here. I do not think that he was taking the Bill very seriously then. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) says that the hon. Gentleman has only just come back into the Chamber. Nevertheless, he is allowed to intervene, and I gave way to him willingly. If he would care to listen, I will tell him exactly why it is important to write the 1993 deadline into the Bill.
  The Government signed and agreed to the 1980 directive without dissent, and that directive should have been met in 1985. We shall vote later for the retention of the 1993 deadline not because we think it perfect, but because we wish that the Government had done more since 1980. Earlier, the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan) talked about what he saw as the faults of a Labour Government, but even he will have to admit that the Conservatives have been in power since 1980 and that all the failures to abide by the 1980 directive lie at their door.
  Mr. Ridley: The directive was first published in 1975, and the Labour party negotiated for four years, supporting it all the way through. Can the hon. Lady say what the Labour Government did to begin to implement it, apart from cutting investment in the water industry by 30 per cent.?
  Mrs. Taylor: I freely admit that the Labour Government who left office in 1979 did nothing to implement the 1980 EC directive, but it would have been quite remarkable if we had been able to implement a directive that had not even been written.
  Mr. Graham Riddick: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Taylor: Perhaps I could finish this point.
  I do not know what plans the Government have made to meet future directives. The last Labour Government claimed many things, but they never claimed clairvoyance or that they could meet directives which had not at that time been written.
  We shall vote for the retention of the 1993 deadline. Without the deadline, progress towards implementation will slip even further. The hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), who has just left the Chamber, said that he thought that the Secretary of State was sending out the wrong signals after some of his decisions relating to consents. I think that the Secretary of State is sending all the wrong signals to the privatised water companies. They will lack any incentive—incentive and profit are what privatisation is all about—to improve the quality of their drinking water, because they will not be selling more water after privatisation. Unless we write a deadline into the Bill, the timetable will slip even further.
  Mr. Riddick: The hon. Lady cleverly evaded the question about the 1975 directive by saying that the

  95
  Labour Government could not take responsibility for the 1980 directive. Will she explain whether the Labour Government, who were in power between 1974 and 1979, were responsible for the capital investment cuts of 30 per cent. which took place during those years?
  Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman was not listening to his hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan), who said that the directive was first drafted in 1975. It was not agreed until 1980.
  The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) asked me to refer to capital expenditure, and I am happy to do so. I carry in my pocket the investment figures throughout the 1970s and 1980s. If the hon. Gentleman wants a copy so that he can pin it on the wall of his office to stop him asking such silly questions, I will gladly send him one. He is my own Member of Parliament and I think that he should be informed about the matter. I have the misfortune to live in his constituency—a nice place, though it is a pity about its Member of Parliament. Average investment under the last Labour Government was £1,254 million per year. Average investment under this Government is £922 million per year. I trust that the hon. Gentleman, who takes an interest in these matters and who has tried to defend the Government, will take that point on board.
  The Secretary of State said that he would advise hon. Members to turn down the 1993 amendment. As he put it, and as the Minister of State put it to the Commissioner last week, the Government believe that they must turn down the 1993 deadline because it breaches EC law, since that standard should have been met in 1985. That is typical of the Minister of State's frequently observed convoluted logic. If that is the best that Ministers can do, the standard will not be met in the near future. It shows that they are not serious about the problem.
  The Minister of State had his first meeting with the Commissioner in Brussels last week. I understand that it was a polite meeting—not surprisingly, since the Commissioner is a very charming man—but the Minister seems to have been unable to convince anyone in Brussels of his case that the Government are doing everything possible to reach the required standards. Similarly, he has been unable to convince Members of Parliament or the British people generally.
  We shall be watching for further developments in the Commission. I am sure that potential investors in a privatised water industry will be reluctant to part with any money—assuming that the Government sell the industry and do not just give it away—if they believe that further action will be taken by the European Community because of the water industry's failure to reach the required standard.
  8.15 pm
  That brings me to the question of reporting standards. The European Community is receiving more and more complaints from ordinary consumers about the state of their drinking water. I understand that it has difficulty in processing all the complaints as quickly as it would like, at a time when most of those who are drinking sub-standard water do not even know that it is sub-standard—hence our amendment to the Government's amendment, which is designed to introduce a reporting system so that each year
  96
  we shall quickly be able to find out where there are problems with supplies which are below EC standards and why they fail to meet those standards. Everyone has a right to be told about the state of their drinking water—and a right to expect action to be taken at the earliest possible moment to put it right.
  The Minister of State and the Secretary of State have adopted a policy of keeping people in the dark, so far as possible, with regard to problems over drinking water. The Minister of State refused to give details of his discussions in Brussels. Ministers have even refused to put reasoned opinions in the House of Commons Library. They have also refused to publish responses to reasoned opinions. This is not a private matter for discussion between Ministers and Brussels. It concerns everyone in this country—certainly the 10·8 million people whose water supplies are sub-standard.
  If the Secretary of State overturns the 1993 deadline, he will reduce the impact of his own amendments, starting with amendment No. 44. The Government's amendments will not convince anyone. I am certain that they will not convince the Commission that the Government are taking the problem seriously enough. If the Secretary of State rejects the 1993 deadline, he will be sending a very clear signal to the British people about what they can expect from the privatised water industry. We believe that water purity and drinking water standards should come first. That is why we shall try to insist that the 1993 deadline stays in the Bill.
  Mr. Riddick: The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) told the House that I am her Member of Parliament and suggested that that might be a little unfortunate from her point of view. It is even more unfortunate from my point of view, because she is my Member of Parliament. She once turned down my offer, put in jest, that at the next general election I would vote for her to boost her majority if she would vote for me to boost mine. She turned my offer down, and I am very glad that she did. We had a good joke about it.
  However, it worries me that the hon. Member for Dewsbury keeps coming out with a great deal of black propaganda and misleading information about water privatisation. As we are near-neighbours, we share the same local newspaper, the Huddersfield Daily Examiner, and many of those misleading facts find their way into that newspaper.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: They are not facts. They are unfacts.
  Hon. Members: "Faction".
  Mr. Riddick: I am most grateful to my hon. Friends for improving my English. The word "faction" will suffice. The hon. Member for Dewsbury seems to spend a great deal of time running down Britain's water industry by portraying Britain as the dirty man of Europe and by suggesting that there has been no investment in the water industry in recent years. Yet the previous Labour Government cut capital investment in the water industry by some 30 per cent.
  The hon. Lady was talking about the average investment between 1974 and 1979. When the Labour party came to power in 1974 it inherited the high investment levels set by the Conservative Government of 1970 to 1974. When the Labour Government left office in

  97
  1979 the level of investment had reduced considerably. The present Conservative Government have had to make up the lost ground as a direct result of the cuts imposed by the Labour Government in the late 1970s. As we know, the Conservative Government have been responsible for increasing capital expenditure by about 50 per cent. since 1980.
  I am happy to support the Government in disagreeing with Lords amendments Nos. 62, 63 and 64. It amazes me that the Opposition are happy to get into bed with the European Commission, for reasons of political expediency, when it suits them. If ever the Opposition get into Government, they will regret that. There are already perfectly adequate safeguards in the Bill. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, the water plcs will have to give undertakings that they will do whatever is necessary to comply with the requirements of the EC directives. If they do not, the Secretary of State will be forced to take action.
  The debate about our water industry complying with the EC directives needs to be put into perspective. The British water industry has nothing to be ashamed of, although privatisation will lead to even greater improvements and more investment because the privatised industries will be able to raise, from the private money markets, more money to invest in the industry.
  When comparisons are made with the rest of Europe, the British water industry comes out pretty well. Most supplies of drinking water in Britain comply with the 66 parameters of the European Commission drinking water directive covering taste and appearance as well as safety. All European countries have difficulty reaching 100 per cent. compliance with the directive. I understand that infringement proceedings are at various stages in respect of several European countries, including Germany, Italy, France and Belgium.
  If one listened to the hon. Member for Dewsbury and read all her statements in the Huddersfield Daily Examiner, one would imagine that rivers in the United Kingdom must be the dirtiest in Europe, but the opposite is true. In England and Wales, 66 per cent. of rivers were in class 1, the highest classification. That compares with 39 per cent. for Europe as a whole. France scored only 35 per cent. Taking classes 1, good, and 2, reasonable, together, the figures become even more interesting. The United Kingdom scored 94 per cent., bettered only by the Netherlands with 95 per cent. That is certainly a lot better than Germany at 84·5 per cent., Greece at 80 per cent. and France which is estimated to score less than 80 per cent.
  The proportion of domestic sewage treated in the United Kingdom was one of the highest in Europe at 83 per cent.—bettered only by Sweden, Denmark and Germany. The water industry in Britain has nothing whatever to be ashamed of and the Government have provided a great deal of investment in the industry in the past 10 years.
  Mr. Raffan: Does my hon. Friend agree that our record would be even better had the Labour Government implemented part II of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 and if they had kept a central record of sewage discharges? They never did that, so they did not know which sewage treatment works were discharging illegally. That was the extent of their concern.
  Mr. Riddick: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for that helpful intervention which is absolutely true. I suspect that the Labour Government failed to do that because of incompetence, because they could not afford to invest the appropriate money in the industry and, as my hon. Friend said, because they did not care.
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan: I must point out, for the elucidation of the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan), that last week when the legal notices of the relaxation for consents under the Control of Pollution Act were published in our local newspaper, I rang up the new prototype NRA office of the Welsh water authority and asked why a sewage works in my constituency—the Drope sewage works—had been mentioned. I was advised that it had been included by mistake. The following week it appeared in the legal notice in the newspaper again by mistake. They do not know what they are doing.
  Mr. Riddick: That intervention added nothing to the debate.
  Mr. Alun Michael: May I inform the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) that I asked similar questions of the Welsh Office and the Minister seemed equally ignorant about what is happening on these derogations?
  Mr. Riddick: I am chuffed that Opposition Members should imagine that I know all about events taking place in Wales. I do not, as I represent a Yorkshire constituency. The Labour Government's record was lamentable and nothing can hide that. Despite all their interventions, Opposition Members cannot hide the fact that when they were in government their record was absolutely appalling.
  I conclude by pointing out that hon. Members and consumers in Yorkshire have a great deal to be proud of. The Yorkshire water authority is certainly concerned to improve the quality of the area's drinking water. New plants are being developed and are under construction. A new water treatment plant is currently commissioned somewhere in Yorkshire every six to nine months. That trend is expected to continue for another five years. One of the new treatment plants is in my constituency—at Blackmoorfoot.
  If the Labour Government of 1974 to 1979 had not cut investment in the industry, we should be even further ahead. That is why 1993 is unrealistic. I am happy to support my right hon. Friend in the Lobby tonight and I hope that he will continue to point out that many of our problems today are a direct result of the lack of investment all those years ago. Although my right hon. Friend and his colleagues have done their best to improve matters over the past 10 years, we cannot do everything overnight. I certainly hope that by 1995 drinking water in Britain will be of a far higher quality than it was 10 or 15 years ago.
  Mr. Win Griffiths: Having listened to the speech of the Secretary of State, we are under no delusions about the nature of the debate. Labour Members recognised the complacency that has been a feature of the past decade of Conservative control of the water industry. Listening to the Secretary of State, I almost thought that a problem had appeared in the past year and that suddenly, to everyone's surprise, the Commission had introduced a directive on water quality standards, without consultation, to be implemented within a short time.

  99
  The Secretary of State told us that the Government took the directive seriously, that they had a long-term programme, and that they would make improvements as quickly as possible. He then said that improvements would be made as soon as reasonably practicable. The truth is that the Secretary of State runs a mile when a deadline for work to be completed appears. His complacency is underlined by the fact that currently about 11 million people in the United Kingdom are drinking water that does not comply with European Community standards, which for some poses risks to health. The Secretary of State might not want to face that possibility, but it is true that over the past decade the Government could have complied with the directive.
  8.30 pm
  The Government are still insisting that 1993 is too soon to expect compliance with the directive. The Secretary of State said that the Commissioner—my former colleague in the European Parliament, Carlo Ripa di Meana—had stated that he did not expect the Government to comply with the directive overnight. The directive has been bandied about for a decade or more, and it is said that a week is a long time in politics, but I never thought that "overnight" meant four or five years, which is the Government's interpretation of the Commissioner's timescale. The Commissioner does not expect compliance overnight, or within a year or two. The date of 1 September 1993 would be acceptable to the Commission. The idea that that date cannot be included in the legislation because it is a breach of the directive is almost Jesuitical. It has not stopped the Secretary of State's colleagues giving dates in parliamentary answers, such as one that I received recently from the Welsh Office. When I asked about derogations covering the water supply in Wales, I was told:
  "The need for most of the derogations should be removed by 1990 and all by 1995 at the latest."
  The Welsh Office was not shy about mentioning dates.
  It is interesting to note the theme of complacency in a further answer that I received. I asked the Secretary of State for Wales to give the main population centres affected by derogation in Wales and how many people were drinking water which did not meet European Community standards. The answer was that most of the supply areas were rural parts of Wales—Gwynedd, north Dyfed and south Powys—and showed that the Welsh Office did not have a clue about the number of people who were drinking water which did not meet European Community standards. Such was and is the Government's concern. The same level of concern was reflected in the speech of the Secretary of State this evening. He said that the Government would comply with the directive one day, "but for goodness sake do not give us a deadline, even if it is four years away."
  Complacency is apparent throughout the water industry in Wales. When I asked about the discharging of effluent from sewage treatment works, I simply asked the Secretary of State to list the relaxations and amendments that the Welsh water authority had requested. I was told that the applications made by the Welsh water authority
  "will reflect the current performance of individual works". —[Official Report, 12 June 1989; Vol. 154, c. 306.]
  When I further asked the Secretary of State which applications would result in discharge standards being
  100
  relaxed or tightened, I was told on 15 June that the Welsh Office was unaware whether applications would improve the position or worsen it and that eventually a copy of the Secretary of State's reply would be placed in the Library. To date, that reply has not surfaced.
  I should have thought that it would be simple for a Government who boast so many achievements to comply with the EC directive in four years' time. I hope that even at this late stage the Secretary of State for the Environment will realise that all consumers would welcome such a commitment. Why is the Secretary of State not prepared to make such a commitment? The only argument that I could pick out from his speech was that if the directive was complied with by 1993 it would cause disruption of the water supply. He did not offer a date by which the work could be completed without disruption, but I wonder whether he knows when the directive will be complied with. If he does, he should share that secret with us, with the consumers and with the prospective purchasers of the water authorities.
  The Secretary of State may have given the game away in an aside some time ago when answering my question on compliance with the directives on drinking and bathing water quality. I suggested that it might cost about £2 billion or £3 billion to comply with both directives in full. The Secretary of State said that it would probably cost much more than that. A recent estimate suggests that it could be as much as £15 billion. If the Secretary of State has a figure, I should be interested to know how much it will cost to comply with the drinking and bathing water directives, particularly the drinking water directive as it is the subject of this debate. The only reason why the Secretary of State is being a shrinking violet about accepting 1993 as a reasonable date to meet the directive is that the cost would be so exorbitant that no right-minded person would dare to invest in shares in the water authorities. If the amendment is accepted, I hope that the full costs of compliance with the directive will be published in the prospectus to be issued for the sale of the water authorities.
  I do not believe that the Commission will accept a deadline beyond September 1993. That assertion is backed up by considering the experience of the Italians. The Commission maintained that, for one major scheme in the Po valley, the problems should be solved within two years. The Italian authorities decided that it would be in the interests of public health for that two-year programme to be met even though it meant a huge investment in the Po valley to deal with the nitrate problem. What is sauce for Italy will be sauce for the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Ridley: Is the hon. Gentleman content with the fact that the Italians appear to be confining their activities to the Po valley and leaving the rest of the country undisturbed?
  Mr. Griffiths: That is not true. The Po valley project was undertaken because it was the top priority for the Italian Government. In the coming year the Italian Government, after discussions with the Commission, will be_introducing further programmes to meet the directive before 1993.
  If the Secretary of State were truly concerned about the health of some 11 million people in the United Kingdom,

  101
  he would gladly grasp the date of September 1993 as a reasonable one by which privatised water companies should aim to achieve compliance.
  Sir Giles Shaw: I support my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in disagreeing with Lords amendment No. 63. I have not always had the pleasure of supporting my right hon. Friend in such matters. He will recall that, from time to time, we have differed on certain issues in connection with the Bill. In this instance, however, he is absolutely right to bring this matter to a halt with a vote in this House.
  Much has been made of the fact that the directive in question was published in 1980 after about five years of draft status. As I recall it, much time was spent after 1980 seeking derogation from and changes to the directive. I even remember playing a modest part in that. At the time, the water industry would have found it virtually impossible to meet all the conditions laid down in the directive, and the United Kingdom water industry was not alone in that predicament. Water industries throughout the Community are still in major default of the directive as it currently stands. Litigation is under way in most Community countries, with the possible exception of Portugal.
  Mr. Win Griffiths: Surely the hon. Gentleman is not advocating that because the situation is bad in other countries we should not bother to hurry up and set a deadline to meet the directive here?
  Sir Giles Shaw: That intervention scarcely deserves any reply. Every country is having difficulty in meeting the directive and I commend the bravery of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who suddenly determined that the directive should be accepted in full despite the fact that the United Kingdom water industry would have extreme difficulty in achieving compliance with all its aspects.
  Within the directive, 66 different elements have to be met. The vast majority, as members of the Standing Committee know, have to do with matters of appearance and colour rather than matters affecting health or toxicity. The elements which affect those two aspects, however, must be met. The vast majority of water undertakings currently meet the vast majority of the elements in the directive. We are dealing with not wholesale misapplication of the directive, but the misapplication of certain portions of the directive which cannot yet be met, in most cases because the water undertakings have been starved of capital investment for many years. I do not lay the blame for that on the Labour Administration alone. Water undertakings, whether under municipal ownership or other guises, have never had the renewal of assets so essential for a modern distribution and treatment system.
  8.45 pm
  The particular issue before the House now is whether the 1993 recommendation of their Lordships should proceed without further ado. That recommendation would bring forward the application of the entire directive by two years. The difference between 1993 and 1995 would be superficial at most. It would not make a great deal of difference to the investing public who, in this instance, have to look at a long-term investment in an industry which will have greater control over price, profitability and various other activities than any other industry brought
  102
  into the private sector in recent years. I do not believe that it is too great an exaggeration to say that. This is hardly a privatisation of the kind that other industries have enjoyed. The water industry will be moved from the public sector into a controlled private sector. The limits on the activities of the privatised industry will be much stricter than those which currently exist in the public sector. The Opposition should recognise that.
  The 1995 arrangement agreed to by my right hon. Friend in discussion with the Community is absolutely the earliest date at which all the elements in the directive can be met because of the scale of investment required and the manner in which the directive will be applied. In future, 100 per cent. of samples of water content, rather than an average sample, will have to meet the directive.
  The industry has had to look with real concern at just how much would be involved not just in investment, but in the management of the undertaking while that investment is made. Because of that combination of factors, the time scale is crucial. It is not a matter of backing down from the directive, going for the sales material to support privatisation or seeking to undermine public confidence in the health of British water—rather the industry is having to embark, within a relatively short time, on an entirely new method of measurement and a higher standard of filtering and refining its products. At the same time it must supply the entire United Kingdom with potable water, day in, day out. It is not too much to ask that 1995 be the date for such a programme.
  Mr. Livsey: We are deliberating on one of the key issues of the Bill. We are trying to reach across an impossible chasm. We must raise the environmental standard of drinking water and try to keep down prices to the consumer while at the same time the Government's objective is to make the industry sufficiently attractive to investors. I appreciate the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw) about the time limit, which is crucial in respect of the three objectives that I have highlighted. How can the gap be bridged when so much capital investment has to be made within a specific time?
  The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) mentioned a number of figures relating to the amount of investment which might be required to clean up the water industry. One such figure is £6 billion. That is an awful lot of money, but if the Government are serious about meeting EEC water standards they must set an investment target. One would have thought that the Lords amendment set a reasonable target. The problem is the history, which has been described in exchanges from the Dispatch Boxes earlier in the debate about who did what and when. The problem was caused by a lack of investment in the water industry which was part of Treasury policy. There is a maxim that one starves the industry first by not funding it adequately and then finds reasons to privatise it. That is what has happened to the water industry.
  The previous investment programme has been strangled by the Treasury. The lack of investment has caused the Government to say that the only way round the problem is that, as they have saved so much money which could have been spent putting matters right, they now have to privatise the industry to try to find other sources of

  103
  money for necessary investment. That is an abrogation of the responsibility of managing a public industry such as water.
  Lords amendment No. 64, with which the Secretary of State disagrees, puts the Government on the hook and in this debate we must not let them off the hook. Lords amendment No. 64 says:
  "Where no such agreement has been reached by the date referred to in paragraph (a) above, 1st September 1993."
  As other speakers have said, that is a perfectly reasonable date to which to adhere. If the Government put their mind to it, the industry could adhere to the EC directives by that time. It has already been mentioned that 11 million people in England and Wales have drinking water that does not meet the EC directive on drinking water quality standards. That is lamentable. I should have thought that any Government who accepted a decent amount of responsibility would seek to put that right as early as possible. Surely a date four years hence is not too close.
  It is realistic to expect that Lords amendment No. 64 should be met. We must think about the quality of drinking water of those 11 million consumers. One million households are supplied with water with a nitrate content in excess of EC standards and nitrate protection zones have been identified in different parts of the country. Friends of the Earth has found breaches of pesticide limits in almost 300 water sources and samples. Those matters affect human health and should be of concern to us all.
  There are ways of getting around those problems by improved technology and by overcoming the necessity to apply as much nitrogen as was applied in the past. We could produce new products less lethal than some of the pesticides which one used now or have only recently been banned. Solvents are also becoming a problem and evidence is emerging that they are accumulating in aquifers as well. Trace elements such as aluminium have become an increasing problem, with more than 40 areas of the country falling outside the EC standard. That is the challenge that would face any Government in cleaning up drinking water supplies. The House of Lords has set a reasonable target of 1993 by which the standards should be met.
  Mr. Roger Knapman: The Lords amendments deal with standards and the date by which it is possible to achieve them. Ninety per cent. of our rivers are in the top two standards. I have consulted my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) on the matter. I must ask my hon. and learned Friend the Minister whether we always get our sense of priorities right. One or two rivers are still dirty, such as the Rother, which was mentioned often in Committee, and the Mersey, but at the same time the Thames has been much cleaned up. I wonder whether my hon. and learned Friend has got matters the right way round. Many years ago, the House had to rise early for the summer recess because the Thames used to stink. Perhaps it might have been done the other way round.
  I regret that the questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) of the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) have still not been answered. She was asked how the previous Labour Government discharged their responsibilities for monitoring pollution by sewage treatment works when
  104
  they kept no records of the adequacy of their performance. He also asked why the Labour Government kept details of the discharge consent applications secret from the public and refused to let the public participate in the process of granting them.
  The Opposition are determined to show themselves as green, despite an appalling record that included 30 per cent. cuts in capital expenditure. Their concern did not extend to the Committee stage. If one examines the Committee proceedings, there is barely a mention of concern about these matters—at least, at the appropriate time. It seems that the Labour party wishes to do away with the House of Lords, but in this instance and many others, unless it had had that long stop to bring up these issues, they would not have been debated at all, despite all the time available. At least the Lords raised these issues.
  Mr. Michael: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that the Committee stage was guillotined, truncating debate on many matters of great importance?
  Mr. Knapman: I was a member of that Committee and I would not call 180 hours of debate truncated, although the hon. Gentleman is entitled to his opinion.
  Investment in water and sewerage works has always been delayed while they have been in the public sector. It is, after all, much easier to say that they have been there since Victorian times and that another year or two will not matter, so there is no need to bother. It is probably true to say that there has been some delay in those matters under Governments of all complexions. It is equally true to say that the rivers Rother and Mersey did not become polluted last week or in 1979. They have been polluted for many decades and, at long last, there is a chance that they will be cleaned and that drinking water quality will be improved.
  My hon. and learned Friend the Minister has acknowledged that vast sums need to be spent and he has never hidden the fact that water charges will need to rise above the rate of inflation to meet that expenditure. However, I remind their Lordships that passing an Act in this place does not take any practical steps towards achieving better standards. Our discussions do not take any practical steps towards modernising one sewage works, one water works, any old pipes or faulty stop cocks. It is little use to pass Acts if they cannot be complied with and passing Acts that cannot be complied with can only bring this place into disrepute. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is right to say that these matters must be determined by what is practical.
  I suspect that the true costs will be measured in many hundreds of millions of pounds. New works should be not only built, but designed to the highest standards, and in some cases planning permission will have to be obtained. Even if every firm of builders and civil engineers in this country were to set about such tasks—since my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has said that an extra £12 billion will be spent on the roads, it is not a likely event—complying with the standards would take considerable time. The only chance of the standards being complied with is if private funds are introduced; without them the works would not be undertaken.
  My hon. and learned Friend's proposals are in line with the EEC's drinking water directive. Hon. Members can see in the Library a letter from Carlo Ripa di Meana, which states:
  "We had expressed concern about the provisions of clause 20(5)(b) and the scope it gave the Secretary of State to allow

  105
  water companies to continue to supply water which did not meet all the requirements of the Drinking Water Directive. I am pleased to say that these discussions have now come to a satisfactory conclusion. The amendments which you have tabled to clause 20, along with the statement which I understand to have been made when introducing these amendments in the House of Lords, satisfy me that the UK Government intends to rectify any deficiencies in water supplies as quickly as possible taking certain practicalities into account."
  That is the crux of the matter and that is the view of the European Commission. The letter is in the Library for all hon. Members to see.
  9 pm
  In Committee my hon. and learned Friend said that he was not seeking merely to comply with the European Commission's directive. At column 1045 he stated:
  "The Commission has proposed the setting up of a committee of adaptation to review standards, which were drawn up without any proper toxicological basis. Indeed, some concentrations are standard across the board. The changes that the United Kingdom Government seek to achieve relate to the toxicological properties of different substances."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D; 14 February 1989, c. 1045–46.]
  We seek to achieve even higher standards than has been suggested by the European Commission.
  Can my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State confirm that, as regards the wholesomeness of water, we propose a much tighter legal requirement than that proposed in the European directive? I am sure that the Bill contains a perfectly adequate mechanism for ensuring that the supplies that do not yet meet the requirements are brought up to standard as quickly as possible. I believe that my right hon. Friend has said that, but I did not catch exactly what he said. Will he confirm that that enforcement duty will be placed on the Secretary of State by clause 20?
  With those points in mind, I say to my right hon. Friend, "Keep on being practical and at long last standards will he improved."
  Mr. Eric Martlew: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw) has left the Chamber because he referred to the bravery of the Secretary of State and that reminded me of the first occasion when I met the hon. Gentleman. He had just finished swimming in the sea off Sellafield after a major radiation leak. The personal bravery of the hon. Gentleman is therefore not in question, but obviously his judgment must be. However, I must admit that he is looking well and repeat that I am sorry that he is not in his place at the moment.
  I shall concentrate on the issue of drinking water quality and compliance by 1993 or by another date agreed by the EEC. Tonight the Government are trying to overturn sensible and well-thought-out amendments that have been put forward by their Lordships. The Lords amendments propose that drinking water in the United Kingdom should conform to standards required by EC directive 80/778 by one of two dates: either 1 December 1993—on which we have tended to concentrate this evening—or by a date agreed mutually between the Secretary of State and the EEC Commission.
  By their actions this evening it seems that the Government are saying that the EEC have told them that it is not prepared to wait any longer for the Government to take action and that they cannot come to a mutually agreed date before 1993. The inference is that the EEC is telling the Government to get on with compliance immediately, or at least quickly. If that is a wrong
  106
  interpretation, I am sure that the Secretary of State or the Minister of State will tell us so. Perhaps the Minister will tell us what the EEC Commissioner has told him because the Government are refusing to put in the Library answers to our questions.
  It is important that Britain's water is cleaned up. The directive was agreed in 1980. We have heard a lot about the Labour Government not agreeing to the directive, but we were not in power then. The directive became law in 1982 and its standards should have been achieved by 1985. What faith can we have in a Secretary of State who tells the House that at some time in the future the Government will comply with the directive when the Government have been breaking the law for nearly five years?
  The Government have not been able to convince the EEC Commissioners or the people of this country. Indeed, a substantial minority of our population now has to put up with suspect water. It was only recently that Mr. Michael Carney, the secretary of the Water Authorities Association —who will probably be Sir Michael before too long—admitted that 10·8 million consumers are affected by water that does not meet the standards required by the EEC. Some of that water contains dangerous levels of lead, nitrates, aluminium and pesticides—a list to which we must now add protein, as I understand that people in the Thames area had to put up with worms coming through their taps. That situation was described yesterday evening on the television programme, "Spitting Image", on which a worm said that the only danger lay in drinking the water.
  It is not only the Thames area that suffers. My own region, the North-west water authority region, has similar problems. According to a parliamentary answer of 7 February, areas whose water supplies currently failed to meet the standards set out in the European Community directive on the quality of drinking water included parts of Chester, parts of Congleton, all of Southport, Formby, the High Peak district, Stockport, Bolton, Tameside, Oldham, Rochdale, Rossendale, Burnley, Hyndburn, Carlisle district, excluding the city, the Eden district, Osmotherley, Urswick, Barrow in Furness, Lancaster, Ribble valley, Fylde district and Fleetwood. It would have been easier to name the areas that were getting satisfactory water. We have some terrible problems in the north-west.
  On 5 June my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) and I were in a valley called Mungrisdale in the Lake District. There we were in the most beautiful part of the country on a beautiful early summer's day, yet we realised that, according to EEC standards, the water in that area is not fit for villagers to drink. That was during the European election campaign. In Cumbria, as in the rest of the country, water privatisation was a matter of major political controversy and I believe that it was water privatisation that brought down the Conservative majority in Cumbria and North Lancashire from 23,000 to 2,000. When that swing is repeated at the general election, the Labour party will capture the town of Barrow and the city of Lancaster.
  Mr. Pike: My hon. Friend has referred to the European constituency of Cumbria and North Lancashire. He will know that there was considerable concern among those living on the Fylde coast about the proposed long sewer outfall proposed at Rossall point. Having addressed a public meeting there, I feel sure that my hon. Friend's

  107
  claim that concern about water was one of the reasons why we considerably reduced the Conservative's majority is correct.
  Mr. Martlew: I agree with my hon. Friend, and I should not be surprised if we took Fylde at the next general election if the Government continue as they are.
  No doubt Conservative Members would argue that the fact that there was a debate and falling out among leading Conservatives helped to lose the Conservatives the European elections. But it was not the washing of dirty linen in public that caused the problems; it was the fact that they left the dirty water for the people to drink.
  The Prime Minister has been saying at the Royal show at Stoneleigh that the Government propose to introduce a food Bill to try to cope with the country's epidemic of food poisoning. Does she not realise that it is no good getting that part of the chain right if, when the food goes into people's kitchens, it is washed with polluted water?
  I hope that the Government will have the sense to accept the Lords amendments or, better still, decide that for the sake of the country and the Conservative party they should abandon the Bill altogether.
  Mr. Nicholas Baker: I was surprised to hear the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) suggest that the Government were complacent in some way. It seems to me that the Bill shows precisely how seriously the Government take the water standards—indeed it introduces the most major programme this century to improve water standards. I still have not heard the answers to the horrible questions about the horrible record of the Labour Government. Perhaps the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael)—who is not very good at answering questions, as we discovered in Committee, although he is pleasant enough—will do his best to answer them later.
  When we consider Lords amendments Nos. 62 to 64, we must distinguish between willing the end and willing the means. I fear that among those who have proposed 1993 as the date there might be a category of people who wish simply to advocate a futile gesture and the idea that we should simply include 1993 in the Bill and that, Parliament having spoken, it will somehow happen. That is not worth taking seriously.
  Another category of people may want 1993 to be included in the Bill as a flabby obligation. Contrary to what we have heard from Opposition Members, such a date will cause legal difficulties. We have no right under EEC rules to introduce that date. What will be the effect of doing so? An EEC directive already exists on this matter. What will happen if we try to put our own EEC directive date into our legislation? Can we approve or gain EEC approval for parts of the water industry which comply with the 1980 directive if we include 1993? Those are questions which Opposition Members should consider seriously instead of being devoted to creating work for lawyers like me.
  I fear that there is a third category of people who want to include that date in the Bill. If they get their way, including such a date would be a recipe for short cuts by the water industry. That would be very serious. It is wrong even to suggest including that date in the Bill if we do not will the means as well as the ends.
  108
  My colleagues have referred to the practicalities of this provision. My hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Water and Planning will not be surprised to learn that I am not prepared to support any measure which suggests that we can short-cut our planning procedures, soggy as they are. The House should not support such provisions. The projects required to implement the directive must be properly designed. That is an important step which has been taken in many parts of the water industry, but it remains to be taken in other areas.
  We are told by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment that new technology in respect of nitrates and pesticides must be proven. It is no use laughing those matters off because the use of chemicals in water is highly dangerous and delicate. For example, I have been promoting efforts in my constituency to deal with scivalium posticatum—as Mr. Speaker will know, that is the Blandford fly, which has been causing serious problems in the rivers of my constituency. The answer to that problem apparently lies in the use of a chemical called bacillus thuringiensis, which may have serious implications. It must be tested, and that takes a great deal of time. Similarly, the problems with nitrates and pesticides, which we should have discussed at greater length in this debate, must be considered seriously. A deadline of 1993 might be acceptable if we could be absolutely certain that compliance could be achieved and all the practicalities dealt with. Otherwise, the present position is much more in favour of high standards and ensuring that the practicalities are observed.
  The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) said that we should not let the Government off the hook. The Government are and will remain on the hook because of the existence of the directive. It could be argued that introducing the 1993 deadline would let the Government off the hook. I accept the present obligations, and I accept that, like every other EEC country, we are late in doing what should be done. It is up to the House to ensure that the Government do their job in keeping the momentum going. That is a far better way to proceed than trying to introduce an artificial date and ignoring the real practicalities involved in achieving the high standards that we all want.
  9.15 pm
  Mrs. Mahon: I am disgusted at the way in which the Government have consistently guillotined any debate on the Bill. If we had had a chance to debate it properly, we might have considered clause 60, which refers to private water supplies and is of particular interest to me. With the aid of a European Commission study contract, Calderdale environmental health department, which is in my local authority area, investigated the quality of water provided by private supplies in the district. It appears that 5,164 properties in Calderdale were using private supplies at the time of the study. That is 2·7 per cent. of the population. For obvious reasons, the Government were not very pleased with us for doing that study.
  The environmental health department in Calderdale found that many problems relating to the quality of water in private supplies were caused through a lack of maintenance, investment and knowledge. The parameters that were considered of relevance to the water quality study in Calderdale were the main ones that are applied everywhere. They are copper, lead, and microbiological

  109
  parameters—total coliforms and faecal coliforms. The sampling programme was organised to ensure that at least one sample was obtained from each private supply. It was found that 91 per cent. of samples failed to comply with the directive. They even found a dead cow in one supply.
  It is obvious that the quality of water from those supplies was well below the south-east standard. Our public water supply problems, particularly that of aluminium, are not nearly as bad as those of private supplies. The most effective method of achieving compliance with the directive would be to take private supplies into the public sector. Of course, with this Bill, it will not he possible to do that.
  I should like the Minister to spend a couple of minutes explaining what will happen to private supplies. Who will pay for them? What will he do? Clause 60 tells us a little about his intentions for private supplies but, because the matter has not been debated in great detail, we are not sure what will happen. What programme will the Government bring forward to ensure that those 5,164 properties in Calderdale receive water that complies with EEC regulations?
  Mr. Leigh: I will keep my remarks brief as other hon. Members wish to take part in the debate. From a practical point of view, the more I listen to the debate the more I am convinced about the lack of wisdom in enshrining Community directives in our legislation. We have heard about the riser Po— [Interruption.]I ask the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) to allow me to continue my remarks.
  They say that Italians do not mind signing Community directives because they have no intention of carrying them out. They say that the Germans like to sign up because they have already done it. They say that Mediterranean countries do not mind signing them because they want us to pay for them. We are the only people with the problem. We will comply with and pay for Community directives. It was a Labour Government who spent five years getting the thing ready, and the Community directive sums up so much of what is wrong with the Community. There are great intentions hut, as we have heard, not one country has succeeded in carrying out that directive nor, I suspect, will they. It is one thing to sign a directive for the sake of guidance, which is what we have done, but to enshrine it in legislation is something different.
  Mrs. Ann Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Leigh: No, because I shall draw my remarks to a rapid conclusion so that other hon. Members can contribute.
  The debate has been going on for an hour and a half. Is it not extraordinary that, with the exception of my right hon. Friend who spoke first, we have heard nothing from Opposition Members about clauses 20, 52 and 60? That is part of the black propaganda that the Labour party is trying to put out about the Bill. It is ignoring the fact that the Bill will achieve environmental safeguards that we have never had. We have never had anything akin to clause 52. We have never laid down in legislation that we will insist on wholesome water. We have never had legislation such as is contained in clauses 60 and 65 in which we insist on quality standards, or clause 20, where we insist on enforcement. Undertakers will have to go to the Secretary of State and say how they intend to comply with the EEC
  110
  directive. All those matters are contained in the Bill. Lord Hesketh made it clear in the other place that we intend to hold water undertakers to account.
  So much of what we have heard does not relate to what is contained in the [Interruption.] Of course, it is good politics. The Labour party is trying to convince the British people that we will privatise the water authorities so that profit will be put before people—[Interruption.] They are all cheering. Opposition Members are rising to the fly cast over the Benches, as happened during 180 hours in Committee. As they try to mislead the British people into believing this nonsense, they are ignoring what is in the Bill. For the first time we are setting up a national environmental protection agency and enforcement procedures. We are taking practical and sensible steps to comply with the EEC directive. That is what we intend to do, and why we should resist this Lords amendment.
  Mr. Morley: I have heard nothing in the debate to convince me that the Government cannot reach those standards by the date set down in the EEC directive. It is insulting to the Members in the other place to suggest that they have not taken into account the arguments and the practicalities of achieving those standards. I do not doubt that, because of the gross underinvestment in the water industry in the past 10 years under the Government, it will be difficult to achieve those standards. Under the last Labour Government, on average more money was invested in the industry than in the past 10 years. Conservative Members should hang their heads in shame at being party to such figures. It is a disgrace. Why is it that in the past 10 years the actual increase in water prices has been higher than the rate of inflation? Where has that profit gone? It does not seem to have been invested in the water industry, where it was needed. It seems to have gone to the Government as a form of taxation.
  It may be that to achieve the required water quality standards by 1993 enormous resources will have to be switched to the task. For example, there may have to he zero profits for those years while resources are directed towards ensuring that our drinking water quality standards meet the directive, but that is not possible in a privatised industry. That is why we have been arguing that those standards will not be achieved by privatisation, because profits will always be put first. That is the main criterion.
  I have not heard anyone, apart from the Government and the Water Authorities Association, say that those standards cannot be met. Of course, all the chairmen of those authorities have been appointed by the Government and they stand to do very nicely out of privatisation, as chairmen of other former public industries and public service sectors have done. I do not believe that the association's letter to every Member of Parliament has any credibility because its members have a completely vested interest. It is trying to defend the political direction of those who put the chairmen where they are today and should be disregarded.
  The important issue is that my constituents should be assured that problems such as high nitrate levels in the water supply will be tackled by the Government. We know that for any progress to be made in tackling nitrate levels, the Government have to be dragged along, kicking and screaming, by the EEC. That had to happen before they were prepared to do anything at all. I want to see action in tackling water supply standards and eradicating pesticides

  111
  in our water supply. That is why we need a target date. A directive was agreed in 1980, but the Government know that if they try to meet the required standards they will not attract investors to buy the water authorities. They are placing their ideology of selling off the water authorities into the private sector before quality standards and the safety of our people.
  Mr. Raffan: I am glad that the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) has returned to the Chamber. I wanted to say to her face that her opening speech in this debate was the most disreputable that I have ever heard throughout our consideration of the Bill, whether in Committee or in the Chamber. She said, as a statement of fact, that the Government do not care at all about the quality of drinking water. She contended that the Government care only about selling off the water authorities.
  Mrs. Ann Taylor: I stand by that.
  Mr. Raffan: Opposition Members dance to the bait that is thrown to them. The hon. Lady presented a complete distortion of the truth, and she knows it.
  Like the hon. Member for Dewsbury, I was a member of the Committee which considered the Bill. I was asked at one stage to comment on a radio interview that she had given. She did not know that that would happen. The interview that she gave bore no relation to anything set out in the Bill. She has distorted the truth again this evening in impugning the Government's motives. The Government have incorporated the drinking water directive in legislation for the first time and made it a criminal offence to supply drinking water that is unfit for human consumption. Under the Government, the water authorities are embarking on a massive capital spending programme of £1 billion to improve water infrastructure and thus water quality.
  This evening we saw the hon. Lady draw from her handbag the scruffy piece of paper that she brought out every so often in Committee. She prefers to give average spending figures for obvious reasons. The fact is that the Labour Government cut capital spending on water infrastructure by 30 per cent. in the last three years they were in power. The hon. Lady cannot get away from that.
  Mrs. Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Raffan: I will give way in a moment. I have not finished yet.
  However many times the hon. Lady produces that scruffy piece of paper from her handbag, she cannot get away from the fact that the Labour Government cut capital spending in the last three years they were in office.
  Mrs. Taylor rose—
  Mr. Raffan: I have not finished yet. I ask the hon. Lady to restrain herself. She had a big bite of the cake earlier. She must give others a chance to contribute to the debate. Some of us want to talk about facts rather than fiction.
  The Government are presiding over a massive capital spending programme. In an extremely eloquent speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw) described the process that we are undertaking as moving the water industry from the public sector, where it has been loosely constrained and loosely regulated, into the private
  112
  sector, where it will be subject to much tighter regulation and monitoring than ever before. That is a fact. Indeed, some Opposition Members have today acknowledged that with the setting up of the National Rivers Authority there will be much tighter control and regulation producing significant environmental advances.
  Mrs. Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman help the House by defining what he regards as a "massive capital programme"? Is he aware that the Government's investment programme from 1979 to 1986 has been lower —for the most part, much lower—than even the worst years under the Labour Government? It took seven years to get back to the Labour Government's worst year. That says a great deal about the problems created by the lack of investment under this Government.
  9.30 pm
  Mr. Raffan: That is a distortion. The more the hon. Lady is challenged, the more she distorts.
  I am glad that Welsh Members are present as they can confirm that there has been almost a doubling of capital expenditure by the Welsh water authority—
  Mr. Win Griffiths: It was needed.
  Mr. Raffan: It was desperately needed because of the years of neglect under the Labour Government. The Welsh water authority has the longest—
  Mr. Griffiths rose—
  Mr Raffan: I am not giving way. I am finishing a sentence. I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman because he, too, has already had a bite of the cake. He should remain quiet and let me make my point. I am well aware that what I am saying is unpalatable to the Opposition. It is fit for human consumption, but I am not sure that it is fit for the Opposition consumption. After all, they do not like facts—they have been dealing in fiction all night. The fact is that the Government have massively increased public spending by 50 per cent. since they came to power and have a programme stretching years ahead—
  Mr. Griffiths rose—
  Mr. Raffan: I have made it clear that I will not give way again—[Interruption.] I was generous in giving way earlier —[HON. MEMBERS:"Give way."] All right, I will give way, but I do not want to take up too much time.
  Mr Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman claims to have close knowledge of the Welsh water authority. If so, he must know that one of the major arguments put forward by its chairman for accepting privatisation is that it will release him from the constraints of capital spending imposed by the Government—a view that he has expressed many times.
  Mr. Raffan: It is not that at all. The hon. Gentleman is wrong again. I have talked often to Mr. John Elfed Jones, the chairman of the Welsh water authority, who wants to be released from the possible nightmare—although it is a fantasy—of a future Labour Government. He does not want a repeat of what happened in the last three years the Labour party was in power. Because the Labour Government so feared electoral unpopularity, they took the easy way out and cut capital rather than current spending when they had to crawl, humiliated, to the

  113
  International Monetary Fund in 1976. The chairman of the Welsh Water Authority knows the position. He knows that he will be able to borrow more money, more cheaply on the money market as a result of the Bill and thus accelerate the authority's capital programme.
  Mrs. Ann Taylor: What about the Conservatives' Euro-seats?
  Mr. Raffan: The hon. Lady brings in Euro-seats as a distraction. I do not remember the Labour candidate in north Wales mentioning the Bill. Indeed, he did not mention much to do with Europe at all. I doubt whether he even knew that the European drinking water directive existed.
  As usual, I wish to be constructive, and in the few minutes remaining to me I shall refer to some of the points to which the hon. Lady failed to respond in my right hon. Friend's opening speech My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made an important point about the practical problems of specific dates due to the varying programmes for capital works. We cannot expect all of them to be completed or finalised at the same time. My right hon. Friend mentioned the possible disruption of water supplies which would occur if there were an acceleration of the programmes. The hon. Lady did not respond to that point.
  Another important point is what has been referred to as dynamic changes. That refers to the long-term leaking of nitrates, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker), the introduction of new herbicides and pesticides and the problems that they will create. Water supplies which currently comply with the directive might not comply in future due to the long-term leaking of nitrates.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey pointed out that no EEC country complies with the directive—all are guilty of infringements except Portugal, which has had an extension of the time in which it has to comply. Most water suppliers in this country comply with the health-related aspects of the directive. Indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey said, of the 66 requirements in the directive most are related to appearance and turbidity and are not health-related. We are breaching the directive mainly on appearance and turbidity. The drinking water of the 11 million people touted around by the Opposition —the lingering remnants of the SLD members and the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths)—is not unsafe, but merely not up to standard terms of appearance and turbidity. Yet the Opposition toss around a figure of 11 million people's health being adversely affected by their drinking water. Nothing could be further from the truth.
  Mr. Win Griffiths: I did not say that.
  Mr. Raffan: That was the clear inferencee to be drawn from Opposition speeches. I listened very carefully, as I always do, to the hon. Members for Bridgend and for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey).
  Mr. Griffiths: Then the hon. Gentleman got it wrong again.
  Mr. Raffan: From the point of view of public health, the directives' key sections concern bacteria and toxic substances. Water in England and Wales has always enjoyed very high standards of bacteriological purity.
  114
  There remain only three very small water supplies which are adversely affected in that regard, and they are being quickly dealt with.
  The Government propose to incorporate in their regulations under the Bill tighter standards governing lead than exist in the directive and are requiring water authorities to do even more by introducing additives in water treatment to reduce lead content. Nitrate pollution is probably the trickiest area, and the main problem is of long-term leakage of nitrate into the water supply as a result of the use of fertilisers and intensive farming. I do not understand why Labour Members go on about static dates for compliance with the Community directive when maintaining quality is a continuing process which will not end in 1993 or 1995. There may be areas where water supplies are currently free of nitrates but may be adversely affected in the future. Much research is being undertaken by water authorities in respect of denitrification processes, some of which are very complicated. My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker) made an important point about the care that must be taken when adding chemicals to the water supply. This is particularly true when dealing with nitrates. The Government's proposals for the creation of water protection zones and nitrate-sensitive areas must be considered further. The Government are making considerable progress, but solutions cannot be conjured up overnight.
  Aluminium pollution is constantly mentioned by Opposition Members, although it is pure scaremongering. They fail to point out that a cup of tea contains 20 to 200 times as much aluminium as the water used to make it.
  Throughout the progress of the Bill, and particularly today, the Opposition have distorted the truth. The Government, through the effective provisions of the Bill—by the establishment of the National Rivers Authority, and by incorporating the Community directive into the legislation—are making clear their determination to improve the quality of our water supplies. That is something that a Labour Government never did, even when they had the chance to do so.
  Mr. Michael: It is always difficult to deal with the manifest distortions introduced by the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan), and as water was such a major issue in the recent European Parliament election in north Wales I am surprised that his remarks should be so far-reaching. I shall first correct the hon. Gentleman's remarks concerning Welsh Water. We know only of an apologetic plea by Welsh Water that it would be free from the constraints of the Conservative Government in terms of investment by the private sector, but Welsh Water's main objective was clearly set out in a letter to all its employees from its chairman, Mr. John Elfed Jones. It stated:
  "You should know that it is the unanimous opinion of the Board that the interests of both consumers and the employees of Welsh Water are best served by NOT proceeding with privatisation of the Welsh Water Authority."
  His letter concluded:
  "I very much hope that the Government will heed the views of the Board of Welsh Water and that privatisation will not take place."
  Mr. Raffan: When was it dated?
  Mr. Michael: Mr. Jones was later somewhat pressurised by Ministers, but that letter expressed the unanimous view

  115
  of the board of Welsh Water—[Interruption.]—and shouting by Conservative Members will not change the truth of that.
  The debate has inevitably been narrow in its scope, btit the concerns are basic and of major importance. As has happened with monotonous consistency during the passage of this outrageous Bill, the Government failed to make their case, appeared appallingly complacent, and were made to look ridiculous in discussing the subject of water quality. To describe the Bill as a consumer measure is as ludicrous as calling Count Dracula a dependable agent of public health. To claim that the Bill has been brought in specially to improve water quality is even dafter. Labour Members are seeking to ensure decent standards of water quality and to present practical protection measures. As with so many other aspects of the Bill, the Secretary of State can defend the Government's position only by weaving a web of byzantine complexity, cross-referring clauses and asking us to put our trust in the intentions of Ministers.
  Conservative Back-Bench Members have given credit to the Labour Government's work over five years, but have allowed little for the 10 years of neglect that followed and the failure to implement the standards to which we have referred. Welsh Water came out against privatisation. My hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) has given the facts about the Government's failure until 1986 to return to even the lowest level of investment made by the Labour Government. Clauses 52 and 20, cited in defence of the Government's measure, mean little without objective and public scrutiny. All the protections in the Bill are flawed without that.
  On the evidence of the past 10 years, to trust Ministers would be foolhardy. Lords amendment No. 49 is welcome because it tightens the original wording, which would have imposed little or no obligation on the Secretary of State or the director general to take any serious action to enforce standards. We want to ensure proper monitoring of water quality, and it is sad to see that it is now the EC to which we must turn for any real safeguards and any serious intention to protect the public.
  I have a feeling that a reading of Conservative Members' contributions to the debate will not reassure Commissioner Ripa di Meana about the Government's intentions. That is why our amendment to Lords amendment No. 49 is so important. Under our amendment, technical assessors would have an independent role and the EC could monitor properly. Technical reports about contraventions would have to be sent to the EC within two weeks of their coming to knowledge; problems would be brought into the open instead of being buried in bureaucracy or covered up by a Conservative Minister.
  The ministerial reply that I received in response to questions to the Secretary of State for Wales on current derogation applications showed an appalling lack of knowledge of or interest in the matter. Our basic point is that if there is to be a process of letting companies off in return for investment schemes, it should be open to scrutiny and subject to objective tests. That is particularly important in view of other amendments that the Secretary of State wants to make today. If he has his way, he will delete the word "wholesome".
  116
  The fact that the Secretary of State does not want companies to be obliged to supply people with wholesome water brings home just how much we need European Commission protection. He appears not to care what quality of water comes through the tap, but we and the British public care, and we are trying to build in some protections. Incidentally, if the Secretary of State thinks it impractical to emphasise the word "wholesome", he should note that precisely that word is used in the famous water advertisements to describe quality and to define what people expect, so the water authorities must know what it means. In its version, Welsh Water's claim is
  "Water we send your way is regularly tested to ensure it is wholesome."
  According to the Secretary of State, that is meaningless. I would prefer to listen to Welsh Water in this context. To delete the word "wholesome" will hardly reassure independent observers who share our justifiable fears about what the Government are up to.
  Personally, I am delighted at the success of the water authorities' advertising campaign, although the result has not been quite what the Government or the water authorities intended. Millions of pounds have been spent on the campaign to soften up the British public for the great water sell-off, but the result is that the public are confirmed in their belief that water is of value, and water quality so important that the industry should not be sold off. Their reasons are many, but the simple question of what comes out of the tap takes pride of place—followed by environmental concerns and worry over prices, river quality, land use and so forth.
  Among the advertisements published by Welsh Water, my personal favourite is the one that shows a rustic well miles from anyone's home and tells us that we have come a long way since Victorian times. Too right we have, especially in terms of water quality. In Victorian times the industry was in private hands, and water quality was so bad that disease was rife in our towns and cities. Today 79 per cent. of the population firmly oppose the Secretary of State and the water sell-off. My bet is that nearly 100 per cent. of the population firmly oppose the Government's bid to return to Victorian values, that nearly 100 per cent. of the population agree with our plea for safeguards and objective, open monitoring and that nearly 100 per cent. of the population support what we are trying to do in the amendments.
  The City also rejects the Government's plans. Water quality is one of the factors that is putting off financiers. The City believes that privatisation should be put off until after water has been brought up to the EC standard, yet the Government are trying to put off the day of reckoning. They do not want to write in the 1993 deadline—itself a compromise—by which date Britain should reach European drinking water standards. The Secretary of State admits that those standards should have been met by 1985. That is why the City, like the public, are suspicious of the Secretary of State's motives in rejecting the Lords amendment.
  9.45 pm
  How can Ministers press on and ignore water quality problems and the helpful amendments that have been tabled at a time when the Director of Public Prosecutions is in the latter stages of considering criminal charges following the Camelford incident, when even public bodies have been shown to have misled the public and covered up

  117
  the facts—something that is bound to be an even greater danger when water is in private hands, since company regulations require shareholders' interests and profits to take priority—and when water authorities are currently and variously being challenged over EC levels of aluminium, lead, iron and manganese? Furthermore, local authority power will be diminished by the Bill. The British Government arc defying the European Community over the timetable for improving water standards and may be taken to court by it. Microbiologists and others with direct experience of the water industry are warning the British people and the Secretary of State of the need for the independent monitoring of drinking water quality. The Welsh Office and the Department of the Environment are seen to be headed by Ministers who offer fine words but who lack the commitment to guarantee a supply of drinking water that is of a high and dependable quality.
  The Bill is fatally flawed. Information that is technically in the public domain is now inaccessible to public or professional scrutiny and it will be even less accessible to consumers in the future. The Government have not told us —perhaps the Secretary of State will do so now—whether we are to have a locally based system of technical assessors and whether such a service will be provided with guaranteed resources and allowed to be independent. According to the Bill, water quality is not in the hands of the director general. His role is an economic one. Water quality is in the hands of the Secretary of State. Given his complacency earlier tonight, that will not reassure the public.
  The Ministers involved want us to trust them. We do not, nor do the public at large. The Bill has been described by a senior Welsh Tory Back-Bench Member as deservedly unpopular. I hope that he and other Conservative Members who realise that the Government have got it wrong will join us in the Lobby and give some protection to the public on the key issue of water quality.
  Mr. Ridley: With the leave of the House, Mr. Speaker, may I say that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) is fatally flawed? If he looks at clause 52 he will find that it states specifically that there will he a duty to supply wholesome water. That duty remains under any amendments on the Amendment Paper. I agree that he mentioned the Opposition amendment, but again his approach to it was fatally flawed. The need for an independent assessor is recognised elsewhere in the Bill, but the hon. Gentleman seems not to have noticed it. There will, therefore, be an independent assessor. If the Commission wants any information from the Government, it will write and ask for it. There is no need, therefore, for the amendment. The hon. Gentleman's understanding of what is provided for in the Bill is clearly inadequate.
  The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) questioned whether the Government's amendments to clause 20 had convinced and satisfied the Commission. She is quite wrong about that.
  Mrs. Ann Taylor: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Ridley: No. I have very little time and I must get on.
  I can do no better than quote the Select Committee on the cuts that the Labour Government made in water investment.
  118
  "There are a number of reasons why water authority effluence falls short of the present consent standards. The most immediate reason is because from the mid-1970s until the early 1980s there was a steady drop in investment by the water authority in sewerage and sewage disposal."
  The hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) and others signed the Select Committee report.
  The hon. Member for Dewsbury was quite wrong when she said that the Labour Government's worst year of investment was better than the Tory average. Labour's worst year of investment was worse than the worst year of Tory investment, so the hon. Lady was absolutely wrong. The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) fails to understand that the underinvestment by the Labour Government is the problem that we all have to face.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw) suggested that the Bill had the year 1995 as the date for total compliance by the industry with the water directive. The Bill includes no date by which total compliance is to be achieved. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) asked me to confirm that I have the duty to enforce compliance, even for temporary waivers under clause 50. That is indeed the case. I have that duty and I shall certainly exercise it.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker) was absolutely right when he said that it would probably be illegal to put the date 1993 into the Bill because we had to comply by 1985. The House could find itself brought before the European Court of Justice, of which the Opposition are so inordinately fond. because they had succeeded in getting the amendment into the Bill. They are advocating that the House should legislate in total contradiction with European law.
  Mr. Morgan: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Ridley: No, I shall not give way.
  The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffths) said that it was as if we had suddenly discovered a new directive. He is right. It is a new directive. The directive that the Labour party and the Government negotiated and that was brought to a conclusion in 1980 was based on annual average compliance. That is what every nation in Europe thought. That is what the Labour party and the Conservative party thought it said. In 1987 the Commission gave it as its opinion, ex cathedra, that it was based on 100 per cent. compliance. That is what changed that game. In 1987 we were just about complying until the goal posts were moved. That is why it was a totally new game. The hon. Member for Bridgend does not seem to realise that.
  Finally, we come to the question whether it is correct that the standards should be applied to all the parameters in the directive. I make no secret of the fact that I hope that there will be some relaxation because some of the standards in the directive are ridiculous, extravagant and unnecessary. I believe that it is absurd to put expensive requirements on us in relation to the colour and taste of water. There is no health risk. Peaty water in the north of England is not something to be ashamed of. It is absolutely absurd to insist on those standards. The standard for nitrate is higher than it need be for purely health reasons. I hope that we can persuade the Commission to relax the standards. Of course we cannot do that unilaterally. We shall abide by the standards, but it would be strange if the

  119
  Opposition did not realise that there has to be some considered judgment as to whether they are the right standards.
  The hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) has left the Chamber, so I need not reply to her, but clauses 57 to 59 meet her point about private water supplies, and of course the directive will apply to them.
  The Labour party fails to understand that there are about 60 parameters in the directive. All drinking water in this country is wholesome and fit to drink, but of the parameters cited in the directive as being dangerous to health, we shall be in compliance with that for lead within the next few months. It will probably take about two years to comply with microbiological factors, and about two or three years to comply with the directive on nitrates. However, it might take a little longer in a few areas where denitrification plants will be necessary. We should have all the aluminium cleaned up at treatment works in two or three years, but natural aluminium is not mentioned in the directive. All the measures that matter will be completed well before 1993. Colour, iron and manganese traces in the water may take much longer because the entire pipe network will have to be replaced. If the hon. Member for Dewsbury thinks that we can do that by 1993, she should think again.
  I agree with my hon. Friends about the scandalous way in which the Labour party has sought to knock the health standards of this country for short-term, cheap political advantage, and I invite the House to reject amendment (a).
  Question put and agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 45 to 48 agreed to.
  Lords amendment: No. 49, in page 21, leave out lines 45 to 47.
  Amendment proposed to the Lords amendment, amendment (a), at end add
  'and insert "except that the Secretary of State or Director as the case may be shall have regard in any case to which paragraph (b) of this subsection applies to any report submitted to the Director by a technical assessor appointed under section 60 below in respect of the contraventions concerned, and the Director shall within two weeks of receiving any such report submit a copy of it to the European Commission".'.—[Mrs. Ann Taylor.]
  Question put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made: —
  The House divided: Ayes 197, Noes 308.

  Division No. 274]

  [9.56 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Boateng, Paul

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Boyes, Roland

  Allen, Graham

  Bradley, Keith

  Anderson, Donald

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Ashton, Joe

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Buckley, George J.

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Caborn, Richard

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Callaghan, Jim

  Battle, John

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Beckett, Margaret

  Canavan, Dennis

  Beith, A. J.

  Cartwright, John

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

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

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Clay, Bob

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Clelland, David

  Blunkett, David

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  120

  Cohen, Harry

  Madden, Max

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Marek, Dr John

  Cousins, Jim

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Cox, Tom

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Crowther, Stan

  Martlew, Eric

  Cryer, Bob

  Maxton, John

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Meacher, Michael

  Dalyell, Tam

  Meale, Alan

  Darling, Alistair

  Michael, Alun

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

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

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Dewar, Donald

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Dixon, Don

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Dobson, Frank

  Morley, Elliott

  Doran, Frank

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Eastham, Ken

  Mudd, David

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Mullin, Chris

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Murphy, Paul

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

  Nellist, Dave

  Fisher, Mark

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Flannery, Martin

  O'Brien, William

  Flynn, Paul

  O'Neill, Martin

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Foster, Derek

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Foulkes, George

  Pendry, Tom

  Fraser, John

  Pike, Peter L.

  Fyfe, Maria

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Galloway, George

  Prescott, John

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Radice, Giles

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Randall, Stuart

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Gordon, Mildred

  Reid, Dr John

  Gould, Bryan

  Richardson, Jo

  Graham, Thomas

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Robertson, George

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Rogers, Allan

  Grocott, Bruce

  Rooker, Jeff

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Henderson, Doug

  Rowlands, Ted

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Hood, Jimmy

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Howells, Geraint

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Hoyle, Doug

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Smith, C. (Isl'ton & Fbury)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

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

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

  Ingram, Adam

  Snape, Peter

  Janner, Greville

  Soley, Clive

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Kennedy, Charles

  Stott, Roger

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Strang, Gavin

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Straw, Jack

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Livingstone, Ken

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Livsey, Richard

  Turner, Dennis

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Vaz, Keith

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Wall, Pat

  McAllion, John

  Wallace, James

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Walley, Joan

  McCartney, Ian

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

  McFall, John

  Wigley, Dafydd

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  McKelvey, William

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  McLeish, Henry

  Wilson, Brian

  Maclennan, Robert

  Winnick, David

  McWilliam, John

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  121

  Worthington, Tony

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Wray, Jimmy

  Mr. Frank Haynes and

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Mr. Robert N. Wareing.

  NOES

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Alexander, Richard

  Dover, Den

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Dunn, Bob

  Amess, David

  Dykes, Hugh

  Amos, Alan

  Eggar, Tim

  Arbuthnot, James

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Evennett, David

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Fallon, Michael

  Ashby, David

  Favell, Tony

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Atkins, Robert

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Forman, Nigel

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Baldry, Tony

  Forth, Eric

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Batiste, Spencer

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Bellingham, Henry

  Franks, Cecil

  Bendall, Vivian

  Freeman, Roger

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  French, Douglas

  Benyon, W.

  Fry, Peter

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Gardiner, George

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Gill, Christopher

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Body, Sir Richard

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Boswell, Tim

  Gorst, John

  Bottomley, Peter

  Gow, Ian

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Bowis, John

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Grist, Ian

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Ground, Patrick

  Brazier, Julian

  Grylls, Michael

  Bright, Graham

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Hague, William

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

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Hannam, John

  Buck, Sir Antony

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

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Burns, Simon

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Burt, Alistair

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Butcher, John

  Hayes, Jerry

  Butler, Chris

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Butterfill, John

  Hayward, Robert

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Heddle, John

  Carrington, Matthew

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Cash, William

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hind, Kenneth

  Chope, Christopher

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Churchill, Mr

  Holt, Richard

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Howard, Michael

  Colvin, Michael

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

  Conway, Derek

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Hunter, Andrew

  Couchman, James

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Cran, James

  Irvine, Michael

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Jack, Michael

  Curry, David

  Jackson, Robert

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

  Janman, Tim

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Day, Stephen

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Devlin, Tim

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Dicks, Terry

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Key, Robert

  122

  Kilfedder, James

  Redwood, John

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Renton, Tim

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Knapman, Roger

  Riddick, Graham

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Knowles, Michael

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Knox, David

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Lang, Ian

  Rost, Peter

  Latham, Michael

  Rowe, Andrew

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Ryder, Richard

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Lightbown, David

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Lilley, Peter

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Shersby, Michael

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  McCrindle, Robert

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Speller, Tony

  Maclean, David

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Squire, Robin

  Madel, David

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Malins, Humfrey

  Steen, Anthony

  Mans, Keith

  Stern, Michael

  Maples, John

  Stevens, Lewis

  Marland, Paul

  Stokes, Sir John

  Marlow, Tony

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Sumberg, David

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Summerson, Hugo

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Mates, Michael

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Mellor, David

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Mills, Iain

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Thorne, Neil

  Moate, Roger

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Thurnham, Peter

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Tracey, Richard

  Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

  Tredinnick, David

  Moss, Malcolm

  Trippier, David

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Trotter, Neville

  Neale, Gerrard

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Nelson, Anthony

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Neubert, Michael

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Walden, George

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Norris, Steve

  Waller, Gary

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Walters, Sir Dennis

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Ward, John

  Page, Richard

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Paice, James

  Warren, Kenneth

  Patnick, Irvine

  Watts, John

  Patten, John (Oxford W)

  Wells, Bowen

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Wheeler, John

  Pawsey, James

  Whitney, Ray

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Portillo, Michael

  Wilshire, David

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Price, Sir David

  Wolfson, Mark

  Raffan, Keith

  Wood, Timothy

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Woodcock, Dr. Mike

  Rathbone, Tim

  Yeo, Tim

  123

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and

  Mr. Tony Durant.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  It being after Ten o'clock, MR. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to order this day, to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.
  Lords amendment No. 49 agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 62 and 63 disagreed to.
  Lords amendment: No. 64, in page 40, line 16, at end insert
  "(2A) Without prejudice to the generality of the duty conferred by subsection (2) above, regulations under that subsection shall include in any standard of performance a requirement for an undertaker to achieve the levels of drinking water quality specified in EEC Directive 80/778 by a date not later than the date specified by the Secretary of State under subsection (2B) below in respect of each undertaker.
  (2B) The date or dates to be specified by the Secretary of State by order under this subsection shall be that or those which either—

  (a) Not later than 31st December 1989, have been agreed by the Secretary of State and the European Commission; or

  (b) Where no such agreement has been reached by the date referred to in paragraph (a) above, 1st September 1993.

  (2C) Where, before the date specified in an order under subsection (2B) above, any further terms of a Directive by the European Commission relating to drinking water quality are introduced, the Secretary of State shall, in consultation with the Commission, by regulations establish the shortest timetable for compliance by each water and sewerage undertaker as he considers to be reasonably practicable."— [Mr. Alan Howarth]
  Motion made, and Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—The House divided: Ayes 307, Noes 199.

  Division No. 275]

  [10.13 pm

  AYES

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Alexander, Richard

  Brazier, Julian

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Bright, Graham

  Amess, David

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Amos, Alan

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

  Arbuthnot, James

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Ashby, David

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Burns, Simon

  Atkins, Robert

  Burt, Alistair

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Butcher, John

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Butler, Chris

  Baldry, Tony

  Butterfill, John

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Carrington, Matthew

  Bendall, Vivian

  Carttiss, Michael

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Benyon, W.

  Chapman, Sydney

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Chope, Christopher

  Bitten, Rt Hon John

  Churchill, Mr

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Colvin, Michael

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Conway, Derek

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Boswell, Tim

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Bottomley, Peter

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Couchman, James

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Cran, James

  Bowis, John

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Curry, David

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

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

  124

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Day, Stephen

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Devlin, Tim

  Knapman, Roger

  Dicks, Terry

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Knowles, Michael

  Dover, Den

  Knox, David

  Dunn, Bob

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Dykes, Hugh

  Lang, Ian

  Eggar, Tim

  Latham, Michael

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Evennett, David

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Fallon, Michael

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Favell, Tony

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Forman, Nigel

  Lightbown, David

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Lilley, Peter

  Forth, Eric

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Franks, Cecil

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Freeman, Roger

  McCrindle, Robert

  French, Douglas

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Fry, Peter

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Gardiner, George

  Maclean, David

  Gill, Christopher

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Madel, David

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Malins, Humfrey

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Mans, Keith

  Gorst, John

  Maples, John

  Gow, Ian

  Marland, Paul

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Marlow, Tony

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Gregory, Conal

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Mates, Michael

  Grist, Ian

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Ground, Patrick

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Grylls, Michael

  Mellor, David

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Hague, William

  Mills, Iain

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Han ley, Jeremy

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Hannam, John

  Mitchell, Sir David

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

  Moate, Roger

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Hayes, Jerry

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

  Hayward, Robert

  Moss, Malcolm

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Heddle, John

  Nelson, Anthony

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Neubert, Michael

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hind, Kenneth

  Norris, Steve

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Holt, Richard

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Page, Richard

  Howard, Michael

  Paice, James

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

  Patnick, Irvine

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Patten, John (Oxford W)

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Pawsey, James

  Hunter, Andrew

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Irvine, Michael

  Portillo, Michael

  Jack, Michael

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Jackson, Robert

  Price, Sir David

  Janman, Tim

  Raffan, Keith

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Redwood, John

  Kellett-Rowman, Dame Elaine

  Renton, Tim

  Key, Robert

  Rhodes James, Robert

  125

  Riddick, Graham

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Thorne, Neil

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Thurnham, Peter

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Rost, Peter

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Rowe, Andrew

  Tracey, Richard

  Ryder, Richard

  Tredinnick, David

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Trippier, David

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Trotter, Neville

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Walden, George

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Shersby, Michael

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Waller, Gary

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Walters, Sir Dennis

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Ward, John

  Speller, Tony

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Warren, Kenneth

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Watts, John

  Squire, Robin

  Wells, Bowen

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Wheeler, John

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Whitney, Ray

  Steen, Anthony

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Stern, Michael

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Stevens, Lewis

  Wilshire, David

  Stokes, Sir John

  Wolfson, Mark

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Wood, Timothy

  Sumberg, David

  Woodcock, Dr. Mike

  Summerson, Hugo

  Yeo, Tim

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Mr. Tony Durant.

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Allen, Graham

  Clay, Bob

  Anderson, Donald

  Clelland, David

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Cohen, Harry

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Ashton, Joe

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Cousins, Jim

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Cox, Tom

  Battle, John

  Crowther, Stan

  Beckett, Margaret

  Cryer, Bob

  Beith, A. J.

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Dalyell, Tarn

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

  Darling, Alistair

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Blunkett, David

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

  Boateng, Paul

  Dewar, Donald

  Boyes, Roland

  Dixon, Don

  Bradley, Keith

  Dobson, Frank

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Doran, Frank

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Eastham, Ken

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Buckley, George J.

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Caborn, Richard

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

  Callaghan, Jim

  Fisher, Mark

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Flannery, Martin

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Flynn, Paul

  Canavan, Dennis

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Cartwright, John

  Foster, Derek

  126

  Foulkes, George

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Fraser, John

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Galloway, George

  Mudd, David

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Mullin, Chris

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Murphy, Paul

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Nellist, Dave

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Gordon, Mildred

  O'Brien, William

  Gould, Bryan

  O'Neill, Martin

  Graham, Thomas

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Pendry, Tom

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Pike, Peter L.

  Grocott, Bruce

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Prescott, John

  Henderson, Doug

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Radice, Giles

  Hood, Jimmy

  Randall, Stuart

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Reid, Dr John

  Howells, Geraint

  Richardson, Jo

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Hoyle, Doug

  Robertson, George

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Rogers, Allan

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Ingram, Adam

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Janner, Greville

  Sheerman, Barry

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Skinner, Dennis

  Kennedy, Charles

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Kilfedder, James

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

  Kirkwood, Archy

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

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Snape, Peter

  Livingstone, Ken

  Soley, Clive

  Livsey, Richard

  Spearing, Nigel

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Steinberg, Gerry

  McAllion, John

  Stott, Roger

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Strang, Gavin

  McCartney, Ian

  Straw, Jack

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  McFall, John

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Turner, Dennis

  McKelvey, William

  Vaz, Keith

  McLeish, Henry

  Wall, Pat

  Maclennan, Robert

  Wallace, James

  McWilliam, John

  Walley, Joan

  Madden, Max

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Marion, Mrs Alice

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

  Marek, Dr John

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Martlew, Eric

  Wilson, Brian

  Maxton, John

  Winnick, David

  Meale, Alan

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Worthington, Tony

  Michael, Alun

  Wray, Jimmy

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Mr. Frank Haynes and

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Mr. Robert N. Wareing.

  Morley, Elliott

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Lords amendment accordingly disagreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 50 to 54 agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 56 to 61 agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 65 to 116 agreed to.
  Further consideration of Lords amendments adjourned.—[Mr. Alan Howarth.]
  To be further considered tomorrow.

Hospitals (Walsall)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Alan Howarth.]
Mr. David Winnick: The background to this Adjournment debate is the decision of the Walsall health authority on 27 April this year to submit an expression of interest—that is how recommendations are worded—in what is called self-governing status for two hospitals in my borough: the main hospital, the Manor, and St. Margaret's hospital. Reference was made in the recommendations to a consultation exercise—whatever that means—by the regional health authority, but, at most, that will be of the most limited kind. Who is to be consulted and on what basis? Are medical and non-medical staff of the hospitals concerned to be consulted, or are they to be balloted? How will residents in the borough, the unions and professional associations be consulted?
On 3 May I wrote to the chairman of the Walsall health authority and told him that I remain strongly opposed to the decision. I stated that there was no evidence whatever that any such decision would be in the overall interests of the borough. I added—I hope that the Minister notes this —that there could be no doubt that the large majority of residents are opposed to those hospitals becoming self-governing. I pointed out that if, however, the health authority was determined to press ahead with this matter, it was essential that the residents in the borough were given an opportunity to express their views. I outlined the arrangements that should therefore be made for balloting to take place, with each electoral polling district within each ward being used for residents to express whether they agree with the recommendations of the health authority.
I followed that up with a letter on 18 May to the Secretary of State, enclosing a copy of my letter to the chairman of the health authority and again setting out the arguments for ensuring that ballots are held before there is any opting out, or what the Government describe as self-governing status, for those National Health Service hospitals. I shall return to that in a moment and also to the reply which I received.
The opted-out hospitals will undoubtedly be under immense pressure to specialise in profitable activities and to drop others. It is far less likely that local communities such as mine will be guaranteed a comprehensve package of services. There will also he a financial disincentive for such opted-out hospitals to treat patients who are not covered by a contract from a health authority or a general practitioner under the White Paper proposals described as "Working for Patients"—that is not how I would describe them.
It may be said that that is the typical reaction of the Labour party. People may say, "What do you expect from Labour politicians? 'Hands off the NHS; hands off the existing arrangements'. It is all party propaganda." I make no apologies for the fact that since the Labour Government brought in the National Health Service 41 years ago we have all been completely devoted to the idea. We were devoted to the conception before it was brought in and we have been determined that the National Health Service should survive.
That is not just the opinion of the Labour party, because medical opinion seems to be of the same view. The British Medical Association Council said:
128
"The Council believes that the establishment of self-governing hospitals would fragment the service and destroy its comprehensive nature. Patients would no longer have available to them in their own localities a full range of health care facilities, and this would be a cause of great inconvenience to them and to their relatives."
The BMA, again in evidence to the Select Committee on Social Services, gave this warning:
"The considerable experience of such hospitals in the USA shows clearly that there will be pressure to encourage admission of patients that can he treated with financial benefit to the hospital, rather than to admit those patients often the chronic sick whose treatment is likely to lead to little or no financial benefit."
I shall quote, too, the views of the joint consultants committee. I very much doubt whether the BMA is dominated by Labour voting doctors. Likewise I have considerable doubt whether the joint consultants committee has an in-built Labour majority. I hope that the Minister will listen to what the committee said:
"These proposals inevitably change the prime aim of the management of these hospitals, from the provision of adequate care to the community as a whole to the financial success of the hospital. The considerable experience of such hospitals in the USA shows clearly that there will be pressure to encourage admission of patients with conditions that can be treated with financial benefit to the hospital rather than to admit those patients—often the chronic sick—whose treatment is likely to lead to little or no such financial benefit."
There does not seem to be much doubt about the medical view of hospitals opting out. The Royal College of Nursing also expressed strong disapproval of any such plans. Locally, Dr. Bradwell Davies, the chairman of the local medical committee in my borough, whose committee represents 180 general practitioners, said that the vast majority of doctors oppose opting out by hospitals. He also made the valid point that they have not been consulted.
Opted-out hospitals will have the right to dispose of assets. The only restriction apparently will be if the Secretary of State believes that it would be against the public interest. The Opposition do not believe that that is much of a guarantee at all.
As there is the possibility that the Minister will consider that opting out is not the right expression to use about this matter, it is interesting to note that on 15 May, when I asked the Minister of State, Department of Health about opting-out hospitals, he did not challenge that description. That is rather like the so-called community charge. Everyone knows that it is a poll tax—even Ministers admit that. The same can be said about hospitals opting out.
I take the view that opting out is a halfway house to privatisation. No doubt the Minister will tell me that opted-out hospitals or hospitals with governing status, however he likes to describe them, will remain with the National Health Service. Perhaps they will, in a way, but opting out is a halfway house to privatisation. We all know how the Government could proceed once hospitals opted out of the existing NHS management structure.
The Minister and I will not agree about the pros and cons of opting out. He is here, understandably, to represent the Government's point of view. The decision was made in Cabinet, and a junior Minister—I mean no disrespect to the hon. Gentleman—is here to echo the Government's line. He is not likely to say, "You have a point of view and I shall press it among my ministerial colleagues." We shall clearly not reach agreement on this matter tonight.

129
Before there is any opting out or self-governing status, whatever description the Minister wants to apply to the proposals, there should be adequate balloting before the matter is taken any further. It is interesting to note that balloting is necessary before schools can opt out. Before the accommodation of council tenants can be bought by private landlords, balloting is necessary. Before a housing action trust can be set up, balloting is now necessary. As we know, the Government were adamant initially that there would not be any balloting for housing action trusts. The Secretary of State remained adamant, even when the other place passed an amendment that required balloting to take place. At the end of the day, however, balloting was accepted.
I received today the Minister's reply to my letter of 18 May. It is dated 30 June. He states:
"RHAs will give the proposals publicity and seek the views of all interested parties particularly the health authority concerned, staff of the hospital, general practitioners, community health councils and the local community."
He adds:
"We have decided that it would not be sensible for the RHA to organise ballots of staff or any other group with an interest."
What does that mean? What sort of a consultation exercise will it be? Do not the Government believe in the same form of democracy in which I believe? I believe in balloting. Let the people decide. I am a democrat. If a decision goes against me, that is most unfortunate to say the least, but for all the reasons that I have outlined I must accept the decision, as I have accepted other decisions. I have no doubt that the Minister has done that in political life when decisions have gone against him. That is the nature of our democracy.
Why should there be no balloting in this instance? Is it really not practicable, or is it because the Government know that if balloting occurred there would be an overwhelming majority against the Government's proposals? The Minister knows that that is so, but he will not concede the point. He knows it as well as I do, otherwise the Government would have no hesitation about balloting.
At a public meeting that was held in the town hall in the borough a few weeks ago there was total opposition to any opting out. No one came from the Conservative party or the doctors to say, "I have a point of view that is in its favour." We would have listened because we are democrats. The meeting was well advertised, publicised and attended and no view was expressed in favour of the Government's case. If the Minister consulted the local district health authority, I think that it would concede to him privately that what I am saying is the truth. Who is frightened of democracy? Who is reluctant to put the issues to those who are concerned?
We will not abandon the campaign. In my borough we will continue to insist that those two hospitals remain within the existing NHS management structure. I hope that there will be similar campaigns throughout the country in defence of the NHS hospitals. I said that I thought of the plans as a halfway house to privatisation. The Government have no real commitment to the NHS. We all know that if, electorally, they could have got away with it, even more damage would have been done— [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Croydon, South (Sir W. Clark) mutters and mumbles, but I doubt whether he has any commitment to the NHS.
130
The Minister, understandably, will read his prepared speech, but I hope that he will take on board what I have said about democracy and the views of the local community. The overwhelming majority are against his proposals. We shall certainly continue the campaign in Walsall.
10.41 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Roger Freeman): I congratulate the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) on securing this debate and on presenting his arguments so clearly. It is a pleasure, at this hour of night, to be debating with such a seasoned campaigner, battling as always against common sense and, on this occasion, the tide of history on the reforms of the National Health Service.
During the six months that I have served as a health Minister I have visited many hospitals and spoken to many of those who work in the Health Service. I have seen for myself the great deal of interest in the concept of self-governing hospitals. The Government are convinced that it is an exciting and excellent opportunity for the NHS. I shall be playing my part—not merely reading speeches as the hon. Gentleman implied—in helping to explain to those who work in the NHS and to patients the great value of the Government's proposals.
I am glad to have this opportunity to put on record the considerable achievements of the Walsall district health authority in improving health services for the people of Walsall and the ways in which our White Paper proposals will build on those achievements. The hon. Gentleman did not have time to dwell upon the authority's achievements, nor upon those of the Government during the past 10 years. I hope that he will not mind if I take a few minutes to put those achievements on the record before dealing specifically with his points.
The Government's record since we came to office amply demonstrates our commitment to the National Health Service. We have increased spending by some 40 per cent. in real terms. We are treating more patients each year and we have greatly increased the numbers of doctors and nurses working in the NHS.
Walsall district health authority has shared in all those advances and has significantly improved its position as a district that includes some of the most deprived areas in the west midlands region. In the current financial year the district has received an increase of more than £5·5 million in its revenue budget, bringing the total to just under £53 million. That represents a cash increase this year alone of 11·5 per cent. Part of that increase will help to pay for the running costs of the new £20 million Walsall district general hospital which, as the hon. Member will know, was recently completed. That magnificent new hospital, which will admit its first patients in December, will eventually have 289 acute beds, together with an accident and emergency department, operating theatres, a coronary care unit and X-ray rooms.
That is not the only major development in Walsall. Work is due to start as soon as possible on the new Anchor Meadow community hospital, costing more than £9 million. It should be completed by March 1991. We have recently given approval in principle to a new scheme for psychiatric services in the district. That scheme, costing some £8 million, will he carried out in two phases, the first starting later this year. That is a major capital investment

131
programme in anyone's terms. The people of Walsall already have a Health Service of which they can be justifiably proud. The completion of those projects will provide further improvements.
Walsall is to be congratulated on its success in reducing hospital in-patient waiting lists, which were down in March 1989 by nearly 17 per cent. by comparison with the previous year. The reduction in the number of people who have waited for longer than a year is even more dramatic, for it has fallen by more than one third. Those significant achievements are reflected by increased activity rates in almost all specialties. That is a tribute to the skills and professionalism not only of management but of all who work in the Health Service in Walsall.
There is more to proper health care than hospitals—and Walsall's efforts, quite properly, do not end with the provision of hospital services. The district has an admirable record of taking positive and imaginative steps to prevent ill health. In January, I announced that for 1989–90 the Government were allocating to regions a total of £7·8 million for measles, mumps and rubella vaccinations. I drew attention to the excellent local rubella publicity campaign being run in Walsall, which continues to be a great success. There have been about 860,000 vaccinations to date, and the district is well on its way to meeting its target. I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees that the health authority is doing a great deal to improve the health care—including hospital facilities—that is available to the people of Walsall.
I turn to the hon. Gentleman's specific points. The White Paper "Working for Patients" outlines a number of initiatives to make the Health Service more responsive to the needs of patients by delegating responsibility for managing hospitals as far as possible to local level, and giving general practitioners and patients more choice. Our basic thinking is that hospitals and other NHS units are best run locally by the doctors, nurses and managers who have first-hand local knowledge. Self-governing hospitals will have the freedom to run their own affairs.
Self-governing hospitals will not opt out but will remain fully part of the National Health Service. The hon. Gentleman believes that that is halfway to privatisation and to breaking up the NHS. He is entitled to his belief, but he is wrong. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Government made it absolutely plain that the Health Service will continue to deliver its services free to patients and be financed largely by taxation and by national insurance contributions.
Each self-governing hospital or unit will have its own trust, which will assume responsibility from the district health authority. In that way they will be able to benefit from the freedoms outlined in the White Paper, to respond to patient needs, to improve the quality of care even more effectively, and to develop a greater sense of local commitment and pride. We stress that self-governing hospitals must continue to meet the needs of patients and the community. They will have delegated freedoms in respect of staff numbers, pay, and capital programmes. Staff transferring to a self-governing hospital will carry over their terms and conditions of service, including pension rights.
The Government fully recognise the importance of maintaining local access to a comprehensive range of
132
health care services. We look to district health authorities to take responsibility for that and for ensuring that contracts are arranged in such a way as to ensure that integration of community and in-patient services is maintained. With the development of self-governing hospitals, and of greater devolution to hospitals that remain under district health authority control, districts will be better able to give attention to those key tasks.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, one of the White Paper's key proposals is that DHAs will have responsibility for the care of all those in their districts and will be purchasers of health care, whereas the hospitals —both self-governing and directly managed—will be the suppliers of health care. The district health authority will be responsible for ensuring that an adequate range of services, including core services, is available in its district.
Mr. Winnick: Obviously the Government have made up their mind to push the White Paper's proposals as much as possible—and it is equally obvious that the consultation exercises and all the rest of it are purely cosmetic. The Minister naturally praises the Government's intentions, but why are the Government so isolated? Leaving aside the objections of the Labour party and the rest, why is medical opinion almost unanimously opposed to the proposals? I read out the views of the BMA, of the JCC, and of the general practitioners in my borough—and I imagine that their view is shared by GPs in the Minister's constituency. If the proposals are so marvellous and will enhance the NHS, why are the general public—let alone the medical profession—far from being persuaded?
Mr. Freeman: The hon. Gentleman may cite the BMA's views, but that does not mean that his arguments are right.
I turn to the subjects of consultation and ballots and to the other matters that the hon. Gentleman specifically raised.
The chief executive of the National Health Service management board invited initial expressions of interest in the proposals for self-government to be sent to regional health authorities by 31 May. Of the 179 expressions of interest 19 came from West Midlands region, including one from the Manor hospital and one from St. Margaret's hospital in Walsall. Expressions of interest are just that: they do not carry any commitment to proceed with an application. Indeed, it would be unrealistic to expect them to do so until they have fuller information. We are very encouraged by the level of interest that people from all parts of the NHS are showing in our proposals.
We have recently published further guidance on the establishment and operation of self-governing hospitals. A national conference on self-governing hospitals, attended by more than 400 people from the NHS, was held in London on 20 June, and we are following it up with a series of eight regional conferences around the country. The first was held in Birmingham on 22 June. I hope that those who attended, including those from the units in Walsall that had expressed an interest, found it interesting and informative. Sponsors of expressions of interest will want to consider the new information in detail, and to discuss the implications with their staff and district and regional health authorities before deciding whether to proceed with an application.
When people decide to proceed with firm applications they will be asked to complete an application document. Regional health authorities will give firm applications

133
local publicity and seek the view of those with an interest, particularly the health authorities concerned, staff at the hospital, general practitioners, community health councils and the local community. Each application will need to he subject to careful consultation, given the complicated service, management and financial implications involved. The Secretary of State will consider any responses, together with any comments on them from the regional health authority, alongside the application. The timing will depend on the passage of the necessary legislation.
The hon. Gentleman asked why there should not be a ballot. We are not changing the terms and conditions of staff employed in the Health Service. This is not a closure, nor is a hospital leaving the Health Service; it is a delegation of powers and responsibilities by the Secretary of State to a hospital trust. We do not consider, therefore, that a ballot is either necessary or practical. To what constituency would the ballot apply? As the hon. Gentleman knows, patients—including Manor hospital patients—come from outside his district, and it is not possible or feasible to define the constituency precisely, as can be done with a school or housing estate.
The final decision on applications will rest with the Secretary of State. As explained in the White Paper, he will expect applications for self-government to demonstrate first adequate managerial skills and capacity to run the hospital as a self-governing unit, and second the involvement of senior professional staff in management of the hospital. He will also need to be satisfied that the proposal is consistent with maximum choice for patients and GPs, that the proposed unit would be financially viable, and that self-governing status is not being sought as an alternative to closure.
The process is not a race, and hospitals will become self-governing only when they are ready. It is too early to comment on the prospects for particular hospitals at this stage. An application for self-governing status will take time and commitment to prepare, but it provides the opportunity for hospitals to address the implications of self-government and to build up their capacity to run their own affairs effectively so that their hospital is ready, when self-governing status has been achieved, to apply their new freedoms to the benefit of patients and the local community.
Mr. Winnick: The Minister argues that ballots are not necessary because the hospitals are to remain in the NHS. Why, then, the consultation? Clearly the Government accept that consultation is necessary, although we believe that it would be a cosmetic exercise. What sort of consultation will take place with the local community? If the Minister's argument holds water—that the local community should not really be involved, because the hospital caters for a wider element—why do both the letter and the Minister's speech refer to the local communities being consulted?
Mr. Freeman: I think that, on reflection, the hon. Gentleman will agree that there is a distinction between a change in organisation structure in the Health Service—where consultation is necessary and the Secretary of State intends that it should take place—and a fundamental change in NHS structure, involving, for instance, privatisation or breaking up the NHS. That is not intended, but in such circumstances it would clearly be appropriate to consult the electorate democratically. In this reorganisation of the Health Service, management authority is being devolved by the Secretary of State from regions and district to self-governing trusts. They remain within the Health Service. The Secretary of State envisages that those who are most directly involved, including the staff who work in the hospitals and certainly the community health council, will be invited to offer their views. As the hon. Gentleman knows, those views are expressed by community health councils when there is the prospect of a closure. The community health council will be asked to give its views about the devolvement of management responsibility and the Secretary of State will certainly take into account those views.
We expect some applicants to wish to take advantage of the new proposals as early as possible. They will aim to achieve self government by April 1991, the earliest sensible date, subject to the passage of the necessary legislation through this House and another place. Others will be ready later.
I hope that these comments will help Walsall and other authorities in England carefully and thoroughly to review the prospects for the exciting challenge of self government.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at five minutes to Eleven o'clock.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Conciliation Service
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Attorney-General what consideration the Lord Chancellor's Department is giving to the establishment of a conciliation service to assist the courts in matrimonial and custody cases.

  The Attorney-General
  The Lord Chancellor received the report of the conciliation project unit based at the university of Newcastle upon Tyne in March of this year. The report, and comments upon it, will be carefully evaluated and the role of conciliation considered as part of the Lord Chancellor's announced rolling programme of reform of family law and procedure.

  Family Courts
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Attorney-General what recent representations the Lord Chancellor has received on the subject of family courts.

  The Attorney-General
  My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor continues to receive correspondence regarding family courts both from hon. Members and from members of the public and interested organisations. Precise information on the number of representations is not readily available as much of the correspondence refers to family courts as one of a number of issues or as an ancillary matter to the main focus of the correspondence.

  Immigration Appeals
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Attorney-General what is the longest and shortest time taken between the dispatch of an explanatory statement from the British embassy in Islamabad and arrival at the immigration appellate offices in London during the last year, to date; what is the longest and shortest time taken by the explanatory statements being sent from London and arrival in Leeds; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  Responsibility for dispatching explanatory statements from diplomatic posts overseas to the United Kingdom is the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. Explanatory statements from Islamabad are sent to the appellate authorities by diplomatic bag. During the last year to date the longest transit time for diplomatic mail between Islamabad and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office was 11 days, the shortest two days. Mail received in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office addressed to the appellate authorities is forwarded by daily Government van service.

  Once received at the appellate authorities' headquarters in London, explanatory statements and the accompanying notices of appeal are checked, processed and where appropriate, dispatched to regional hearing centres.
  2
  During the last year to date, it is estimated that explanatory statements have taken between three and 17 weeks to reach the hearing centre at Leeds.

  The delay in dispatching case papers to Leeds reflects the pressure on the appellate authorities caused by the increasing volume of work. The number of cases received in 1988 was 60 per cent. higher than in 1987, and there has been a further increase in the first five months of 1989. The appellate authorities have employed additional staff and overtime in an endeavour to minimise delays and the Lord Chancellor's Department continues to monitor the position.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Attorney-General what representations he has received about delays in explanatory statements being dispatched from the post in Islamabad to the immigration appellate authorities in London and dispatch from London to Leeds; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  Responsibility for the despatch of explanatory statements from Islamabad to London rests with the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. The Lord Chancellor, who is responsible for the administration of the immigration appellate authorities, has received no specific representations about the length of time taken for explanatory statements to be processed in London and sent to Leeds, other than from the hon. Member himself.

  Sunday Trading
  Mr. Stanbrook
  To ask the Attorney-General what action he proposes to take in the light of the expressed intention of the Storehouse Group to open its shops for trading on Sundays in defiance of the provisions of the Shops Act 1950.

  The Attorney-General
  It is the duty of each local authority to enforce the Shops Act 1950 in its area. I refer my hon. Friend to the written answer that I gave him on 17 April 1989.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Environment-friendly Products
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he has taken to encourage environmentally friendly products as part of the Government's overseas development strategy.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  We support research into a number of environmentally friendly products. For example, we fund the development of appropriate, energy-efficient technologies and of more precise application systems for pesticides. All programme managers in my Department are required to ensure the environmental soundness of projects.

  UN Environmental Convention
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the implications for overseas aid policy of the United Nations environmental convention initiative.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The Government have proposed a simple framework or umbrella convention setting out
  3
  general principles for good practice in matters affecting the world's climate. The implications for our aid work would be to enhance the priority given in developing countries to programmes aimed at improving energy efficiency and at forestry. We are already using aid funds in these areas and are seeking to identify further projects which we might be able to support. It is too early to say how any specific protocol subsequently negotiated under the convention would affect aid policy.

  European Community (Aid)
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the combined average gross national product given in overseas aid by all members of the European Community, except the United Kingdom, in the latest available year.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Figures are available only for those member countries of the European Community which are also members of the development assistance committee of the OECD. In any case, such figures are open to varying interpretations. The overall percentage of gross national product given in overseas aid by these seven countries, excluding the United Kingdom, was 0.53 per cent. in 1987 and is provisionally estimated at the same figure in 1988.

  Bursaries
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many applications he has received for bursaries for students from the Republic of South Africa and Botswana to attend courses at British further education establishments for the academic year 1989–90; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The British Council, on our behalf, has received well over 2,200 applications for bursaries for the academic year 1989–90 for students from South Africa, and 100 applications for students from Botswana.

  Overseas Students
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current level of expenditure on overseas students funded under the aid programme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Provision for the financial year 1989–90 is £94 million in support of more than 15,000 overseas students. In addition, a contribution of £5.8 million is being made available to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office scholarships and awards scheme.

  Vietnam
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he expects to restore development aid to Vietnam in the light of Vietnam's withdrawal from Cambodia.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  It is still too early to give a firm indication on development aid to Vietnam. We will consider this in the light of the actual withdrawal of troops from Cambodia.

  Guyana
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what support he is providing for Guyana's economic reform programme.
  4
  Mr. Chris Patten
  Provided that the IMF programme remains viable, we shall be providing for the three years 1989 to 1991(a) £13·7 million capital aid for the purchase of United Kingdom imports; (b) a $US8 million bridging loan to help Guyana pay its debt service arrears to the international financial institutions when they fall due in November; (c) a waiver of about £1 million a year of payments due on past United Kingdom aid loans; and (d) a technical co-operation programme costing about £1·5 million a year, aimed primarily at strengthening public sector management.

  Central Africa
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proportion of official assistance to central African countries is given in the form of medical supplies.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Information is not available in the precise form requested. In 1987, the latest year for which figures are available, 3 per cent. of the Overseas Development Administration's capital project aid to Malawi, Zambia and Zimbabwe, taken together, was spent on the health sector. In the same year the proportion of British aid-financed personnel in those countries working in health was 14 per cent.

  Sub-Saharan Africa
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the total bilateral aid in real terms given by the United Kingdom to sub-Saharan Africa in 1979 and in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  British bilateral aid to sub-Saharan Africa in constant 1988 prices was £410 million in 1979 and an estimated £400 million in 1988.

  Indonesia
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) to which projects soft loans in the £50 million aid package to Indonesia announced on 14 June are to be applied;

  (2) what is the number of British companies and the types of products which will be supplied to Indonesia as part of the recently announced package of aid;

  (3) what is the number of British specialists who will be directly employed in Indonesia as part of the recently announced aid package;

  (4) whether the recently announced aid package to Indonesia will result in any greater preservation of the rain forest.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The £50 million aid package to Indonesia announced on 14 June is the second tranche of a £100 million soft loan facility signed with the Government of Indonesia in December 1988, and means that £185 million worth of soft loans are now available to fund projects in Indonesia. These funds are not allocated at the outset to specific projects, but likely candidates are the subject of feasibility studies and appraisals and then, if both Governments agree, are allocated funds. It is not, therefore, possible at this stage to say which projects will be allocated funds, how many British companies or specialists will benefit or what types of products will be
  5
  supplied, but we will, of course, be seeking to maximise the benefits to British industry, as well as to Indonesia, of these funds. One of the leading candidates for funding is a forestry radio communications system project aimed at improving the Indonesian Ministry of Forestry's management and control of the rain forests.

  Soft Loans
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the amount of soft loans currently provided by the United Kingdom in the form of aid to Commonwealth countries.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  In 1988 Commonwealth countries received £7,863,050 in the form of concessional loans qualifying as official development assistance. So far no soft loan agreements under the aid and trade provision have been concluded with Commonwealth countries, though several offers of soft loan assistance have been made.

  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the amount of soft loans currently provided by the United Kingdom in the form of aid to non-Commonwealth developing countries.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  In 1988 non-Commonwealth developing countries received £4,833,155 from the United Kingdom in the form of concesional loans qualifying as official development assistance. In addition 12 soft loans worth in total £399 million have been concluded with six non-Commonwealth developing countries under the aid and trade provision.

  Indonesia (Rain Forest Discussions)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the outcome of the recent mission to Indonesia to discuss rain forest issues.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The recent forestry project identification mission made good progress in discussing with the Indonesian Government the provision of technical co-operation in the forestry sector. The mission recommends a four year co-ordinated programme of assistance with emphasis on improving the management (including natural regeneration) of the lowland rain forest of Indonesia. Senior Indonesian officials support the mission's findings in principle and when the latter have been formally approved, three project preparation missions will be mounted, probably in late 1989.

  Tanzania
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance was provided to Tanzania for the purchase of vehicles.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  During the financial year 1988–89, we provided nearly £7·5 million for vehicles from within the finance we made available to support the Tanzanian balance of payments. We also separately provided over £750,000 as emergency assistance for trucks for the cotton sector. In addition, we provided vehicles as part of our support to a number of development projects.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what financial aid has been given to Tanzania in 1989.
  6
  Mr. Chris Patten
  Gross British bilateral aid to Tanzania in 1988 is estimated at £33·5 million. This year we expect to maintain our programme at a substantial level.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Irradiated Food
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will introduce legislation to forbid the sale of irradiated food in restaurants.

  Mr. Ryder
  The sale of irradiated food in catering outlets presents different practical problems from sales in retail shops. I am in the process of examining the issues involved.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the procedures his Minister will go through up to the lifting of the ban on food irradiation and the timetable for these procedures; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  I have made clear that we need to obtain wider powers to enable us to provide for the control mechanism that we consider necessary for food irradiation. It will then be necessary to consult all the interested parties over the details of the control system and to introduce the necessary regulations to give effect to this. The timetable will depend on a number of factors, in particular the timing of the primary legislation.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he proposes to take any further action in the light of the Southwood report on bovine spongiform encephalopathy.

  Mr. MacGregor
  [pursuant to his reply, 13 June 1989, c. 352]: The detailed plans in relation to the next stage of this vital study have now been drawn up, and implementation will start shortly. This will involve the purchase of 660 cattle, 330 offspring of animals affected with BSE and 330 control animals. They will be transported to and housed at the Ministry's experimental husbandry farms at Boxworth, Drayton and Gleadthorpe. The study will last up to seven years and will cost an estimated £4·7 million.

  Farm Diversification Grants
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food further to his reply to the hon. Member for South Shields of 22 June,Official Report, column 251, if he is able to list the reasons for rejecting applications for farm diversification grant schemes in 1988.

  Mr. Ryder
  The reasons for rejection of grant applications were as follows:

  Number

  Able to carry out work without grant

  45

  Enterprises of works not eligible

  44

  Applicants not eligible

  27

  Receiving grant from other public funds

  4

  Planning consent refused

  4

  Not likely to be viable

  3

  Other miscellaneous reasons including work started before application

  10

  Gas Emissions
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, further to his reply to the hon. Member for South Shields of 27 June, if he will list all the schemes introduced by his Ministry which help reduce greenhouse gas emissions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  The measures include the designation of 19 environmentally sensitive areas since 1987; the introduction of the farm woodland scheme and the set-aside scheme in 1988; and the introduction, earlier this year, of a new farm and conservation grant scheme which offers grant inter alia for energy saving, effluent facilities and for the regeneration of native woodlands and heather moors. In addition, the policies adopted by the European Community in recent years to reduce surplus production of agricultural commodities will help to mitigate emissions.

  Agricultural Development and Advisory Service
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the number of man hours in the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service devoted to environmental training for each year since 1980; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  Although records have not been kept in the precise form requested, it is estimated that from 1980 to the end of 1988 on average 4,780 man hours per year have been spent on ADAS environmental core training. In addition, a significant amount of environmental training is undertaken as an integral part of discipline training for new entrants and ADAS advisers.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the number of posts in the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service devoted to training for each year since 1980; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  Participation in training activities is an essential and integral feature of the professional development and responsibilities of all ADAS staff. No individual staff are allocated full-time to training duties but all officers responsible for managing other ADAS staff, or with appropriate professional skills, or experience have responsibility to monitor, arrange or provide training in appropriate subjects.

  Food Poisoning
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list all the research projects directly aimed at(a) finding the causes of salmonella enteriditis, botulism and other similar infections such as salmonella typhimurium and (b) the treatment and or vaccination of poultry flocks.

  Mr. Ryder
  Research on the causes of human infections is a matter for the Department of Health. My Department however funds the following work aimed at minimising the risk of infection through the food chain:Predictive Modelling of the Growth of Pathogenic Microorganisms in Food Systems.
  A co-ordinated programme of research into the growth and survival of microorganisms in real food systems. The development of a modelling database and expert system for
  8
  eventual use by the food industry. The programme will initially concentrate on those food-related microorganisms that are of major public health significance: Salmonella typhimurium, Salmonella enteritidis, Clostridium botulinum, Listeria monocytogenes and other Salmonella and Clostridium species.
  Other Research involving Salmonella enteriditis, Salmonella typhimurium, Clostridium botulinum.
  Risk and Hazard Analysis in egg infections.
  Thermal destruction of Salmonella enteriditis phase type 4 in the domestic cooking of food containing eggs.
  Use of Non-radioctive DNA probes for the detection of pathogenic Bacteria in food.
  Enzyme-linked immunological Biosensors for detection and identification of Pathogenic Bacteria in food.
  Determination of Food Constituents and contaminants by ELISA.
  Heat induced thermotolerance in food Poisoning organisms.
  Survey of Bacteriological Quality of goats milk.
  Lysozyme destruction of Gram negative organisms in Chicken and Red meat.
  Bacteriological Hazards of large meat roasts in catering and long storage of chilled foods in catering.
  Detection and quantification of microorganisms in foods by novel lectin-based assays.
  An investigation into the use of biosorbants for the concentration, separation and detection of low levels of food contaminants with special reference to pathogenic microorganisms such as Salmonella.
  Guidelines for Pasteurisation.
  Develop and investigate novel methods to separate and concentrate microorganisms from food to enhance rapid microbiological methods.
  Development of design nucleic acid probes for the rapid detection of food microorganisms.
  Serological diagnosis of Salmonella enteritidis infection.
  Plasmid profile analysis of S. enteriditis.
  Development of a Salmonella enteritidis infection Vaccine to prevent Salmonella infections in chickens.
  Salmonella Service: Bacteria typing, Surveillance and work under the Protein Processing Order.
  Work being carried out under the Zoonosis Order and in collaboration with the Public Health Laboratory Service.
  Factors Determining Intestinal colonization by Salmonella.
  Investigating the basis of Virulence of the Salmonella genus.
  Variation in virulence of Salmonellas, Host Responses to infection, Novel Vaccines and Strategies for Use.
  Salmonellosis in Cattle—to determine the epidemiology in order that methods to minimize the spread of and effects of infection can be formulated and applied.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the specific arrangements for the monitoring of possible salmonella enteriditis or typhimurium, botulism and other infections in(a) animal feedingstuffs, (b) eggs and (c) poultry.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Monitoring for the presence of salmonella eneteriditis and typhimurium in animal feedingstuffs is already carried out on a voluntary basis by many manufacturers. The Government are shortly to introduce voluntary codes of practice which require the monitoring of animal feedingstuffs and raw materials used in their manufacture. Poultry laying flocks are subject to compulsory monitoring with similar provisions to be introduced shortly for breeding flocks and hatcheries. There is no requirement to monitor for botulism toxin because botulism toxin occurs in isolated pockets and would not readily be detected.

  As regards other infections, investigations are carried out by the state veterinary service at veterinary investigation centres on material submitted from private veterinary practices and other sources.

  Meat Products (Contents)
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what regulatory provision exists concerning the minimum meat content of pies and other meat products; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) whether he will take steps to require food manufacturers to label meat pies and other meat products so that the percentage meat content is clear.

  Mr. Ryder
  The Meat Products and Spreadable Fish Products Regulations 1984 already require most meat products to bear a clear declaration of their minimum meat content on the label. In addition, they contain minimum meat content requirements for a number of products including meat pies.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Walden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what were the average class sizes in primary and secondary education in state and private schools, respectively, in the years 1979, 1984 and 1988.

  Mr. Butcher
  Information on class sizes in independent schools is not collected centrally. The average class size in maintained primary and secondary schools in 1979, 1984 and 1988 were as follows:

  1979

  1984

  1988

  Primary

  25·9

  24·7

  25·4

  Secondary

  21·0

  20·4

  19·9

  Classes relate to those taught by one teacher at a selected time on the day of the census count in January and do not necessarily represent the pattern of classes over the academic year as a whole.

  Book Acquisitions
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) what information the Government have on whether(a) the University Funding Council intends to continue its initiative to provide specific funds for the purchase of books for university libraries after 1989–90 and (b) it intends to extend the initiative to libraries at polytechnics and institutes of higher education;

  (2) whether the Government have monitored the effect on library acquisitions of the additional funding provided in 1987–88 for university library acquisitions.

  Mr. Jackson
  It is for individual universities and polytechnics to decide their own priorities within the total

  Applications and acceptances through the Universities Central Council on Admissions of home students from England and Wales who had attempted A levels.

  Type of school

  1983

  1988

  Applications

  Acceptances

  Applications

  Acceptances

  Maintained sector

  Grammar/technical

  10,247

  5,320

  7,731

  4,588

  Sixth form college

  12,279

  5,997

  11,910

  6,403

  Comprehensive

  50,606

  22,119

  41,295

  20,658

  Other secondary and modern

  758

  286

  310

  120

  Total maintained

  73,890

  33,722

  61,246

  31,769

  Independent

  23,365

  12,814

  23,519

  14,217

  10
  resources at their disposal. I know of no plans by the Universities Funding Council to prolong the initiative launched by the University Grants Committee or by the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council to adopt such an initiative for its sector. Universities' annual expenditure returns are monitored by the Universities Funding Council.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received about the levels of funding for acquisitions in polytechnic and university libraries.

  Mr. Jackson
  Representations have been received from the Publishers Association and the standing conference of national and university libraries, as well as from a number of hon. Members in the context of general higher education matters.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he intends to take within the new system of student finance to assist students to spend more on books.

  Mr. Jackson
  It is for individual students to decide what priority to accord to particular items of expenditure within the resources at their disposal. Top-up loans will increase these resources.

  Research Grants
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much money his Department expects to save through the withdrawal of funds for scientific research deemed near market; and how he intends to reallocate the money saved.

  Mr. Jackson
  This Department funds basic and strategic research through the science budget. We have not withdrawn any funding in respect of near market research.

  University Applications
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information he has as to how many advanced level secondary school pupils from(a) local education authority maintained secondary schools and (b) private sector maintained secondary schools applied for a place at each university in the United Kingdom in 1979 and in 1988; and how many, from each sector, each university finally accepted.

  Mr. Butcher
  Information on individual universities is not available. Available information for all United Kingdom universities is given in the following table.

  Library Provision
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) what steps he is taking to improve the library provisions in universities and polytechnics;

  (2) when he last discussed the subject of adequate funding for libraries of universities and polytechnics with the Universities Grants Committee.

  Mr. Jackson
  Decisions on the funding of university and polytechnic libraries are for the institutions themselves, in consultation as necessary with the relevant funding council.

  Teacher Shortages
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has had any recent representations about the loss of teachers and head-teachers from the profession because of(a) house prices and interest rates, (b) recent education reforms, (c) powers to school governors and (d) ability of schools to opt out.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations about the effect on teacher supply of house prices in the south-east. I am not aware of representations on loss of teachers and headteachers from the profession for the other reasons listed.

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the progress being made towards implementing the national curriculum and on whether teacher shortages are likely to delay its implementation in any area.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Implementation will start this autumn, when schools must begin teaching programmes of study in maths and science to 11-year-olds and in maths, science and English to five-year-olds. Pupils aged five to 14 must also study the foundation subjects for a reasonable time. We do not expect teacher shortages to delay implementation. My Department's action programme to combat teacher shortages is designed to help local authorities and schools to recruit the teachers they need.

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the progress being made towards implementing local management schemes for schools and how such schemes can tackle teacher shortages.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Good progress is being made by local education authorities towards producing schemes of local management for submission to my right hon. Friend by 30 September. Approved schemes will be introduced from 1 April 1990. Local management will ensure the best possible match between schools' needs and the deployment of resources including the key resource of teachers.

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what further steps he will be taking to encourage local education authorities to organise individual financial packages to solve difficulties encountered in recruiting high-calibre teachers and heads.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The interim advisory committee believes that teacher recruitment and retention measures should be flexible and precisely targeted, and that this is 12
  best achieved if they are designed locally. It recommended that authorities review their present policies to ensure that they are meeting the needs of their schools. My right hon. Friend has strongly endorsed this recommendation. Appropriate measures may include relocation and housing assistance and should embrace the flexible use of incentive allowances, an additional 27,500 of which will become available from September.

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has to recruit Danish and other European national qualified teachers to fill teacher vacancies in the United Kingdom.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  It is for local education authorities and schools, as the employer, to recruit teachers. On 21 December 1988 the Council of Ministers of the European Communities adopted a directive which will enable a range of professionals, including teachers, to have their professional qualifications recognised for the purpose of practise in member states other than their own. The directive must be implemented by 1991. My right hon. Friend proposes to make regulations according the benefits of the directive to members of the teaching profession qualified in other member states from September this year. This should assist LEAs in their recruitment of teachers from other member states. In addition, the Department has agreed to support a project to recruit and train teachers from France and West Germany, and is considering another in respect of German science teachers. Officials have put local authorities who have expressed an interest in touch with the Danish authorities.

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has had in the past four months on teacher shortages region by region, subject by subject and from education authorities, headteachers or governors.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The information is not readily available in the form requested. My right hon. Friend has received in the past four months some 200 letters from local education authorities, headteachers, governors and parents about teacher shortages—including correspondence forwarded by hon. Members.

  Maintained Primary Schools
  Mr. Raison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is his best estimate of the number of children in maintained primary schools where the age of transfer is 11, 12 and 13 years, respectively.

  Mr. Butcher
  In January 1988 the numbers of pupils in maintained schools of the following age ranges were as follows:

  Age range of schools

  Total pupils

  5–11, 7–11, 8–11

  2,589,690

  5–12, 8,12

  255,580

  9–13, 10–13, 11–13

  196,350

  There were no primary schools in 1988 with a transfer age of 13: all the schools shown in the table with this age of transfer were middle or secondary.

PRIME MINISTER

  Official Journeys
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Prime Minister when she last used(a) a scheduled British Rail train service and (b) any scheduled public transport service when travelling on official business.

  The Prime Minister
  February 1987. For reasons of practicality and security it is difficult for me to travel by rail on official business. I do so when a suitable opportunity arises.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Soviet Union (Emigration)
  Mr. Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will ascertain from the Soviet authorities the cause of the delay in the appearance of new legislation on emigration promised by the Soviet Union for the last 18 months.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We are continuing to press the Soviet authorities over the urgent need for a new emigration law. We believe that this should establish clearly the principle that all Soviet citizens must be free to leave their country when they wish, and would thus —if properly implemented —provide a lasting solution to the refusenik problem.

  Human Rights
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many representations he has made complaining about the denial of human rights and the use of torture in the last five years in South Africa.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We make frequent representations to the South African Government, both bilaterally and with our European partners, to express our concern about human rights. More detailed information is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many representations he has made complaining about the denial of human rights in the last five years in Saudi Arabia.

  Mr. Eggar
  We have made no specific representations, but the Government of Saudi Arabia are aware of our view that all Governments should respect human rights.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many representations he has made complaining about the denial of human rights in the last five years in New Zealand.

  Mr. Eggar
  None.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many representations he has made complaining about the denial of human rights in the last five years in Chile.

  Mr. Eggar
  We have made a number of representations about human rights to the Chilean authorities over the last five years. The precise information requested is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
  14
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many representations he has made complaining about the denial of human rights in the last five years in Austria.

  Mr. Eggar
  None.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many representations he has made complaining about the denial of human rights in the last five years in Belgium.

  Mr. Eggar
  None.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received on recent allegations of torture in Fiji.

  Mr. Eggar
  None.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many representations he has made in the last five years complaining about the denial of human rights and the use of torture in Yugoslavia.

  Mr. Eggar
  We have made a number of representations about human rights to the Yugoslav authorities over the last five years. The precise information requested is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many representations he has made in the last five years complaining about the denial of human rights and the use of torture in Paraguay.

  Mr. Eggar
  We have made a number of representations about human rights to the Paraguayan authorities over the last five years. The precise information requested is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many representations he has made in the last five years complaining about the denial of human rights and the use of torture in India.

  Mr. Eggar
  None. I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 23 May.

  Islamabad
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what he is doing to speed up the dispatch and processing by his Department of explanatory statements prepared by the post in Islamabad and by the appellate authorities within the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I have given to his similar question today. Explanatory statements are sent to the appellate authorities by diplomatic bag and this arrangement will continue.

  Responsibility for the independent appellate authority (IAA) rests with the Lord Chancellor. I understand that in 1988 the volume of cases received by the IAA increased by 60 per cent. compared with 1987 and that the volume has risen further this year. In order to cope with that considerable and unexpected rise in workload the IAA has recruited an additional four staff in the last six months. Overtime is being worked and other measures are being taken to help improve efficiency.
  15
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what he is doing to speed up the processing by the post in Islamabad of explanatory statements prepared by the Home Office; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  In recent months staffing levels of the immigration section of the British embassy in Islamabad have been increased. On average, explanatory statements are now prepared and forwarded to the appellate authorities within four to six weeks of receipt of an appeal. Individual cases may take longer depending on what further inquiries the entry clearance officer needs to make in the light of the grounds for appeal.

  Mrs. Anwar Sultana
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when Mrs. Anwar Sultana, whose date of birth is 9 May 1957, and whose reference is IMM/92028, first applied to the post in Islamabad to enter the United Kingdom; and when a decision is to be taken on her application.

  Mr. Eggar
  In accordance with the recent guidelines on the handling of representations by Members of Parliament in immigration cases, issued to Members on 14 December 1988, I have referred the question to the correspondence unit of the migration and visa department of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The hon. Member will receive a reply from the unit in due course.

WALFS

  Research Grants
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much money was provided by his Department for research into the links between pollution and human health (i) each year from 1979–89 and (ii) in the current financial year.

  Mr. Grist
  The Department has funded or contributed toward the costs of, a number of research projects concerned with the effects of pollution. Details of the major studies supported during the period in question are contained in the reports entitled "Research Wales" which are published annually by the Welsh Office. Copies of these reports are available in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much of his Department's budget is devoted to research purposes; how much is given in grants for research; and what proportion of each figure has been devoted to near market research(a) in the current financial year and (b) in each of the last three financial years.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to Tables 14a and 14b of the "Annual Review of Government Funded Research and Development 1988", a copy of which is in the Library of the House. None of my Department's budget is devoted to near market research.

  Research Grants
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the research grants given for near market research for which his Department is directly or indirectly responsible in the current financial year and each of the last two financial years.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I have not made any such grants.

  Drinking Water
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) of 14 June,Official Report, column 416, he will list the number of people affected and the main population centres supplied with water from supplies subject to European Community derogations; and when he now expects the need for derogations will be removed.

  Mr. Grist
  Supplies subject to derogations are mainly in rural areas with most of the supply areas affected being situated in Gwynedd, north Dyfed and south Powys. Information concerning the numbers of people affected is not available. The need for most of the derogations should be removed by 1990 and all by 1995 at the latest.

  Welsh Development Agency (Management Buy-out)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he proposes to permit a management buy-out of the Welsh development Agency's sub-regional west Wales organisation; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he has received proposals for management buy-outs from the board of the Welsh Development Agency; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) if he will meet the chairman of the Welsh Development Agency and indicate to him that he should forbid senior managers of the agency from working on buy-out proposals; and if he will make a statement;

  (4) if, when he next meets the board of the Welsh Development Agency, he will instruct the board to cease the consideration of buy-out plans by senior managers and to improve the board's capacity to attract inward investment and to build advance factories in Wales.

  (5) what is his policy concerning management buy-outs and the Welsh Development Agency; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I have received no proposal for management buy-outs from the board of the Welsh Development Agency, though I encourage the agency to be alert to any prospect for increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of its activities through greater private sector involvement in the full range of its activities.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will institute an investigation and publish a report into proposals by the Welsh Development Agency's west Wales regional director and the west Wales senior investment executive to buy out the west Wales region and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  No. This is a matter for the Welsh Development Agency.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the number of employees and the value of, or the rent of the premises of the west Wales Welsh Development Agency.
  17
  Mr. Peter Walker
  There are 17 full-time employees in the Welsh Development Agency's west Wales region. As at 31 March 1989 the value of premises administered by the region was £5·1 million.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if the Welsh Development Agency research, secretarial and technical facilities were used by the Welsh Development Agency employees to facilitate studies and proposals concerning management buy-out proposals; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  As far as the Welsh Development Agency is aware, none of its research, secretarial or technical facilities was drawn on to formulate the proposals made for the west Wales region.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when the senior management of the Welsh Development Agency's west Wales region first proposed to the Welsh Development Agency's chairman that there should be a management buy-out; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I understand from the WDA that this particular proposal was first mentioned within the agency in October 1988.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are(a) the current, (b) the 1987, and (c) the 1988 budgets of the west Wales Welsh Development Agency; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  These are matters for the agency, but it informs me that the expenditure budgets directly under the control of the west Wales regional office amounted to a total of £1·4 million in 1987–88 and £1·7 million in 1988–89. In the current year they will amount to £1·5 million. The figures are not, however, directly comparable due to a reorganisation of the agency's regions in July 1988. The figures also omit a number of items of major expenditure including new factory building which are controlled and accounted for by central departments of the agency.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) when he last met the west Wales Welsh Development Agency's senior investment director;

  (2) when he last met the west Wales Welsh Development Agency regional director; and if he discussed management buy-outs.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I am not aware that I have met these officials of the Welsh Development Agency and have certainly not discussed management buy-outs with them.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  West Link (Belfast)
  Mr. Kilfedder
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action is being taken to relieve the current congestion which is occurring on West Link in Belfast in the light of the construction of the new cross-harbour bridges.

  Mr. Needham
  Proposals for the improvement of West Link are included as part of the highway measures in the Belfast urban area plan. The recommendations of the inspector following the public inquiry are awaited.

  M1 Motorway
  Mr. Kilfedder
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are his intentions regarding the improvement of the road from the M1 motorway at Dungannon to Omagh, Strabane and Londonderry; and what is the accident rate on (i) the present road and (ii) as an average for the Province.

  Mr. Needham
  Proposals for the improvement of the road from the M1 motorway at Dungannon to Omagh, Strabane and Londonderry are currently under consideration. Stage I of the Omagh through pass is currently under constructon and stage I of the Strabane bypass will commence very soon.

  The three year average of accidents/million vehicle kilometres on this stretch of road is 0·48. There is no national average for the Province. The United Kingdom national average is 0·35.

  Dual Carriageways
  Mr. Kilfedder
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what consideration is being given to the construction of lengths of dual carriageway or climbing lanes on arterial routes and roads to ports supporting heavy lorry traffic; and when essential schemes already commenced in stages will be completed.

  Mr. Needham
  The roads system in Northern Ireland is constantly under review and capital improvements are dictated by capacity demand. Each proposed scheme is subjected to a strict cost-benefit analysis which determines its priority within the roads capital works programme. Arterial routes and roads to ports are fully catered for within that programme.

  Essential schemes already commenced in stages are planned for completion as follows:

  Omagh through pass—1994

  Enniskillen stages 1, 2 and 3—1990

  Newry bypass—1994

  A/26 Antrim-Ballymena stage II late 1993

  Payments for Debt
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland from how many people deductions were made under the Payments for Debt (Emergency Provisions) Act (Northern Ireland) 1971 in each of the years from 1979 to 1989 inclusive.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  [holding answer 20 June 1989]: The number of people from whom deductions have been made is not available, but the number of debt cases, recorded by the four main creditor bodies, in respect of which deductions were made in 1988–89 under the Payments for Debt (Emergency Provisions) Act (Northern Ireland) 1971 was 16,479. Directly equivalent information for the earlier years is not available, but I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave her on 25 October 1988, Official Report at column 137.

  With effect from April 1988, the major proportion of deductions from benefits against arrears of rent, rates, electricity and gas charges have been made under the provisions of the Social Security (Claims and Payments) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1987, and the 1988–89 figure given already referred to excludes deductions under these regulations.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Magistrates Courts
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in what percentage of cases dealt with by magistrates courts, judgment or sentence is deferred from the original hearing; and what proposals he has to shorten the length of time between arrest and the conclusion of a case and to cut the number of appearances of individual defendants in respect of a single charge.

  Mr. Hurd
  In 1988 it is estimated that 76 per cent. of cases were adjourned one or more times. Measures to reduce delays include the establishment of a scrutiny of the magistrates courts service and of a committee to review the procedure of the magistrates courts; the introduction on an experimental basis of power for courts to remand defendants in custody in certain circumstances for up to 28 days at a time; the development of the magistrates courts management information system; and the progressive introduction of statutory time limits which govern the period during which an accused may be held in custody awaiting committal or trial.

  Television Licences
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many complaints his Department has received about anomalies in the application of the concessionary television licence scheme since the rules change in May 1988; and if he will give details.

  Mr. Renton
  Since the change in the regulations in May 1988, we have received visits from five hon. Members and 202 letters, 98 of them from hon. Members, about aspects of the concessionary TV licensing scheme. The nature of each complaint is not separately recorded, but the main points raised were whether the scheme should be extended to ordinary housing, the treatment of new residents of schemes which no longer qualified and whether the circumstances of individual housing schemes fitted the new regulations.

  Miss S. A. Lawrence
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will inquire into the reasons why Miss S. A. Lawrence of 68 Sutton road, Southend whose date of birth is 1 February 1952, and who applied to his office in Croydon on 27 December 1987, and forwarded a cheque for £170, has had no notification since that time apart from an immediate acknowledgement; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  The Home Office received some 300,000 citizenship applications in the course of 1987, mostly in connection with the ending of certain registration rights under the British Nationality Act 1981. This led to delays in completing naturalisation that are currently around 22 months. Miss Lawrence applied for naturalisation in December 1987. Her application will reach its turn for consideration within the next few months. I am not aware of any reason for giving it priority.

  Ethnic Minorities
  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to publish the results of the scrutiny of the working of section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966 which was undertaken by his Department.

  Mr. Hurd
  The report of the scrutiny of section 11 grant is being published today, and a copy has been placed in the Library.

  The Government welcome the report's thorough analysis of the way in which the system has operated. The report shows that there is still a need for special provision to help break down barriers which prevent people from the ethnic minorities from using fully their opportunities for educational, economic and social development.

  We are considering further what changes need to be made to improve the effectiveness of help provided to ethnic minority communities by services funded under section 11 grant. Such services are one important means of enabling men and women from Britain's ethnic minorities to play a growing and confident part in the mainstream of our national life.

  Police Stations
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish in the Official Report in tabular form the results of the Home Office survey conducted in December 1987 into the extent of old and sub-standard police stations in the Metropolitan police area giving the names and locations of stations which are (a) first class, (b) second class, (c) vulnerable and (d) irrecoverable.

  Mr. Hurd
  [holding answer 29 June 1989]: The Home Office survey focused on the extent of old and sub-standard police stations in England and Wales. Questionnaries were issued to the Metropolitan police only in respect of police stations which were in categories C and D. The total number of stations and the number in each category, have changed since 1987. The position is summarised as follows:

  Numbers

  A first class

  27

  B second class

  64

  C vulnerable

  58

  D irrecoverable

  37

  Total

  186

  The details of the gradings of stations are as follows:

  Grades of metropolitan police stations

  Name

  Grade updated

  Acton

  A

  Addington

  A

  Barnes

  A

  Barnet

  A

  Brixton

  A

  Canon Row

  A

  Chigwell

  A

  Chingford

  A

  Chiswick

  A

  Croydon

  A

  East Dulwich

  A

  Epsom

  A

  21

  Name

  Grade updated

  Kilburn

  A

  Leman Street

  A

  Marylebone

  A

  Orpington

  A

  Paddington Green

  A

  Peckham

  A

  Plaistow

  A

  South Norwood

  A

  Southall

  A

  Southgate

  A

  Southwark

  A

  Stoneleigh

  A

  Uxbridge

  A

  Wembley

  A

  Wimbledon

  A

  Albany Street

  B

  Arbour Square

  B

  Barkingside

  B

  Battersea

  B

  Belvedere

  B

  Biggin Hill

  B

  Boreham Wood

  B

  Brentford

  B

  Brick Lane

  B

  Catford

  B

  Chadwell Heath

  B

  Cheshunt

  B

  City Road

  B

  Collier Row

  B

  Dagenham

  B

  Ealing

  B

  Enfield

  B

  Esher

  B

  Feltham

  B

  Finchley

  B

  Greenwich

  B

  Ham

  B

  Hammersmith

  B

  Hampstead

  B

  Harold Hill

  B

  Harrow

  B

  Highgate

  B

  Holborn

  B

  Holloway

  B

  Hornchurch

  B

  Hounslow

  B

  Kennington

  B

  Kensington

  B

  Kentish Town

  B

  Kingsbury

  B

  Kingston

  B

  Lavender Hill

  B

  Lewisham

  B

  Limehouse

  B

  Loughton

  B

  Mitcham

  B

  Notting Dale

  B

  Ponders End

  B

  Poplar

  B

  Roehampton

  B

  Romford

  B

  Rotherhithe

  B

  Ruislip

  B

  Shepherds Bush

  B

  Sydenham

  B

  Teddington

  B

  Thamesmead

  B

  Tooting

  B

  Vine Street

  B

  Walthamstow

  B

  West Drayton

  B

  West end Central

  B

  West Ham

  B

  West Hampstead

  B

  West Hendon

  B

  West Wickham

  B

  22

  Name

  Grade updated

  Whetstone

  B

  Woodford

  B

  Worcester Park

  B

  Barking

  C

  Bethnal Green

  C

  Bow Road

  C

  Bromley

  C

  Camberwell

  C

  Carter Street

  C

  Chelsea

  C

  Cobham

  C

  Earlsfield

  C

  East Ham

  C

  East Molesey

  C

  Edgware

  C

  Eltham

  C

  Fulham

  C

  Gipsy Hill

  C

  Golders Green

  C

  Greenford

  C

  Hackney

  C

  Hampton

  C

  Harrow Road

  C

  Hayes

  C

  Heathrow

  C

  Hendon

  C

  Highbury Vale

  C

  Hornsey

  C

  Hyde Park

  C

  Ilford

  C

  Isle of Dogs

  C

  Islington

  C

  Kings Cross

  C

  Leyton

  C

  Leytonstone

  C

  Muswell Hill

  C

  Norbury

  C

  Pinner

  C

  Plumstead

  C

  Potters Bar

  C

  Putney

  C

  Radlett

  C

  Rainham

  C

  Richmond

  C

  Rochester Row

  C

  Shooters Hill

  C

  Sidcup

  C

  Streatham

  C

  Surbiton

  C

  Sutton

  C

  Tottenham

  C

  Tottenham Court Road

  C

  Tower Bridge

  C

  Twickenham

  C

  Upminster

  C

  Wallington

  C

  Wealdstone

  C

  Westcombe Park

  C

  Winchmore Hill

  C

  Wood Green

  C

  Woolwich

  C

  Banstead

  D

  Beckenham

  D

  Bexleyheath

  D

  Bow Street

  D

  Brockley

  D

  Bushey

  D

  Caledonian Road

  D

  Cavendish Road

  D

  Chislehurst

  D

  Clapham

  D

  Dalston

  D

  Deptford

  D

  Edmonton

  D

  Erith

  D

  23

  Name

  Grade updated

  Forest Gate

  D

  Gerald Road

  D

  Harlesden

  D

  Kenley

  D

  Lee Road

  D

  Mill Hill

  D

  New Malden

  D

  New Southgate

  D

  North Woolwich

  D

  Northwood

  D

  Norwood Green

  D

  Notting Hill

  D

  Penge

  D

  St. Anns Road

  D

  St. Johns Wood

  D

  Staines

  D

  Stoke Newington

  D

  Sunbury

  D

  Waltham Abbey

  D

  Wandsworth

  D

  Wanstead

  D

  Welling

  D

  Willesden Green

  D

  Wandsworth Prison
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many student hours have been lost in recreation classes in the last three months in Her Majesty's prison, Wandsworth; and what percentage this is of the normal evening provision.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 28 June 1989]: In the 12-week period ending 23 June 1989 a total of 3,350 student hours were lost: this represents 35 per cent. of the normal evening class provision at the establishment.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of books issued to prisoners in Her Majesty's prison, Wandsworth(a) in the three months before fresh start and (b) in the last three months.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 28 June 1989]: In the 12-week period preceding the implementation of fresh start (5 June 1988) 17,797 books were issued to prisoners. In the 12-week period ending 23 June 1989 a total of 9,546 books were issued.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent discussions he has had with the governor of Wandsworth prison on staffing levels at the prison; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Staffing levels are discussed in the normal course between governors and regional management. A round of discussions on staffing levels has taken place between the governor of Wandsworth and regional staff over the last two months, and management is considering the position.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Internal Market Council
  Mr. Grylls
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will report on the Internal Market Council held on 14 June.

  Mr. Maude
  The Council adopted the electro-magnetic compatibility directive, designed to facilitate free trade in 24
  electrical apparatus by ensuring that it does not produce or receive interference. It reached common positions on the fifth amendment to the cosmetics directive; on modifications to three directives dealing with technical standards for tractors; and on the proposed regulation on the giving of security to ensure payment of customs debts (the last of these being subject to a United Kingdom parliamentary scrutiny reserve).

  The Council discussed the proposed European Community mergers regulation, and the proposed directive to ensure compliance with public procurement directives. The Commission withdrew its proposal for a right of residence directive and indicated that it would now put forward new proposals on this subject shortly.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether licences for telecommunications operators contain provisions enabling them to inform community charge registration officers of changes of address by telephone subscribers.

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 26 June 1989]: There are no provisions in telecommunications licences which expressly enable operators to pass on such information.

  Business Development Consultancy Initiative
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will give the total amount of expenditure on business development consultancy initiative between 1 April 1988 and 31 March 1989 and for each of the region and island authorities in Scotland.

  Mr. Newton
  [holding answer 29 June 1989]: In the period from 1 April 1988 to 31 March 1989 the Department contributed £1·6 million to the cost of consultancies in Scotland under the business development consultancy initiatives. It is estimated that those consultancies not completed by 31 March 1989 will cost the Department a further £2·1 million. A breakdown of expenditure for each region and island authority in Scotland is not available.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will give the total number of applications(a) received and (b) approved for business development consultancy initiative between April 1988 and 31 March 1989 and for each of the region and island authorities in Scotland.

  Mr. Newton
  [holding answer 29 June 1989] In the period from 1 April 1988 to 31 March 1989, a total of 1,529 applications were received for the business development consultancy initiatives in Scotland. In the same period, 1,235 applications were approved for assisted consultancy. A breakdown of the applications received and approved for each region and island authority in Scotland is as follows:

  (a)

  (b)

  Region/Island authority

  Number of applications received

  Number of applications approved for assisted consultancy

  Borders

  36

  34

  Central

  57

  46

  Dumfries and Galloway

  23

  11

  25

  (a)

  (b)

  Region/Island authority

  Number of applications received

  Number of applications approved for assisted consultancy

  Fife

  65

  53

  Grampian

  163

  116

  Highland

  43

  29

  Lothian

  239

  188

  Strathclyde

  797

  680

  Tayside

  101

  76

  Orkney

  2

  —

  Shetland

  1

  —

  Western Isles

  2

  2

  Total

  1,529

  1,235

TRANSPORT

  A33
  Sir David Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress he is making on the upgrading of the Otterbourne to Chilworth section of the A33 trunk road to motorway standards; and when he expects the work to be completed.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Works in advance of the main contract for the Compton to Bassett section of the M3 are proceeding satisfactorily. We hope to award the main contract shortly. Construction should be completed around the end of 1991.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he is satisfied with British Rail's safety measures associated with its proposal to run the proposed high speed rail link parallel to the M20 motorway through the village of Sellindge.

  Mr. Portillo
  British Rail will need to satisfy the railway inspectorate on this and other safety aspects of the proposed Channel tunnel rail link. Preliminary discussions have been held.

  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will ask British Rail to consider re-routing the proposed high speed rail link to the south of the village of Sellindge.

  Mr. Portillo
  That suggestion has been put to British Rail and I understand that it is looking at it, among many others.

  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will ask British Rail to reconsider the Rachel alternative to the proposed high speed rail link.

  Mr. Portillo
  British Rail has indicated why it thinks that Rachel is not appropriate, but is none the less studying it.

  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to seek to ensure that the village of Sellindge is environmentally protected from the proposed high speed rail link.

  Mr. Portillo
  British Rail will need to convince both the Government and Parliament that all environmental concerns have been fully considered and, so far as is reasonably possible, met.

  Community Bus Services
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will reduce the cost of registering community bus services.

  Mr. Portillo
  Yes. Regulations that I have made were today laid before Parliament to reduce the fees for registering or varying non-subsidised community bus services from £30 and £27 respectively to a flat charge of £10.

  Nuclear Material (Rail Transport)
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether any uranium is transported through Oxford by rail to Windscale or other destinations.

  Mr. Portillo
  The timing and routing of such consignments is a matter for British Rail. I am informed that nuclear cargoes do not normally travel via Oxford.

  A33 (Accidents)
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many accidents involving injuries and deaths have taken place for each year since 1979 in each direction on the A33 between the M3 and M27.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The M3 motorway was extended south to Bar End (Winchester) in 1985. Accident statistics for the A33 trunk road are not available separately for each direction of travel. The combined figures for accidents involving death or injury are as follows:

  A33 (T): M3 (A303/A30 Junction) to M27 Bassett

  Year

  Number of Accidents

  1980

  93

  1981

  89

  1982

  89

  1983

  91

  1984

  95

  A33 (T): M3 (Bar End) to M27 Bassett

  Year

  Number of Accidents

  1985

  66

  1986

  69

  1987

  69

  1988

  68

  Orange Badge Scheme
  Mr. Michael Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received following the three year review of the orange badge scheme for disabled car parking; and what consideration he is currently giving to the problems affecting 430 thalidomide victims arising from the outcome of that review and, in particular, for those with shortened arms such as Mrs. Alison Wright of Bognor Regis.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We received nearly 700 comments on the discussion paper which we issued in August 1986 setting out possible changes to the orange badge scheme. The results of the review were announced in answer to a question from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) on 25 April 1989, at columns 481–83.
  27
  A number of people have understood limited press reports to mean that badges will in future be restricted to recipients of mobility allowance. We do not want to restrict eligibility to this extent. Nor do we seek to ration badges or set targets for their availability.

  We have received many letters and telephone calls supporting our proposals for tackling abuse of the scheme. The idea of redesigning the badge with space for a photograph of the holder has been particularly welcomed by people with disabilities and their representative organisations.

  Public concern has recently been expressed about not extending eligibility for badges to all thalidomide victims with upper limb disabilities.

  We have accepted advice and representations from the statutory disabled persons transport advisory committee (DPTAC) that badges must continue to be restricted to people with permanent and severe mobility problems.

  The committee's constituent organisations include the joint committee on mobility for the disabled, the Disabled Drivers Association, the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation and the Disabled Drivers Motor Club. The majority of DPTAC's members are people with disabilities.

  We are taking further medical advice on the mobility problems specific to some thalidomide people.

  Officials have met with the Thalidomide Trust and are in touch with the Thalidomide Society.

  We hope to make an announcement shortly on the outcome of this further consultation as it effects the eligibility of thalidomide victims in relation to the mobility criteria of the scheme.

  The greatest concern must be to protect the interests of those people who cannot move without the benefit of the national scheme and to avoid the growth and extension of local schemes conferring benefits only to local people.

  If the national scheme further loses its value and validity, the most severely disabled will suffer badly.

  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will consider introducing a two-tier system in the future for disabled persons, consisting of a red badge for less serious cases of disability, together with an orange badge for priority, as at present.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  [holding answer 30 June 1989]: No. For the scheme to be workable it is essential that only one class of badge is issued, and is restricted to those people with the greatest mobility problems. This approach has been strongly supported by organisations representing people with disabilities following our recent detailed review of the scheme.

  It has been a basis of the scheme from its inception that the issue of badges should be restricted to those most in need of the parking concessions conferred by it. This approach was endorsed in the recent review of the scheme.

  The main problem with the scheme is that badges are too easy to get, not too hard. Extending eligibility to those with less serious mobility handicaps (even if the full range of parking concessions were not provided) would increase considerably the number of badge holders. This would contribute to further traffic congestion in town centres. It would make enforcement of the scheme even more difficult.
  28
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received regarding the need for orange badges by those who have deformed arms or none at all; and what reply he gave.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The consultation paper on the orange badge scheme which we issued in August 1986 discussed the possibility of extending eligibility for badges to people with severe upper limb disabilities.

  This was generally opposed by those commenting on the paper. In particular, the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee (DPTAC) argued strongly that badges should continue to be restricted to those with severe mobility problems. Most of the major organisations representing people with disabilities are members of DPTAC.

  We have received several representations that badges should be issued to thalidomide victims without arms. We are taking further medical advice on whether there are any previously unknown mobility problems specific to thalidomide victims. We are in touch with the Thalidomide Trust and the Thalidomide Society.

  Severn Bridge
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the total outstanding debt on the Severn bridge at 31 March.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 30 June 1989]: The estimated debt at 31 March 1989 was £114 million.

DEFENCE

  Married Quarters
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Army married quarters have been sold on the open market during each of the past five years; and what were the net annuals proceeds from such sales.

  Mr. Neubert
  The number of married quarters that have been sold on the open market during each of the five years is given in the table. The net annual proceeds from such sales are identifiable only for 1988–89 and 1987–88, since records were not kept in this form prior to 1 April 1987.

  Financial year

  Number of quarters sold on open market

  Proceeds of sale £ million

  1988–89

  81

  2·819

  1987–88

  212

  5·517

  1986–87

  326

  —

  1985–86

  100

  —

  1984–85

  67

  —

  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in what circumstances and on what terms serving soldiers are able to purchase Army married quarters which are surplus to requirements.

  Mr. Neubert
  Surplus married quarters that are suitable for sale to individuals are offered to service personnel at a discount of 30 per cent. on the market value. In order to be eligible, service personnel must be aged 25 or over and neither they nor their spouses must have held a freehold interest in a house or other residential property, or a lease with an unexpired term of 21 years or more, since 1 December 1983. Where more than one application is made, preference is given to the applicant with the longest period of reckonable service.
  29
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Army married quarters have been made available for sale to serving soldiers in each of the past five years; and how many have been sold to(a) officers and (b) other ranks.

  Mr. Neubert
  Since 1 December 1983, a total of 1,195 surplus Army married quarters have been offered for sale to soldiers. A total of 339 were sold to officers and 642 to non-commissioned personnel. In the time available it has not been possible to provide a year-by-year breakdown of these figures.

  Nuclear-Powered Warships Safety Committee
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will outline the composition, role and powers of the nuclear-powered warships safety committee; who appoints it; to whom it reports: and what decision-making powers it has.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The nuclear-powered warships safety committee consists of serving and retired experts in nuclear and related fields from both within and outside the Ministry of Defence. Its members are appointed by the Secretary of State for Defence. Its terms of reference are to advise the Secretary of State and other Ministers on all public safety measures concerned with the construction, operation and maintenance of nuclear-powered warships. Although the committee has no executive powers, in practice the Ministry of Defence has always followed its advice on matters which fall within its terms of reference.

  Nuclear Test Veterans
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many further(a) deaths, (b) leukaemias and (c) multiple myelomas occurring to nuclear test veterans and to members of the control group have become known to the National Radiological Protection Board in the five years that have passed since the National Radiological Protection Board study was completed;

  (2) if he will request the National Radiological Protection Board to produce an interim report examining the developments there have been since the report on nuclear test veterans was completed.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  At this stage, I have nothing to add to my answer to the right hon. Gentleman on 19 May 1989 at column 326.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will discuss with the British Nuclear Tests Veterans Association the completeness of the service medical records used in the National Radiological Protection Board study of nuclear test veterans.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I refer the right hon. Member to paragraphs 5.5, 7.5 and 8.1 of the National Radiological Protection Board report 214 of January 1988 where the completeness of service records is discussed. I can add nothing further to that.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will request the national Radiological Protection Board as part of its study of nuclear test veterans, to consult the United States scientists who provided the evidence to the United States Government on their nuclear test veterans.
  30
  Mr. Sainsbury
  It would not be appropriate for the Government to instruct the NRPB on how it should conduct its work. However, I am confident that the National Radiological Protection Board, comprising independent experts, will consult whoever it feels necessary in order to further its understanding of matters relating to the nuclear test veteran studies.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what analysis was made by the National Radiological Protection Board of the incidence amongst nuclear test veterans of the 13 cancers for which the United States Government are now willing to pay compensation to their nuclear test veterans.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I refer the right hon. Gentleman to tables 7.1–7.15, 8.1–8.3, and tables F1–F13 contained in the National Radiological Protection Board report 214 of January 1988 where comprehensive analyses of the information pertaining to different types of cancers are listed.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what has been the cost of obtaining information about the ill health and mortality of nuclear test veterans in the five years since the previous cut-off point;

  (2) what is the estimated cost of analysing the information obtained since the cut-off date used for the first National Radiological Protection Board report on nuclear test veterans;

  (3) what was the cost of the National Radiological Protection Board report on nuclear test veterans; and what proportion of it arose from establishing the names of the nuclear test veterans, their involvement in the nuclear tests and the establishment of an appropriate sample.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The information is not available in the form requested. The total cost to the Ministry of Defence of the NRPB contract to date has been £540,000.

  Security Firms
  Mr. Hincliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether soldiers based at the Shoeburyness proof and experimental establishment, who are currently employed part-time by Centre Security Services undertaking security work at Southend civic centre have permission to undertake this additional employment.

  Mr. Neubert
  Approval was given to three soldiers to undertake such additional work during their off-duty hours, and two are currently engaged in it.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy on allowing security firms based close to Army garrisons to employ serving Army personnel on a part-time basis.

  Mr. Neubert
  Any officer or soldier wishing to take up any form of off-duty employment is required to obtain approval first. Approval is granted only when the commanding officer certifies that the appointment will not interfere in any way with the applicant's military duties.

  Headquarter Contracts
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will list in the Official Report the value of payments made in respect of headquarter contracts to Rolls-Royce

  31
  Ltd. and Rolls-Royce plc by his Department for goods and services destined for the British armed services in each of the six years to 31 March;

  (2) if he will list in the Official Report the precise amounts paid in respect of headquarter contracts to each of the following contractors by his Department for goods and services destined for the British armed services in each of the three years to 31 March 1988: (a) the General Electric Co. plc, (b) British Telecommunications plc, (c) Lucas Industries plc, (d) BTR plc, (e) Austin Rover Group Ltd, (f) Dunlop Holdings plc, (g) United Scientific Holdings plc, (h) Courtaulds plc, (i) Massey-Ferguson Holdings Ltd, and (j) Commercial Shearing Inc.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 17 May 1989]: Detailed investigation has established that a substantive answer to these questions could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Company Cars (Nfileages)
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, of the 1·4 million company car drivers how many drive(a) less than 2,000 miles, (b) 2–3,000 miles, (c) 3–4,000 miles, (d) 4–5,000 miles, (e) 5–6,000 miles, (f) 6–7,000 miles, (g) 7–8,000 miles, (h) 8–9,000 miles, (i) 9–10,000 miles, (j) 10–11,000 miles, (k)11–12,000 miles, (l) 12–13,000 miles, (m) 13–14,000 miles, (n) 14–15,000 miles, (o) 15–16,000 miles, (p) 16–17,000 miles and (q) 17–18,000 miles annually.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I regret that this information is not available from Inland Revenue administrative records.

  Exchange Rate
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps Her Majesty's Government are taking to stabilise the exchange rate; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  I refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend's speech in the Opposition day debate on Government economic policy on 7 June at columns 247–322.

  European Monetary System
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has had recent discussions with the Spanish Minister of Finance on questions affecting membership of the European monetary system.
  32
  Mr. Lilley
  My right hon. Friend has regular discussions on a wide range of subjects with his EC Finance Minister colleagues, including the Spanish Minister of Finance.

  Investment
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set out in tabular form the growth of total investment in the United Kingdom in the 1980s, together with the comparable figures for each of the other major European countries.

  Mr. Lilley
  The information is as follows:

  Percentage increase in Total Gross Fixed Capital Formation 1980–88

  Percentage

  United Kingdom

  39·1

  Germany

  4·4

  France

  6·7

  Italy

  11·1

  Spain

  33·6

  Netherlands

  17·1

  Belgium

  3·1

  Source: CSO 1988 National Accounts Blue Book and 20 June press release for United Kingdom. For other countries OECD National Accounts Volume I for 1980–1987 figures, 1988 figures from OECD Economic Outlook June 1989.

  Premium Bonds
  Mr. French
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received on his decision to introduce a minimum £100 purchase of premium bonds.

  Mr. Lilley
  I have received a number of representations. I refer my hon. Friend to the answer which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor gave on 5 May to the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel) explaining the reasons for this decision,Official Report, column 255.

  Investment Income Surcharge
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has any plans to restore the investment income surcharge.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  No.

  City Earnings
  Mr. Thornton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the total earnings by the City since 1965 in(a) the European Community, (b) the United States of America, (c) Japan and (d) the rest of the world.

  Mr. Lilley
  The data requested are not available.

  Output Statistics
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are his latest figures for output per hour worked in the United Kingdom, Germany and Japan.

  Mr. Lilley
  The April 1989 Treasury economic progress report presented estimates which show that output per hour worked in the United Kingdom economy in 1986 was about 50 per cent. higher than in Japan and about 5 per cent. lower than in Germany.

  Banking System (Complaints)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps to establish a statutory system to replace the banking ombudsman in the light of public disquiet over the treatment of complaints relating to automatic telling machines.

  Mr. Lilley
  The report of the review committee on banking services law and practice, under the chairmanship of Professor Robert Jack, was published by command (Cm 622) on 23 February 1989. The committee has made 83 recommendations covering a number of banking issues including the banking ombudsman scheme. The Government are carefully examining these recommendations and will set out their detailed response in due course.

  VAT
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received about the value added tax charge on the self-supply of new construction introduced by amendments to schedule 3 of the Finance Bill; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  I have received a number of written representations and met representatives of universities, independent schools and banks. In the light of these representations, I have decided to table further amendments for the Report stage of the Finance Bill which will tax the exempt use of new buildings on the basis of the historic cost of land plus the cost of construction.

  Independent Taxation
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what arrangements have been made to publicise the effects of independent taxation.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 29 June 1989]: A major programme of publicity for independent taxation is

  Total Investment Income and Earned Income

  £ billion

  Group of Income Tax Payers

  1988–89

  1989–90

  Investment Income

  Earned Income

  Investment Income

  Earned Income

  Top 1 per cent.

  4·3

  14·7

  5·0

  16·0

  Top 5 per cent.

  8·2

  43·0

  9·7

  46·9

  Top 10 per cent.

  10·5

  69·0

  12·5

  75·1

  Top 20 per cent.

  13·7

  108·8

  16·5

  118·5

  Top 25 per cent.

  14·9

  125·6

  18·0

  136·6

  Bottom 70 per cent.

  10·2

  119·5

  12·4

  129·4

  Bottom 50 per cent.

  6·6

  69·4

  8·0

  74·8

  All taxpayers

  26·1

  260·2

  31·7

  282·1

  34
  already under way. The first stage of the programme began in March and April this year to coincide with the issue of about 1 million extra tax returns for 1989–90. These returns will help the Inland Revenue divide married couples' income and tax reliefs correctly for the new system. Each return was accompanied by special message briefly outlining independent taxation and its effects and explaining the importance of completing the returns. Posters about the returns and independent taxation were also displayed in post offices, libraries and other locations. The Inland Revenue has published four new leaflets about the new system to give general guidance to taxpayers. These leaflets are available from tax offices and tax inquiry centres.

  Further publicity is planned during the coming months and will focus on ensuring that taxpayers, particularly married women, are aware of the change and its implications for them.

  Tax Returns
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people will be issued with personal tax returns by the Inland Revenue in 1988–89, 1989–90 and 1990–91.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 27 June 1989]: The number of people sent personal tax returns in 1988–89 was 9·098 million. It is expected that the figures for 1989–90 and 1990–91 will be:

  million

  1989–90

  10·188

  1990–91

  11·400

  Personal Incomes
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give (i) the total unearned and (ii) the total earned income of(a) the top 1 per cent., (b) the top 5 per cent., (c) the top 10 per cent., (d) the top 20 per cent., (e) the top 25 per cent., (f) the bottom 50 per cent., (g) the bottom 70 per cent. and (h) all taxpayers in the years 1988–89 and 1989–90.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 27 June 1989]: Estimates are given in the table. They are based on a projection of the 1986–87 survey of personal incomes and are provisional. All estimates are subject to a large degree of uncertainty since some investment income on which tax is deducted at source is not reflected in the survey.

  Territorial Army (Earnings)
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what guidance is given to tax inspectors on the treatment of earnings from the Territorial Army for unemployed men receiving benefit.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 26 June 1989]: I can assure my hon. Friend that inspectors of taxes are given appropriate guidance to ensure that the earnings of all taxpayers are taxed correctly. If he has a particular case in mind, and would let me have the details, I shall be happy to look into it.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table showing the proportion of income taxpayers falling into the higher-rate and basic-rate bands, by region, for the last full year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 27 June 1989]: The table gives estimates of the proportion of tax units (married couples and single people) with liability to income tax for 1986–87, the latest available year, at basic rate only and at higher rates. The estimates are based on a sample survey, and their reliability is limited by the size of the sample available, particularly in regions where the total number of taxpayers is relatively small such as Northern Ireland and East Anglia.

  Proportion of taxpaying tax units liable to tax at:

  Region

  Basic rate only

  Higher rates

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  North

  96·3

  3·7

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  95·7

  4·3

  North West

  95·7

  4·3

  East Midlands

  95·9

  4·1

  West Midlands

  96·4

  3·6

  East Anglia

  95·6

  4·4

  South East

  91·9

  8·1

  South West

  95·0

  5·0

  Wales

  95·7

  4·3

  Scotland

  95·4

  4·6

  Northern Ireland

  93·9

  6·1

  Business Expansion Scheme
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table showing total sums raised under the business expansion scheme, by region, for the last full year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 27 June 1989]: Provisional estimates of regional investment through the business expansion scheme for the year 1987–88 are as follows:

  Region

  1987–88

  £ million

  England

  South East

  134

  East Anglia

  8

  South West

  15

  West Midlands

  8

  East Midlands

  3

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  5

  North and North-West

  6

  36

  Region

  1987–88

  £ million

  Wales

  2

  Scotland

  11

  Northern Ireland

  1

  Total

  194

  Notes

  1. The estimates represent investment in 1987–88. Some money raised by BES approved funds during 1987–88 may not be invested until 1988–89.

  2. Each company is allocated to a region by the address of its registered office; it may conduct business elsewhere.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Disabled People (Benefits)
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to review social security benefits for disabled people.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has for involving disabled people and their organisations in the review of disability benefits.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to consult disability organisations about the review of disability benefits.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer my hon. Friend, the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Lady to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) earlier today.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if, in the light of the Social Security Advisory Committee's report "Benefits for Disabled People: A Strategy For Change" he plans to increase spending on disability benefits.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give the financial terms of reference of the disability benefits review.

  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to increase spending on disability benefits.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what response he has made to the comments of the Social Security Advisory Committee, in its report entitled "Benefits for Disabled People: A Strategy for Change" that reforming the system unavoidably means putting in new resources.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if, in light of the Social Security Advisory Committee's report "Benefits for Disabled People: A Strategy for Change" he will increase spending on benefits for disabled people.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what additional resources he plans to make available for disability benefits.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer my hon. Friend and the right hon. and hon. Members to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) earlier today.

  Agencies
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how his Department's agencies will affect the work of social security staff.

  Mr. Moore
  Agencies will mean exciting new opportunities for our staff. They will have clearer targets and greater flexibility to provide an improved service to the public, and their pay will he matched to their success in doing so.

  Mr. Couchman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how the introductions of his Department's agencies will affect staff training.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Training will be more sharply focused on the specific aims and objectives of the agencies, with a particular emphasis on management training, to reflect the greater devolution of responsibilities which agencies will bring.

  Mr. Stevens
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what further agencies are envisaged for his Department.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  On 17 May 1989, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced plans for the establishment of an information technology services agency by April 1990; a national insurance contributions unit by April 1990; a benefits administration agency by April 1991. A further agency, the resettlement units executive agency, has already been established.

  Pensioners (Home Ownership)
  Mr. Hayward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of pensioners own their own homes outright.

  Mr. Moore
  In 1986 about 48 per cent. of pensioners owned their own homes, of which only 4 per cent. had a mortgage and paid interest. This means 96 per cent. of pensioners did not pay mortgage interest.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of pensioners are owner-occupiers.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  In 1986, a total of 48 per cent. of pensioners were owner-occupiers; of those, 92 per cent. owned their homes outright.

  Attendance Allowance
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people are receiving the higher rate of attendance allowance at the latest available date; and what was the comparable figure for 1979.

  Mr. Scott
  An estimated 310,000 people were receiving the higher rate of attendance allowance at any one time in 1988–89. The corresponding figure for 1978–79 was 122,000.

  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he has any plans to improve the attendance allowance system.

  Mr. Scott
  We are constantly seeking to improve the working of the attendance allowance system. We have 38
  substantially reduced the average time taken to decide new attendance allowance claims from 12·5 weeks in 1983 to 7·5 weeks currently. This year we are spending almost £1,200 million on attendance allowance, an increase of 230 per cent. in real terms since 1978–79. The reports of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys disability surveys will help us judge how well the substantial current expenditure is targeted and whether there are better ways of helping those in greatest need.

  Pensions
  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many European Community countries pay flat-rate retirement pensions.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Within the European Community, only the United Kingdom, Denmark and Ireland pay flat-rate retirement pensions. So far as the United Kingdom is concerned, that means that all pensioners are provided with a secure foundation for retirement. In countries that rely on earnings-related schemes low earners receive low pensions and very low earners have very low pensions.

  Benefits (Uprating)
  Mr. John P. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what action he intends to take to compensate those who are currently losing because of the disparity between inflation and the uprating increase.

  Mr. Moore
  In April, benefits were fully uprated in line with the movement in prices over the 12 months to September 1988. In the same way, the next uprating will take account of the movement in prices between September 1988 and September 1989. The use of the historic method for uprating is much fairer than the previous forecasting method. A switch to the forecasting method in 1976 meant that pensioners were not compensated for the price increases of 6 per cent. between March 1975 to November 1975. That meant pensioners got over £1 billion less, in today's prices, than they would have done.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what action he intends to take to compensate those who are currently losing because of the disparity between inflation and the uprating increase.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's reply to the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) earlier today.

  Living Standards
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security by how much the average living standards of couples with children has increased since 1979.

  Mr. Scott
  From 1979 to 1985, the average living standards of couples with children improved by 9 per cent. This improvement is larger than for couples without children or single people. Both these groups had improvements in their living standards of 6 per cent.

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many families in receipt of child benefit contain an earner of more than twice national average male earnings; and what proportion of all such earners are part of a family unit receiving child benefit.

  Mr. Scott
  On the basis of the 1986 family expenditure survey, a little over 300,000 families in receipt of child benefit contained an earner of more than twice average earnings, representing just over a half of all such earners. Information about the incomes of families receiving child benefit is not routinely collected. Estimates are subject to normal sampling and response variation.

  Benefits
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people are in receipt of social security benefits.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  There are a large number of different social security benefits serving different purposes and giving different sorts of help to different groups of people. The estimated average numbers receiving each of the various benefits in 1988–89 are:

  1988–89

  Thousands

  Retirement Pension

  9,720

  Widows' benefit

  385

  Unemployment benefit

  620

  Sickness benefit

  110

  Invalidity benefit

  1,130

  Industrial disablement benefit

  210

  Industrial death benefit

  25

  Maternity allowance

  15

  Non-contributory retirement pension

  35

  War pension

  255

  Attendance allowance

  760

  Invalid care allowance

  100

  Severe disablement allowance

  265

  Mobility allowance

  530

  Income Support

  4,215

  Child benefit—numbers of children1

  12,030

  Child benefit—number of families

  6,755

  One parent benefit

  680

  Family credit

  285

  Housing benefit2

  rent rebate

  3,100

  rent allowance

  925

  rate rebate3

  5,105

  Notes:

  1 Numbers of children in families receiving child benefit, including those also receiving one parent benefit.

  2 Most households getting assistance with rent will also be in receipt of a rate rebate.

  3 Includes estimates of people receiving community charge rebates in Scotland.

  At any one time, people can receive more than one social security benefit and there are cases where people (eg parents) receive benefits for others (children). In 1987, the latest year for which an estimate is available, social security benefits made some contribution to the incomes or family incomes of some 38 million men, women and children—about 70 per cent of the population of Great Britain.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he will make it his policy to commence payment to anyone granted(a) housing benefit
  40
  or (b) any other form of social security benefit with effect from the date from which the need for that benefit can be shown to date.

  Mr. Scott
  No. There are prescribed times for claiming housing benefit and other social security benefits some of which may be extended for up to 12 months before the date of claim where the claimant proves there was good cause for the failure to claim timeously.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what effect the current increase in earnings will have on national insurance fund contributions.

  Mr. Scott
  We expect that the current increase in earnings will increase the income of the national insurance fund by about £500 million compared with estimates published last autumn. The Budget measures on national insurance contributions and the abolition of earnings rule will cost the fund a net £1 billion in 1989–90. The national insurance fund's income from contributions is expected to be about £28·2 billion in the current year.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the percentage increase in contributions to the national insurance fund anticipated in the current year as a result of the increase in earnings.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The percentage increase in receipts from national insurance contributions to the national insurance fund resulting from the expected increase of earnings in 1989–90 is expected to be 9 per cent. in cash terms. This estimate is based on receipts net of statutory sick pay, statutory maternity pay and personal pension rebates, but includes premiums paid to the state scheme by occupational pension schemes. It also take account of the changes announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in his Budget speech.

  Pensioners (Income)
  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of pensioners have investment income.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  In 1986, a total of 70 per cent. of all pensioners, and 85 per cent. of recently retired pensioners received investment income.

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of pensioners have income from some source other than state benefit.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  In 1986 just over 80 per cent. of pensioners were in receipt of income from a source other than state benefits.

  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, by how much pensioners' income from savings has increased since 1979.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Pensioners' average total net income from savings increased by 64 per cent. in real terms between 1979 and 1986.

  Source: Family Expenditure Survey 1986.

  Transitional Payments Unit
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security to what factors he ascribes the staff effort required to process each application to the housing benefit transitional payments unit having been three times greater than expected.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security to what factors he ascribes the staff effort required to process each application to the housing benefit transitional payments unit having been three times greater than expected.

  Mr. Ray Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security to what factors he ascribes the staff effort required to process each application to the housing benefit transitional payments unit having been three times greater than expected.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The staff effort required in the transitional payments unit was not three times greater than expected. An early planning estimate was made of the number of staff who would be needed at the transitional payments unit which proved to be an underestimate for two main reasons: the difficulty of estimating staff numbers in a wholly new area of work before detailed procedures had been worked out; and the fact that many of those employed in the transitional payments unit lacked any previous work experience. The general running costs of the unit in 1988–89 will be less than half the original estimate.

  Carers
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the estimated annual saving to his Department from the existence of a network of informal carers.

  Mr. Scott
  This information is not available.

  Claimants
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security which categories of claimants or potential claimants he has identified as being in greatest need.

  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security which categories of claimants or potential claimants he has identified as being in greatest need.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We recognised that less well-off families with children—those on income-related benefits-needed extra help. Income support and housing benefit include premiums providing extra help to families, lone parents and disabled children. Family credit provides more generous help to working families with modest earnings. In all three benefits, the amounts provided for children vary with their ages. In this year's uprating extra help, over and above the £2·1 billion needed to maintain the value of benefits, of 50p per child per week (worth £70 million in total) was provided for some 3 million children living in around 1·5 million families.

  Income support and housing benefit include premiums recognising the extra needs of pensioners and disabled claimants. The independent living fund provides financial help to enable severely disabled people who are receiving income support or have low incomes to pay for the personal care and domestic support they need to maintain an independent life in the community.
  42
  From July we are introducing measures to provide extra help for 16 and 17-year-olds who are forced to live independently which is worth up to £6·60 a week for these on income support and up to £5·61 a week for those on housing benefits only. From October we are directing extra help to elderly and disabled pensioners, costing nearly £200 million in a full year and worth up to £2·50 a week for single people and up to £3·50 for couples.

  North-West Office
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the total number of staff employed by his Department in the Department of Social Security north-west office.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The total number of staff employed in the north-western regional office is 647.

  Social Security Spending
  Mr. Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security by what amount spending in real terms on social security programmes has increased over the last five years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Scott
  Spending on social security in 1989–90 is forecast to be £51·1 billion in current plans, while in 1984–85 it was £38·1 billion. Despite a drop in unemployment of almost one third, with the consequential effect on expenditure on that group, overall social security spending has increased by 3·4 per cent. in real terms in the last five years.

  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the percentage of public expenditure spent on social security benefits now; and what it was in 1979.

  Mr. Scott
  The percentage of public expenditure spent on the social security programme in 1989–90 is forecast to be 30 per cent. on current plans, while in 1979–80 it was 24 per cent.

  Family Credit
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the advertising cost for each successful new claim for family credit, above expected trends, received as a result of the recent advertising campaign.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what has been the notional advertising cost for each successful new claim for family credit, above expected trends, that has been received as a result of the advertising campaign.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Such cost estimates would not be meaningful. It is not possible to assess accurately how much of the increase in claims has been a direct result of the advertising campaign rather than other factors such as the increase in family credit rates in April. Furthermore, the campaign aims to raise levels of awareness of family credit not only to encourage claims by people who may be entitled at present but to encourage others to claim in the future should they become eligible through changed circumstances.

  In terms of the objective of increasing awareness within the target groups, there have been significant increases.

  43
  Research indicates a change from 25 to 82 per cent. awareness. This is matched by increases in applications. In the weeks before the campaign we had 164,000 applications. In the 11 weeks after the campaign started we had 295,000 claims and of the claims decided since the campaign began over 135,000 have been successful and 86,400 further claims are awaiting decision.

  The cost of advertising and other promotion of family credit since April to the end of July is approximately £4·8 million.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent representations he has received regarding the take-up of family credit.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Representations are usually to the effect that it needs to be improved. The recent advertising campaign has sought to increase public awareness of family credit and so promote increased take-up.

  Advertising
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he has undertaken an up-to-date assessment of any improvements in take-up ratios on targeted benefits following the completion of the spring advertising campaign launch by his Department.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The precise effects on family credit take-up rates will not be known until information is available from the 1989 family expenditure survey, but the increase in the number of claims received during the campaign has been very encouraging and the underlying caseload is now almost certainly over 300,000.

  Pensioners (living Standards)
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security by how much the average living standards of pensioners have increased since 1979.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Between 1979 and 1986 pensioners' average total net income increased by 23 per cent. in real terms.

  Source: Family Expenditure Survey 1986.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people have been refused loans by social fund officers on the basis that they have insufficient income to repay the loans.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  There were 18,931 loan applications refused for this reason in the period April 1988 to May 1989.

  Social Security Fraud
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many personnel are involved in the detection of fraud in social security benefits; and what is the total expenditure by his Department in this area.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Precise figures are not available, but it is possible to estimate the numbers of full-time equivalent posts on the basis of records of staff time expended on fraud-related work. The numbers of full-time equivalent posts are 3,335. Data for the total expenditure by the Department in this area are not available. Staff costs are now some £47 million in a full year.

  Mobility Allowance
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent discussions he has had with pensioners' groups on extending the age after which mobility allowance can be paid; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  I met a delegation from Pensioners Voice on 13 June, when the age limit for mobility allowance was one of the matters discussed.

  Prescription Charges (Exemptions)
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representation he has received about the operations of the Agency Benefits Unit regarding its processing of applications for exemption from prescription charges; what improvements in service to applicants can be expected; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Agency Benefits Unit deals with claims made under the National Health Service low income scheme which provides help with the whole range of National Health Service charges and fares to hospital for treatment. Each claim under the scheme covers all these services, including exemption from prescription charges, so that separate information about the latter cannot be given.

  On the operation of the low income scheme generally, apart from many letters about the amount of help provided in individual cases, most representations have concerned the amount of time taken to deal with claims. A major cause of delay earlier in the year was a problem which arose in connection with the regulations governing the low income scheme, and which led to a stockpiling of cases at the unit. All the cases which had been stockpiled were cleared by the middle of April, but work is still in progress to correct the cases which had been dealt with before the stockpiling began.

  Representations have also been made about the claim form, and the design of the form is currently under review. The opportunity will also be taken to correct weaknesses in the form which have sometimes led to delays due to forms having to be returned to claimants because they were not properly completed.

  Elderly People (Income Support)
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the projected increase in cost of income support for elderly people in private residential and nursing home accommodation in the next five years.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information requested is not available, but forecasts of public expenditure on income support as a whole are contained in the public expenditure White Paper.

  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total amount paid in income support to elderly people in private residential and nursing home accommodation for each of the last five years.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The table shows estimated expenditure on payments of supplementary benefit income support to elderly people in private and voluntary
  45
  residential care and housing homes; information for private homes only is not available. Before December 1985 such data were not collected.

  Date

  Annual equivalent expenditure

  £ million

  December 1985

  280

  May 1986

  360

  May 1987

  530

  May 1988

  680

  Source: December 1985, May 1986, May 1987 and May 1988 Quarterly Statistical Enquiries.

  Note:

  The amounts for 1985–7 relate to supplementary pensions, and that for 1988 to payments of income support to people aged 60 or more.

  Independent Living Fund
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his policy towards the payment of independent living fund grants in order to substitute for National Health Service services; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  Decisions are a matter for the trustees of the fund. Payments from the fund complement the provision made for severely disabled people by the statutory authorities and are not intended to replace them.

  War Widows
  Sir David Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects to he able to respond to the further representations which he has received about the plight of the pre-1973 war widows.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  My noble Friend has recently responded to representations made by the Officers' Pension Society and several hon. Members. Officials have provided a note to the Social Services Committee on the points raised on this subject at the hearing on 14 June. There are no other representations awaiting a reply.

  Young Claimants
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give the total number of 16 and 17-year-olds in Scotland and for each of the local Department of Social Security office areas who have(a) applied and (b) received income support as a result of direction from the Secretary of State under the severe hardship provision from September 1988 to the most recent date for which figures are available.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The table shows the number of applications for income support from 16 and 17-year-olds in Scotland on the ground of "severe hardship" between 12 September 1988 and 23 June 1989. It also shows the number of directions given to enable income support to be paid.

  (1)

  (2)

  (3)

  DSS Local Office

  Decisions taken

  Directions to enable benefit to be paid

  Aberdeen

  North

  67

  30

  South

  154

  105

  46

  (1)

  (2)

  (3)

  DSS Local Office

  Decisions taken

  Directions to enable benefit to be paid

  Airdrie

  45

  30

  Arbroath

  40

  24

  Ayr

  24

  13

  Bathgate

  225

  173

  Bellshill

  75

  56

  Campbeltown

  13

  9

  Clydebank

  15

  6

  Coatbridge

  6

  4

  Cowdenbeath

  61

  35

  Dumbarton

  59

  42

  Dumfries

  48

  34

  Dundee

  East

  29

  14

  West

  17

  10

  Dunfermline

  98

  79

  East Kilbride

  36

  27

  Edinburgh

  City

  74

  54

  East

  103

  78

  North

  70

  47

  South

  84

  62

  West

  89

  62

  Elgin

  69

  47

  Falkirk

  173

  114

  Fort William

  13

  11

  Galashiels

  103

  69

  Glasgow

  Anniesland

  66

  43

  Bridgeton

  61

  41

  City

  76

  46

  Craigton

  62

  46

  Cranstonhill

  27

  25

  Cumbernauld

  59

  28

  Laurieston

  142

  93

  Maryhill

  91

  63

  Parkhead

  85

  50

  Patick

  31

  17

  Provan

  164

  120

  Rutherglen

  129

  68

  Southside

  49

  33

  Springburn

  87

  63

  Greenock

  73

  48

  Hamilton

  40

  30

  Inverness

  29

  21

  Irvine

  90

  55

  Johnstone

  9

  1

  Kilmarnock

  88

  62

  Kirkcaldy

  109

  79

  Kirkwall

  12

  9

  Lerwick

  5

  5

  Leven

  47

  27

  Motherwell

  36

  23

  Oban

  9

  6

  Paisley

  142

  104

  Perth

  85

  58

  Peterhead

  47

  30

  Port Glasgow

  37

  25

  Stirling

  86

  54

  Stornoway

  37

  21

  Stranraer

  14

  10

  Wick

  2

  1

  Total

  3,916

  2,640

  Notes:

  1. Based on 100 per cent. count of applications received.

  2. Information relates to the number of applications received rather than to the number of individual young people involved. Some individuals may have received more than one direction.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give the number of 16 and 17-year-olds
  47
  claiming benefit in Scotland and for each of the Department of Social Security local area offices in each of the months June, July, August and September 1988.

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

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give the total number of 16 and 17-year-olds in Scotland who have been exempt from the withdrawal of entitlement to benefit covering lone parents, registered blind, incapable of work by reason of disease or mental or physical disability, pregnancy or couple married with a child in the period September 1988 to the most recent date for which figures are available.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to the reply to the hon. Member for Fife, Central of 7 November,Official Report, columns 99–100, if he will outline the findings of the monitoring of the changed social security benefit arrangements for young people seeking a YTS place in the period September 1988 to June 1989.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The benefits involved in the changed arrangements for young people from September 1988 were income support and child benefit.

  As far as income support is concerned, I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) on 16 March at columns 305–06 and to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) on 13 March at columns 27–28.

  The changes in child benefit arrangements in the period July 1988 to June 1989 resulted in 418,000 invitations to claim extended child benefit being issued to the parents of those leaving school at summer or Christmas 1988 or Easter 1989. Payment of extended child benefit was made in 43,000 cases where young persons were registered for work or a YTS place.

  I am satisfied that the Training Agency has more than sufficient YTS places for all who want one. On 31 May (the latest figure available) there were over 141,000 unfilled places. Arrangements are in place at a local level with the careers service to ensure that the Training Agency is aware of and can satisfy demand for YTS places.

HEALTH

  Water (Contamination)
  Mr. Jessel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if, as a matter of urgency, he will direct the Chief Medical Officer to provide a second opinion on the risk to human health of chironomidae in water, including drinking water supplies.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Chief Medical Officer has sought expert advice on this matter. The advice is that there is no evidence that when these larvae have been found in drinking water supplies they have ever caused a human health hazard.

  Re-Solv
  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what further plans he has to support the work of Re-Solv.

  Mr. Freeman
  Earlier this year I met colleagues from other Departments with an interest in solvent misuse to discuss the Government's strategy for tackling the problem. At that meeting we recognised the valuable work undertaken by Re-Solv. We agreed that half the cost of the Re-Solv director's salary over the next three years would be met by Government. The Department of Health is, in addition, making a grant of £50,000 in 1989–90 to Re-Solv to undertake a range of activities to combat solvent misuse. That amount includes a contribution towards the cost of the full-time director for the first year of appointment.

  Hospitals (Management Arrangements)
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will report further on his intention to introduce new management arrangements for the special hospitals service, as outlined in the ministerial statement of 4 May 1988.

  Mr. Freeman
  With the agreement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department, the new Special Hospitals Service Authority came into being on 1 July 1989. Initially, the authority will work with the Department, and the Home Department, in formulating national policies for the service; in finalising the new arrangements; and in preparing the way for senior managerial appointments and for the handover of the functions currently discharged by the Department and the three existing local hospital boards. Further measures will be taken in due course to enable the authority to assume full responsibility for the service, from 1 October 1989. At that stage the Department will relinquish all its operational management responsibilities and the local boards will cease to exist, to be replaced as soon as possible by new local arrangements.

  As well as its administrative responsibilities, a primary task of the authority will be to determine policies and priorities within the strategic framework provided by the Government's stated objectives for the further development of the service. These include the overriding need to continue to ensure the safety of the public; to continue to improve standards of treatment and care; and to forge closer and more effective links between the special hospitals and the services to which they relate—the hospital and community psychiatric services and the prison medical service. It was with the achievement of those objectives in mind that my right hon. and learned Friend and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department agreed on the need to strengthen the management of the service, both in terms of the establishment of a central special health authority, and the introduction of general management.

  The new arrangements will provide an improved environment in which roles and relationships, and lines of accountability, are more clearly defined and in which better-informed decisions can be taken on key issues—including the quality of the lives of patients, and the use of resources.

  I am pleased to announce that Dr. David Edmond, the present chairman of the Rampton hospital board, has

  49
  accepted an invitation to serve as chairman of the new authority. He comes to the job with a proven track record both in the service itself, and in industry, and his knowledge, experience and deep commitment to the service will stand him in good stead in taking on this demanding appointment. The membership of the authority will be announced shortly.

  Blood Donors
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action can be taken by donors to the blood transfusion service to ensure that the blood they supply is used exclusively within the National Health Service.

  Mr. Freeman
  The national blood transfusion service meets non-NHS hospitals' reasonable requests for blood according to availability and clinical need.

  The suggestion that donors should impose conditions is not only contrary to this principle but is impracticable in a service dealing with over 2 million units of blood each year.

  Competitive Tendering
  Mr. David Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what criteria have been issued to district health authorities to prevent specifications on competitive tendering being drafted in such a way as to facilitate the application of a specified firm.

  Mr. Freeman
  A wide range of guidance has been issued on the importance of openness in tendering. For example, the Department's guide "Option Appraisal: Medical and Scientific Equipment", published in 1988, advises that a range of equipment should be identified that appears to satisfy the functional requirements and that requirement specifications should not include performance features that would effectively limit the choice to only one model unless there is clear agreement by all concerned that they are genuinely essential. The Department's procurement directorate will offer health authorities advice on available choices, where required.

  Children Bill
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received seeking information as to when he envisages that part VIII of the Children Bill[Lords] will be implemented; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 30 June 1989]: We have had a few representations on this particular point in the past year. I refer the hon. Member to what my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor said on implementation of the Bill generally in the other place on 6 December at columns 534–35.

  NHS Grading
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in what percentages of cases in each of the last three years where upgrading of National Health Service staff was approved by the Whitley council joint secretaries the award was backdated to the date of application.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 30 June 1989]: This information is not readily available and could be provided
  50
  only at disproportionate cost. If my hon. Friend has a particular case in mind he might wish to let me have the specific details.

  Self-governing Hospitals
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether maternity services will be included as part of the core services to be provided by self-governing hospitals.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 21 June 1989]: Exactly what core services different self-governing hospitals will provide will vary according to the facilities that they have available, the services other local hospitals provide and local requirements. Where, however, a self-governing hospital can best provide maternity services to which patients need guaranteed local access, it will be required to do so.

SCOTLAND

  Fish Farming
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the members of the committee appointed to advise the Crown Estate Commissioners on fish farming; if he will describe their remit; and if he will state their remuneration and criteria for appointment.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. and learned Friend was happy to announce on 30 May the appointments of the hon. Lord Grieve and Professor George Dunnet to the chairmanship and deputy chairmanship respectively of the fish farming advisory committee being established by the Crown Estate. Background to the appointments is contained in Scottish Office news release 30 May/0948/89 copies of which have been placed in the Library of the House. The other members of the committee will be representatives of the relevant public bodies. Details of the bodies to be represented and the remit of the committee were contained in the reply my right hon. and learned Friend gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) on 19 December at columns 88–89. The question of remuneration is a matter for the Crown Estate.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he intends to reply to the letter from Scottish Wildlife and Countryside Link on fish farming, dated 30 January.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My officials met Scottish Wildlife and Countryside Link and discussed in depth the issues raised in the letter. We shall be keeping Link informed of developments.

  Heritage and Culture
  Mr. Greg. Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has for further promoting Scotland's heritage and culture.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Government's booklet "Scotland's Heritage" was published on 9 June and copies were placed in the Library. This made it clear that our policy has been, and will remain, to support the conservation of Scotland's heritage and to promote wide public appreciation and understanding of Scotland's rich
  51
  and diverse culture. Amongst many initiatives giving effect to this policy, my right hon. and learned Friend announced on 9 June a commitment in principle to the development of a museum of Scotland which would exhibit the natural, social, economic and cultural history of Scotland.

  Crofts
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what area of land was under crofting tenure in(a) 1976, (b) 1983 and (c)

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  In 1976 about 881,000 hectares of inbye and common grazings land were registered as being in crofting tenure. Since then about 15,000 hectares, mainly inbye land, have been decrofted.

  Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowance
  Mr. Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received about the European Commission's proposal to limit the payment of the hill livestock compensatory allowance to 25 per cent. for the first 45 livestock units and 12·5 per cent. for the next 45 units.

  Mr. Rifkind
  We have received representations from several right hon. and hon. Members, the National Farmers Union of Scotland and the Scottish Landowners Federation expressing concern about the European Commission's proposals for changes to the hill livestock compensatory allowance arrangements.

  Mr. Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in the event of the European Commission's proposal to limit the payment of the hill livestock compensatory allowance to 25 per cent. for the first 45 livestock units and 12—5 per cent. for the next 45 units becoming effective, the Government will consider funding the deficit for Scottish farms.

  Mr. Rifkind
  Negotiations on the Commission's proposals—which are part of a package of measures relating to reform of the structural funds—have only just begun. It is premature to consider what action the Government might take if the proposals were to be adopted unchanged, but I can give a categorical assurance that in the negotiations we shall be seeking to ensure that full account is taken of the structure of farming in the less-favoured areas of Scotland.

  Wetlands
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next intends to announce the designation of an area either as a site under the Ramsar convention on the conservation of wetlands of international importance or as a special protection area under EC directive 79/409 on the conservation of wild birds, or both.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The next classification of a site will be announced as soon as the necessary consultations have been completed.

  Dental Schools
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will detail the involvement of his Department in announcing on 22 June the plans for the future of Scotland's three dental schools.
  52
  Mr. Rifkind
  I was extremely concerned at the premature and regrettable disclosure in a television programme on 22 June of the recommendations of the report of the working party on dental provision in Scotland, chaired by Sir Donald McCallum. My Department was, of course, not involved in that disclosure.

  Nurses
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list, by district health authority(a) the current nursing staff establishment, (b) the number in post at the latest available date and (c) the number who have left the National Health Service in the preceding year.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  There are no district health authorities in Scotland. The equivalent is a health board. The whole-time equivalent number of nursing staff employed in each health board at 30 September 1988 is set out in the table. Information about nursing staff establishments is not held centrally and the number of nursing staff who leave the NHS could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Number

  Scotland

  63,782·4

  CSA

  196·4

  Argyll and Clyde

  4,782·7

  Ayrshire and Arran

  3,376·0

  Borders

  1,146·6

  Dumfries and Galloway

  1,856·9

  Fife

  3,598·5

  Forth Valley

  3,530·7

  Grampian

  6,030·5

  Greater Glasgow

  15,283·4

  Highland

  2,369·8

  Lanarkshire

  5,391·4

  Lothian

  9,471·1

  Orkney

  197·1

  Shetland

  221·0

  Tayside

  6,034·7

  Western Isles

  295·6

  Art, Craft and Design Teaching
  Dr. Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has to bring craft and design education into the curriculum for Scottish schools; what plans there are for the teaching of art; and by what date he expects such subjects to be part of the curriculum.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Current guidance for secondary schools is that the curriculum of every pupil up to the age of 16 should include subjects within the modes designated creative and aesthetic activity, which includes art, and technological activity and applications, which includes craft and design. Scottish certificate of education courses are available in both subjects at O-grade, standard grade and higher levels. Art and design may be taken at the level of certificate of sixth-year studies. Consideration is being given to the introduction of a certificate of sixth-year studies course in craft and design. Craft and design and art are also aspects of the primary curriculum, which is presently being reviewed.

  Community Care
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to make an announcement on his plans for community care; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My right hon. and learned Friend plans to announce his proposals for community care in Scotland at the same time as decisions are announced on the Griffiths report. As has been indicated in the House, this will be before the summer recess.

  Food Poisoning
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many cases of(a) botulism, (b) salmonella enteriditis, (c) salmonella typhimurium and (d) other types of food poisoning have been reported or detected in Scotland for each month since January.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The numbers of food poisoning cases reported during 1989 are as follows:

  Number

  January

  150

  February

  181

  March

  114

  April

  165

  May

  160

  June

  255

  The cause is not always known but those recorded include:

  Botulism

  Salmonella enteriditis

  Salmonella typhimurium

  January

  Nil

  54

  32

  February

  Nil

  85

  31

  March

  Nil

  60

  21

  April

  Nil

  43

  9

  May

  Nil

  81

  27

  June

  Nil

  96

  32

  Scottish Constitutional Convention
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is now taking steps to take part in the discussions of the Scottish constitutional convention.

  Mr. Rifkind
  No.

  Lead Plumbing
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans for replacing lead plumbing in pre-war houses and tenement blocks; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The replacement of lead plumbing within a house is the responsibility of the owner, though grants to private owners are available for this purpose from district and islands councils.

  In the period 1982–87, over 45,000 grants which included lead plumbing works were approved by local authorities. In the same period more than 350,000 houses were improved by local authorities and other public sector agencies; many of these houses are likely to have had lead plumbing replaced as part of the modernisation works.

  Water Supply
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to give any advice to regional water authorities concerning the addition of orthophosphate to the public water supply; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  There are no plans to issue further advice at the present time. Full advice was given to regional and islands authorities in mid-1984. The addition of orthophosphate has achieved considerable reductions in levels of lead in tap water in a number of areas of Scotland. The effectiveness of the treatment is kept under review.

  Sunday Trading
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if, in view of the growth of Sunday trading in Scotland, he has any plans for a review of the law so as to provide safeguards for employees and local residents.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no such plans.

  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received on people being denied jobs or being required to give up employment, if, on grounds of family or conscience, they do not wish to work on Sundays.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Other than those in the report "Scotland's Sunday Under Pressure", none.

  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has received the publication, "Scotland's Sunday Under Pressure" by the Keep Sunday Special Campaign; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. and learned Friend has received the publication and has noted its findings.

  Policewomen
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in the light of research findings of Professor Ray Wilkie on policewomen in Scotland, he will consider whether any policy changes need to be effected.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  We are examining the report, but the main implications of the research findings are for the police service itself to consider. I understand that copies of the report have been circulated to the chief constables of all Scottish police forces.

  Contracts (Tendering)
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take steps to prohibit expenditure by certain local authorities on forming and operating separate companies for catering and cleaning services to compete with private contractors who may tender for local authority contracts; what assessment he has made of the effects of this practice on the ability of private contractors to compete fairly for these contracts; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Within the resources available to them, local authorities may do anything that
  55
  is calculated to facilitate, or is conducive or incidental to, the discharge of any of their functions. If authorities decide to set up companies for catering and cleaning services, they cannot award contracts to such companies without taking reasonable steps to secure competition for the carrying out of the work. I should be glad to be informed of any evidence that private contractors are being prevented from competing fairly in such circumstances.

  YTS
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is monitoring the impact of the YTS guarantee on 16 and 17-year-olds.

  Mr. Lang
  I am satisfied that the Training Agency in Scotland has more than sufficient YTS places available for those young people under 18 who want one.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate the number of summer school leavers eligible for YTS as a result of failing to obtain employment or a place in full-time education.

  Mr. Lang
  We estimate that up to 50,000 16 to 17-year-olds might leave school this summer. All are eligible for YTS, but only a proportion will seek a place. The Training Agency has consulted the careers service and is satisfied that it has sufficient places to meet likely demand, but further places can be provided if required.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give(a) the number of YTS places available and (b) occupied for each of the former administration areas of the Training Agency, known as area manpower boards.

  Mr. Lang
  This information is not available in the precise form requested. As at 31 May 1989 the Training Agency had 61,115 agreed YTS places in Scotland and 47,345 of these were filled. This information is broken down by Training Agency area office area as follows:

  Agreed places

  In training

  Glasgow city

  9,844

  8,434

  Lanarkshire

  6,306

  5,325

  Renfrew, Dunbarton and Argyll

  8,249

  6,260

  Ayrshire, Dumfries and Galloway

  6,969

  5,498

  Lothian and Borders

  7,655

  5,424

  Central and Fife

  9,287

  6,831

  Grampian and Tayside

  9,397

  7,220

  Highlands and Islands

  3,408

  2,353

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when the YTS guarantee will be met for every 16 and 17-year-old summer school leaver in Scotland who does not enter full-time education or permanent employment.

  Mr. Lang
  We aim to ensure that every young person under 18 who is seeking a YTS place is offered one before his or her entitlement to benefit ends.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the YTS guarantee is being met; and how monitoring of this procedure is being undertaken.

  Mr. Lang
  Yes the guarantee is being met. Local arrangements with the careers service ensure that Training Agency area offices are aware of and can satisfy demand for YTS places.
  56
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate the number of 16 and 17-year-olds in Scotland who did not obtain a YTS place before the expiry of the period of extended child benefit or bridging allowance between September 1988 and the most recent date for which figures are available.

  Mr. Lang
  The guarantee of a YTS place to all 16 and 17-year-olds that want one means that there is no need for any young person who applies for a YTS place in reasonble time to be without financial support. Information about young people who are not on benefit or on YTS is not collected centrally. I cannot therefore offer an estimate of their numbers.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has met the regional and islands council careers officers to discuss the implementation of the YTS guarantee.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My officials regularly meet representatives of Scottish careers services to discuss this and other matters.

  Dounreay
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much time has elapsed since he received the report from his reporter, Mr. A. Bell, on the public inquiry into the application to build the European demonstration reprocessing plant at Dounreay.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The report on the public local inquiry was received by my right hon. and learned Friend on 30 March 1988. He is currently considering the implications of the report.

  Planning Applications
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the planning applications, including outstanding applications, in respect of which public inquiries have been held since May 1979 and his decision has not been announced until a date more than(a) 12 months, (b) 18 months and (c) 24 months after the conclusion of the inquiry.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is as follows:-

  1. Applications called-in by the Secretary of State in respect of which public inquiries have been held since May 1979 and where the decision was made more than

  (a) 12 months after the conclusion of the inquiry; Skiing development, Lurcher's Gully, Aviemore Aberdeen Central Comprehensive Development (Area B)

  Waste disposal plant, Inchbelly Farm, Kirkintilloch

  Landfill site, Dalinlongart, Argyll

  Travelling people's site, Hardhill Road, Bathgate

  Travelling people's site, Panmurefield, Dundee

  Lorry Park, Barnhill, Moffat

  Housing development, Small Glebe, Newtyle, Angus

  (b) 18 months after the conclusion of the inquiry;

  Refuse tip, Brandon Howe, Banff

  (c) 24 months after the conclusion of the inquiry; European Demonstration Reprocessing Plant, Dounreay

  2. Applications subject to appeal to the Secretary of State in respect of which public inquiries have been held since May 1979 and where the decision was made more than:

  (a) 12 months after the conclusion of the inquiry; Housing development, Garthdee Road, Aberdeen

  57

  Joiner's Workshop and store, Margaret Cottage, Grandhome, Aberdeen

  Housing development, Royal Nurseries, Old Dalkeith Edinburgh

  Housing development, Edmonstone Mains Farm, Edinburgh

  Housing development, Maybury Road, Edinburgh

  Housing development, The Drum, Gilmerton, Edinburgh

  Housing development, Strathblane Road, Milngavie

  Road proposal, Stepps By-pass, Glasgow

  Opencast extraction of fireclay, Crossgates Plantation, Braidwood, Carluke

  Reconstruction of station facilities, Williamwood Station, Giffnock

  Housing development, Meikle Earnoch, Hamilton

  Shopping development. Newhouse, Motherwell

  Shopping development, former British Leyland site, Bathgate

  (b) 18 months after the conclusion of the inquiry;

  Boreholes in Carrick Forest, Loch Doon

  Housing development, Dalhousie Mains, Bonnyrigg, Midlothian

  Shopping, housing and high technology park development, Maybury Park, South Gyle, Edinburgh

  Shopping development, The Craigs, Maybury Road, Edinburgh

  Shopping development, Hermiston Gait, Cultins Road, Edinburgh

  (c) 24 months after the conclusion of the inquiry;

  None.

  Glasgow School of Chiropody
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will make a statement on the future of the clinical department of the Glasgow school of chiropody;

  (2) if he will make it his policy to guarantee the future funding of the Glasgow school of chiropody for the next five years.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I announced on 24 February 1988 my approval for the transfer of Greater Glasgow health hoard's school of chiropody to Queen's college, Glasgow in the higher education sector. The school will continue to be funded by the health board until this transfer is effected and after transfer will be funded in exactly the same manner as other institutions in the higher education sector. The health board is currently considering whether some of the chiropody services provided in a clinic adjacent to the school might be redistributed to other sites in their area.

  Rural Areas
  Sir Hector Monro
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what further steps he plans to take to ensure the effective co-ordination of the various Government policies and initiatives for the rural areas of Scotland.

  Mr. Rifkind
  This Government have always recognised the importance of rural areas in Scotland. We have responded to their changing needs and have demonstrated our commitment to their well-being over the years through many and varied forms of assistance to help sustain rural communities, stimulate economic activity, and maintain and enhance the environment.

  We are in a period of changing emphasis for rural Scotland. For instance, agriculture support policies are being reshaped; new development opportunities are being recognised, not least by local communities supported by the voluntary sector; and we are placing even greater emphasis on effective conservation of the environment. I
  58
  am encouraged by the increasing awareness of a need to achieve a balance between development and conservation to sustain the resources of our natural environment for the benefit of future generations while at the same time permitting rural communities to achieve their full economic potential.

  In order to ensure that our current and future efforts are fully co-ordinated and effectively targeted, I have asked my noble Friend the Minister of State, Lord Sanderson of Bowden, to take special responsibility for rural policy co-ordination in the Scottish Office in addition to his existing responsibilities for agriculture, fisheries, forestry, Highlands and Islands development and tourism. This appointment will ensure that the initiatives already in hand and further developments likely to occur in the coming years are properly co-ordinated and work together to achieve their common purpose of enhancing the position of rural areas.

  Other Ministers will retain their existing responsibilities. Lord Sanderson will concentrate on ensuring that, in a time of change, the right balance is struck between the protection of the environment and economic development.

  Roads
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to publish a White Paper on Scottish roads.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 30 June 1989]: I refer the hon. Member to the major statement made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State on 18 May in which he announced a substantial increase in funds for the trunk road programme. In that statement the Secretary of State indicated his trunk road priorities and referred to a planned consultation paper on the "routes south of Edinburgh" study, and a major review of the trunk and principal road network. The outcome of these consultations may form the basis of a policy document or White Paper in due course.

  Tree Planting
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Caerphilly, of 22 June,Official Report, columns 205–6, whether the figures given relate to actual hectares of forestry planted within the period specified or the number of hectares for which grant was paid within that period.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 30 June 1989]: As stated in the answer, the figures given in categories (b), (c) and (d) were the areas on which planting grant was paid, while the figures in categories (a) and (e) were, respectively, the areas actually planted and the areas estimated to have been planted, in the period specified.

  Erskine Bridge
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the outstanding debt on the Erskine bridge as at 31 March.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 30 June 1989]: This figure will not become available until the bridge account for 1988–89 is finalised and laid before Parliament.

ENERGY

  Carbon Dioxide Emissions
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will set out the basis of the statement made by the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer) to the international business machines conference in Bournemouth on 13 June that each new pressurised water reactor nuclear station operated would reduce United Kingdom carbon dioxide emissions by 6 million tonnes a year against a coal-fired station.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Each tonne of typical United Kingdom power station coal burnt produces approximately 2 tonnes of carbon dioxide. The figure of 6 million tonnes a year of carbon dioxide equates to a 1·2 GW station displacing equivalent baseload coal fired plant burning a little under 3 million tonnes a year.

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what commitments he intends to enter into on behalf of the Government in respect of National Power's costs for the decommissioning of nuclear power stations and the disposing of and reprocessing of nuclear waste; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Parkinson
  As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy made clear to the hon. Member on Report on 10 April at column 667, the industry, and, therefore, the consumer, will pay these costs unless something happens which is not foreseen—such as the regulations concerning the environment being changed —and proper provisions could not, therefore, have been made in the accounts. The amendments the Government intend to table at Lords Report stage, announced by Baroness Hooper on 19 June at column 20, do not represent a change to this policy, but a particular means of implementing the Government's commitments under it.

ENVIRONMENT

  Water Use
  Mr. Hayward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any further information in relation to water use restrictions following his answer to the hon. Member for Kingswood on 8 June,Official Report, column 87.

  Mr. Howard
  We are now aware of 16 cases in England where water utilities, using their powers under section 16 of the Water Act 1945, have imposed bans on the use of hosepipes for watering gardens and washing cars. These affect about 6 per cent. of the population.

  Equity Share Schemes
  Mr. Fry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many local authorities in the east midlands region have plans to build houses under equity share schemes.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Department does not collect information in the detail requested. Some indication of local authorities' intentions may be found in their annual housing investment programme submissions, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Bathing Waters
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment by which date he expects all identified bathing waters in the north-west region to meet the provisions of EEC directive 76/160/EEC; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  The Department is currently discussing with water authorities, including North West water authority, plans that they have drawn up aimed at bringing remaining bathing waters up to EC standards by the mid-1990s.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list North West Water's environmental quality objectives for all identified bathing waters on the Fylde coast, Morecambe bay and north Cumbrian coast.

  Mr. Howard
  Quality objectives for rivers and estuaries are at present set by water authorities; in future this will be the responsibility of the Secretary of State on the advice of the National Rivers Authority. The relevant standards for identified bathing waters are set out in the EC directive 76/160/EEC, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Surcharging
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the last two occasions on which councillors have been surcharged for refusing to grant planning permission.

  Mr. Gummer
  The surcharging of councillors under sections 19 and 20 of the Local Government Finance Act 1982 is a matter for individual auditors. I am not aware of any case in which councillors have been surcharged for refusing to grant planning permission.

  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the last two occasions on which councillors have been surcharged.

  Mr. Gummer
  I understand that the last two occasions on which councillors were surcharged were in September 1985 when councillors from Lambeth and Liverpool were surcharged in connection with late rate-making.

  CO2 Emissions
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the carbon coefficient assumed for motor spirit and derv in producing carbon dioxide emissions; and what are the latest estimates of carbon dioxide emissions in the transport sector, broken down into road, rail and air transport.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 29 June 1989]: Estimates of carbon dioxide emissions from fuels are made by multiplying the fuel consumption figures by a factor which is the assumed carbon content of the fuel in question. These factors are subject to constant revision as more information becomes available from suppliers about the carbon content of their fuels. The factors used in calculating carbon dioxide emissions from petrol and derv are 855g/kg and 857g/kg of fuel used respectively.

  The most recent estimates of carbon dioxide emissions from road, rail and air transport for 1987 are based on

  61
  information supplied by Warren Spring laboratory. Both the carbon content of fuel and fuel consumption figures are subject to revision. These are the current best estimates available. In 1987, 96·2 million tonnes of carbon dioxide were emitted by road transport. The figures for rail and air transport are 2·2 million tonnes and 18·4 million tonnes of carbon dioxide respectively. Emissions from aircraft using fuel supplied in the United Kingdom will not all occur in United Kingdom air space. The figure of 18·4 million tonnes is an estimate of emissions occurring world wide from aircraft fuel supplied originally in the United Kingdom. The figures given here differ slightly from those published in the Department's "Digest of Environmental Protection and Water Statistics 1988", because of updating.

  Nature Reserves
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to publish the further report allowing publication of the strategy for national nature reserves; and what plans he has for consultation.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer the hon. Member to the statement made by my noble Friend the Minister of State for Housing, Environment and Countryside in another place. Anyone wishing to send comments to the Nature Conservancy Council about the preliminary report is invited to do so. An announcement will be made in due course about the next stage of the review.

  Water Meters
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment to what extent the monthly cost of water bills in the pilot scheme in the Isle of Wight involving water meters differed from previous costs before the introduction of water meters.

  Mr. Howard
  The tariff used in the meter trials on the Isle of Wight have been set so as to recover the same amount of income in total from the island as would have been recovered under a rateable value basis. It is, however, too early to say to what extent individual bills will differ as customers on the island will not receive their first metered hills until October.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether there has been any formal evaluation of the pilot scheme for water meters in the Isle of Wight; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  Some preliminary results from the Isle of Wight and other metering trials were set out in the first interim report which was published last February. Other reports will be published from time to time over the next three years as information on various aspects of the trials becomes available.

  Housing Management
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any plans to act on the recommendation in the Glasgow university report "The Nature and Effectiveness of Housing Management in England" to introduce a system of performance indicators for local authority housing management.
  62
  Mr. Trippier
  My noble Friend the Minister for Housing, Environment and Countryside intends to table an amendment to the Local Government and Housing Bill during Committee stage in another place.

  This would enable a performance indication scheme to be put in place in every local authority so that tenants will be able to see—for the first time—how efficient, effective and economical their authority is in managing its housing stock. Precise requirements will be for regulations. We plan to consult widely before introducing the scheme.

  Water Purity
  Mr. Jessel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what reports he has received concerning the presence in water supplies in south-west London of the organism chironomidae; what action is being taken to eliminate the organism; how long he expects elimination to take; and if he will make a statement on how the matter arose and what action he intends to take to prevent a recurrence;

  (2) what advice or instructions his Department gives to water undertakings to monitor water supplies to test for the presence of unwanted organisms; whether he considers present practice to be adequate in the light of the existence of chironomidae in water supplies in south-west London; whether he considers Thames Water complied fully with the recommended procedures; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what advice or instructions his Department gives to water undertakings to check their filter beds and other elements in the processing cycle for water supplies against physical objects which might lead to the entry and multiplication of unwanted organisms in the water supply; whether such instructions or advice were complied with by Thames Water in the light of the presence of contaminated water supplies in south-west London; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  My Department has received a report from Thames Water that chironomid larvae are present in the water supply to parts of the boroughs of Hammersmith, Fulham, Hounslow, Kingston, Lambeth, Merton, Richmond, Southwark and Wandsworth supplied from the Hampton treatment works.

  Thames Water found that two sand filters were passing larvae into the supply. These filters have been isolated for inspection and, if necessary, repair. Thames Water is also draining and cleaning the filtered water storage tank at the works. This cleaning operation is expected to take several days to complete. Thames Water is still investigating the cause of the incident.

  My Department has not issued specific advice on the monitoring of water supplies or the checking of filter beds for the presence of unwanted organisms such as chironomidae. It is the water undertaker's responsibility to check that processes are operating efficiently and to monitor the quality of water entering supply. My Department's standing committee of analysts has published methods of biological sampling for macro-invertebrates which includes chironomidae. I understand that many water undertakers use these methods to monitor certain water supplies at times of the year when the presence of chironomidae is possible.

  My Department will urgently review current practice with water undertakers when the cause of this incident is known.

  Drinking Water Quality
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will place a copy of the Government's response to the European Community's reasoned opinion on drinking water quality in the Library.

  Mr. Ridley
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) on 30 June,Official Report, Vol. 155, column 580.

  Land Development Managers
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many water authorities have now an officially designated land development manager or a post carrying such specific responsibilities.

  Mr. Howard
  All the nine water authorities in England have property or estates managers whose responsibilities include the disposal of surplus land.

  Hospitals (Radioactive Waste)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many hospitals currently store solid radioactive waste on site; and what controls exist for monitoring and ensuring safety.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Four hundred and eighty eight hospitals in England are authorised to store radioactive waste under the Radioactive Substances Act 1960 and under the Radioactive Substances (Hospitals' Waste) Exemption Order 1963. Monitoring and safety are ensured by inspectors from both Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution and the Health and Safety Executive.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a list of hospitals licensed under the Radioactive Substances Act 1966 to discharge radioactive wastes into the atmosphere or into the sewers.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Hospitals authorised to discharge radioactive wastes are given in the list of registrations in England and Wales issued under the Radioactive Substances Act 1960 for the keeping and use of radioactive materials and mobile sources. A copy is in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish figures for the amount of radioactive waste released into the atmosphere or down drains or stored on site at hospitals in each of the last five years.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Information about the quantities of radioactive waste discharged and stored at hospitals is not kept centrally; records are kept at individual premises.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what access local people and their representatives have to information about the level and potential dangers of the discharge of radioactive wastes from hospitals.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Monitoring and safety are ensured by inspectors from Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution and the Health and Safety Executive who visit 64
  the premises. Details of any hazards found are published in the inspectorate of pollution's annual report which is available in the Library of the House.

  Cyanide
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures his Department intends to take in order to protect the environment from the use of cyanide in prospective gold mining.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I have been asked to reply. Cyanide is not used in any gold mining operation in Scotland, nor are there any plans for its use in Scotland. The use of cyanide in mining would be subject to existing controls which apply, for example, to the use of substances hazardous to health and safety, to discharges to rivers or sewers and to the disposal of waste. I am not aware that any further controls are needed.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether his Department has commissioned research on the environmental effects of cyanide in prospective gold mining; and if he will publish the results.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I have been asked to reply. Cyanide is not used in any gold mining operation in Scotland, nor are there any plans for its use in Scotland. The dangers of cyanide to human health are well known and its use is thus strictly controlled. I am not aware of any need for research in this area.

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proportion of land within the Argyll and Bute district council area is designated as sites of special scientific interest or otherwise protected.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I have been asked to reply. The Nature Conservancy Council has advised me that 7 per cent. of land within Argyll and Bute district council area is designated SSSI or otherwise protected.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to the answer of 22 June,Official Report, column 198, how many copies of the community charge practice notes have been issued to people or organisations other than local authorities.

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 29 June 1989]: In the case of the community charge practice note No. 19 "Exemptions from the Personal Community Charge (2)", published earlier this month, 2,700 copies were distributed to practitioners in local government and a further 700 copies were circulated to other organisations and individuals. Detailed records of distribution are not available for previous practice notes, but the proportion of local authority to other recipients was similar.

  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if, pursuant to his reply of 11 May to the hon. Member for Copeland,Official Report, column 521, he will state how many requests have been received from the public by the private company, contracted by the Central Office of Information, for the leaflets on the community charge listed on page 2 of "The Community

  65
  Charge (The So-Called Poll Tax): How It Will Work For You" delivered to all households in England: what is the average time taken to deal with a request for one or more leaflets; what monitoring of this company's performance is being undertaken by the Central Office of Information; and if lie will make a statement.

  Mr. Ridley
  [holding answer 28 June 1989]: There has been exceptionally high demand for these further leaflets with over 235,000 requests received so far. Many requests are for more than one leaflet. It was thought right to delay distribution until the outcome of court action by Greenwich borough council against the short leaflet "The Community Charge (the so-called Poll Tax)" was known and the implications of the judgment could be fully assessed. This and the level of demand has led to delays, both factors beyond my control, which I naturally regret. Orders arising for the short leaflet are, however, now being met and an explanatory letter is being sent to people who have placed orders which cannot be fulfilled until stocks have been replenished. Reprinting to meet the high demand is under way. The usual monitoring procedures are in place. All orders will he fulfilled as quickly as possible.

  Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to ensure compliance by the Felixstowe Dock and Railway company with the terms of his consent issued under section 6 of the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Act 1988, for the phase one reclamation by the company of lands at Fagbury.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 30 June 1989]: The Department's primary concern for limiting the consent under section 6(3) of the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Act 1988 to phase one reclamation by the Felixstowe Dock and Railway company was to ensure that the environmental effects, in particular the damage and disturbance to the birds, were minimised.

  Before issuing the consent, I had regard to the various agreements and undertakings entered into by or on behalf of the company during the passage of the Act in respect of the establishment of a nature reserve at Trimley marshes, landscaping and other matters. I also had regard to the agreement reached between the Nature Conservancy Council and the company subsequent to the passage of the Act for a programme of ornithological and hydrological monitoring studies within the Orwell estuary to identify changes in the bird population and their habitats resulting from phase one of the works.

  It is up to the parties to the various agreements to monitor the situation and seek compliance with the terms of the agreement. It is understood from the Nature Conservancy Council that the ornithological monitoring studies are progressing satisfactorily.

  Water Supplies
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the monitoring arrangements he has made in respect of derogations of water supplies granted by him; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 30 June 1989]: Where a derogation has been granted by my Department to water undertakers under the terms of the EC drinking water
  66
  directive my officials carry out periodic reviews. Where improvements are necessary, my officials check on progress made by water undertakers.

  Sewage Discharges (North West)
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the monitoring arrangements he has made in respect of any derogation of sewerage either in force or under consideration in the north west; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer, 30 June 1989]: At present, consents to discharge effluent from sewage treatment works issued under part II of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 contain conditions which require that discharges are sampled by the water authority on the basis of agreed sampling guidelines. Under the Water Bill, it will become the responsibility of the National Rivers Authority to issue discharge consents and to determine appropriate sampling and monitoring arrangements.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what alternative method to the rating valuation list he proposes to use after the introduction of the poll tax in England and Wales in April 1990 to calculate home loss payments.

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 30 June 1989]: There are no plans to introduce a poll tax but instead a charge for the services provided locally.

  In paragraph 8 of the consultation paper on land compensation and compulsory purchase legislation which my Department issued on 7 March 1989, we have proposed provision for the Secretary of State to prescribe a single flat rate of home loss payable to all qualifying claimants at broadly the present level. However, the paper invited comments on whether, in the light of the general operation of the land compensation code, some further provision would be appropriate in the case of owner-occupiers who are displaced as a result of compulsory purchase. We are currently studying the responses of the consultation papers, a copy of which I am sending to the hon. Member.

  Water Supply (Yorkshire)
  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether the water supply in Yorkshire meets the European Community guidelines for aluminium content, and for any other additives, metals or pesticides.

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 29 June 1989]: Most supplies in the Yorkshire water authority area regularly comply with the standards set in the EC drinking water directive. Those supplies which regularly exceed the directive's standards, including those for aluminium, manganese and iron, and for which the Department has granted derogations under article 9 of the directive, are included in the list which I placed in the Library on 22 June. Derogations under article 9 can be granted only where the situation is due to the nature and structure of the ground and there is no risk to public health.

  I also refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) on 8 March, Official Report, column 521–22.

  HMS Cambridge, Wembury
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to receive notification under circular 18/84 of proposal, for new boundary fencing at HMS Cambridge, Wembury; and when he is planning to hold a public inquiry.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 20 June 1989]: My hon. Friend the then Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces undertook to follow the procedures for Crown development laid down in circular 18/84. But it is for his Department to decide how to proceed within the terms of that circular. If the proposal is referred to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State he will then decide whether the proposal should proceed by way of a non-statutory local inquiry, an informal hearing or the exchange of written representations.

  River Pollution
  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the sewage treatment works within Northumbria water authority's boundaries and the number of times each sewage treatment works has failed the discharge consent standard in each of the last two years.

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 21 June 1989]: Details of the sewage treatment works in the Northumbrian water authority area are held on the public register, which is maintained by the authority and is available for public inspection, free of charge, at all reasonable hours. The register includes information about any breaches of discharge consents.

  Water Companies (Deemed Consent)
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what changes his Department will make to the procedure of granting deemed consent to companies following the privatisation of water authorities.

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 26 June 1989]: The arrangement for granting deemed consents to companies was a transitional provision under part II of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 related to those categories of discharge brought under control for the first time. This applied only to applications received by 14 October 1987. There are no plans to reintroduce the procedure for granting deemed consents following privatisation of the water industry.

  April-June 1988

  July-September 1988

  October-December 1988

  January-March 1989

  (a) Called for restart interview

  10,923

  10,337

  12,308

  13,072

  (b) Attended restart interview

  8,731

  8,707

  8,434

  8,903

  (c) Referred to UBO for failing to attend interview

  669

  775

  663

  687

  (d) Disallowed for failing to attend

  56

  68

  40

  67

  Restart follow-up interviews (figures also included in totals above)

  (e) Called for restart interview

  134

  235

  1,177

  1,298

  (f) Attended restart interview

  47

  124

  765

  884

  (g) Referred to UBO for failing to attend interview

  2

  5

  63

  114

  Burnley Inner Area Programme
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to issue approval for Burnley inner area programme protect HS 205—Council for Voluntary Service single homeless project.

  Mr. Trippier
  Urban programme funding was approved for the project on 29 June.

  Water Privatisation
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, further to the answer to the hon. Member for Dewsbury, 26 June,Official Report, column 299, if he will specify the exact amount which was allowed for expenditure on the water authorities' current corporate awareness advertising compaigns when approving the water authorities' overall financing limits.

  Mr. Howard
  No. To do so would prejudice the authorities' media buying negotiations.

EMPLOYMENT

  Industry Training Boards
  Mr. Thornton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he expects to publish his proposals on the future of the industry training boards.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I have asked the chairman of each ITB to bring forward proposals for future training arrangements in the industry by the end of July.

  Restart
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many unemployed people have(a) been called for a restart interview, (b) attended a restart interview, (c) been referred to UBO for failing to attend interview, (d) been disallowed, (e) been called for restart follow-up interview, (f) attended a restart follow-up interview, (g) been referred to UBO for failing to attend follow-up interview and (h) been disallowed after referral to UBO for the Training Agency covering the Doncaster area, for each of the latest four three monthly periods available.

  Mr. Lee
  The information requested is given in the table. The figures relate to the employment service, Humberside south area.
  69

  April-June 1988

  July-September 1988

  October-December 1988

  January-March 1989

  (h) Disallowed for failing to attend

  Not available in form requested—included in (d) above

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many unemployed people have been referred to the following outcomes as a result of their restart interviews and, for each of the outcomes, how many people started or attended(a) job, (b) restart course, (c) ET, (d) CP, (e) new JTS, (f) jobclub, (g) EAS, (h) voluntary work/VPP, (i) ERC, (j) DRO and

  April-June 88

  July-September

  October-December

  January-March 89

  (a) Job

  467

  666

  476

  520

  (b) Restart Course

  74

  104

  162

  222

  (c) ET (since 09.88)

  0

  915

  2,741

  2,591

  (d) CP1

  396

  142

  0

  0

  (e) New JTS1

  1,723

  1,611

  0

  0

  (f) Jobclub

  467

  382

  473

  437

  (g) EAS

  191

  218

  239

  223

  (h) Voluntary Work/VPP1

  108

  52

  0

  0

  (i) ERC

  9

  18

  0

  0

  (j) DRO

  288

  292

  272

  270

  (k) Claimant Adviser

  742

  831

  633

  452

  1 To September 1988.

  Tourism (Yorkshire and Humberside)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the top 20 tourist attractions in numbers of tourists attending or visiting Yorkshire and Humberside.

  Mr. Lee
  The English tourist board's annual survey of visits to attractions gives the following figures for the Yorkshire and Humberside regional tourist board area in 1988:

  Number of visits

  York Minster

  2,100,000

  Flamingo Land

  1,001,000

  Jorvik Viking Centre

  865,909

  National Museum of Photography

  824,811

  Rother Valley Country Park

  689,329

  Castle Museum, York

  640,705

  National Railway Museum

  565,574

  Hornsea Pottery

  500,000

  Tropical World, Leeds

  500,000

  Lightwater Valley Theme Park

  421,121

  Bridlington Leisure World

  350,748

  Sheffield City Museum

  321,106

  Fountains Abbey

  274,414

  North Yorkshire Moors Railway

  250,000

  Leeds City Art Gallery

  236,223

  Bolton Abbey

  233,130

  York Dungeon

  231,149

  Thyrbergh Country Park, Doncaster

  225,000

  Bronte Parsonage, Haworth

  212,545

  Dalby Forest Drive

  205,000

  Jobcentres (Doncaster and Mexborough)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what checks are carried out by his Department's staff in the jobcentres at Doncaster and 70
  (k) claimant adviser for the Training Agency covering the Doncaster area, for each of the latest four three monthly periods available.

  Mr. Lee
  The information requested is given in the table. The figures relate to the employment service, Humberside south area. We do not know how many people ultimately obtain a job or other opportunity as a result of the restart interview.

  Mexborough, to establish whether vacancies advertised are offering rates of pay which fall below wages council rates.

  Mr. Lee
  Jobcentres have full details of wages council minimum rates of pay and instructions that, where vacancies are notified for occupations affected by wages council orders, rates must not be less than those specified.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether any vacancies advertised by his Department's jobcentres in Doncaster and Mexborough on 26 June were offering rates of pay which fall below wages council rates.

  Mr. Lee
  On 26 June, Doncaster jobcentre was displaying five vacancies and Mexborough jobcentre had three vacancies which were covered by wages council orders. 1 am informed that none of the vacancies concerned was advertising rates of pay below the minimum wages council rates.

  Tourism (Cambridgeshire)
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the total value of tourism in Cambridgeshire at current prices in each of the years from 1979 to 1989.

  Mr. Lee
  The available information for Cambridgeshire is shown in table 1 and relates to expenditure by overseas visitors to the United Kingdom who made a trip of at least one night to Cambridgeshire. Information about spending by domestic residents is available only for the whole of the East Anglia tourist board region, and is shown in table 2 together with the equivalent information for overseas visitors. Figures for tourist expenditure by United Kingdom residents on day trips to Cambridgeshire or East Anglia are not available.
  71

  Table 1

  Estimated spending in Cambridgeshire by overseas residents1 2

  £ million

  1979

  31

  1980

  34

  1981

  34

  1982

  31

  1983

  58

  1985

  42

  1986

  69

  1987

  73

  1988

  81

  Table 2

  Estimated spending in East Anglia3

  £ million

  By overseas residents1

  By British residents2

  Total

  1979

  111

  295

  406

  1980

  96

  308

  404

  1981

  95

  339

  434

  1982

  95

  349

  444

  1983

  126

  391

  517

  1984

  125

  4346

  471

  1985

  147

  350

  497

  1986

  157

  445

  602

  1987

  179

  490

  669

  1988

  189

  555

  744

  1 Source: International Passenger Survey.

  2 Source: British Tourist Authority.

  3 East Anglia Regional Tourist Board comprising: Cambridgeshire together with Norfolk, Suffolk and Essex.

  4 From 1984 an improved method of estimating expenditure was introduced for domestic spending. Figures for 1984 and later years are, therefore, not strictly comparable with those for earlier years.

  Employment Rehabilitation Centres
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if, pursuant to the reply to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe, on 14 June,Official Report, column 436, he will publish in the Official Report any changes to policy or guidelines which have

  Number of agreed YTS places and number of young people in YTS training in each region of England, Wales and Scotland for each month during period October to March 1989 (in thousands)

  October 1988

  November 1988

  December 1988

  January 1989

  February 1989

  March 1989

  April 1989

  May 1989

  Agreed places

  In training

  Agreed places

  In training

  Agreed places

  In training

  Agreed places

  In training

  Agreed places

  In training

  Agreed places

  In training

  Agreed places

  In training

  Agreed places

  In training

  South East

  62·1

  46·2

  61·7

  45·6

  61·7

  44·0

  60·1

  42·0

  60·3

  40·8

  58·9

  40·0

  57·9

  39·6

  57·1

  38·8

  London

  33·3

  23·2

  33·1

  22·9

  31·6

  22·5

  31·3

  22·1

  31·2

  21·4

  30·3

  21·2

  29·9

  20·8

  29·4

  20·7

  South West

  46·1

  34·6

  45·9

  33·6

  45·9

  33·0

  45·9

  32·0

  43·7

  31·3

  43·4

  30·5

  41·8

  30·0

  40·7

  29·2

  West Midlands

  71·3

  50·4

  72·5

  49·1

  72·0

  48·3

  70·8

  47·2

  71·3

  44·5

  69·1

  43·6

  67·5

  43·2

  66·5

  42·2

  East Midlands and Eastern

  66·1

  52·0

  66·2

  51·1

  65·2

  50·1

  65·2

  49·3

  65·2

  47·8

  63·5

  46·6

  62·1

  46·0

  61·6

  44·7

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  60·8

  51·3

  60·9

  50·1

  61·0

  49·1

  61·5

  48·3

  61·8

  46·7

  61·4

  45·2

  60·8

  45·1

  60·2

  43·7

  North West

  82·4

  67·9

  82·8

  67·1

  83·0

  65·9

  82·1

  64·6

  81·8

  63·0

  80·5

  60·7

  77·8

  59·2

  76·2

  58·4

  Northern

  40·4

  33·2

  40·5

  33·0

  40·4

  32·6

  40·4

  31·8

  40·4

  21·0

  39·6

  30·5

  38·5

  30·0

  38·1

  29·2

  Wales

  29·8

  26·2

  29·9

  25·6

  29·8

  25·5

  29·8

  24·8

  29·4

  24·2

  29·0

  23·8

  28·2

  23·9

  28·1

  23·6

  Scotland

  63·4

  50·2

  63·5

  49·8

  63·5

  48·9

  63·2

  51·2

  62·9

  50·8

  62·0

  49·8

  61·5

  48·5

  61·1

  47·3

  Totals

  555·7

  435·2

  557·0

  427·9

  554·1

  419·9

  550·3

  413·3

  548·0

  401·5

  537·7

  391·9

  526·0

  386·3

  519·0

  377·8

  Training Agency
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are employed in his Department's Training Agency; and if he will give a breakdown of their main responsibilities.

  Mr. Lee
  On 1 June 1989, the latest date for which figures are available, the numbers of permanent staff employed in the Department's Training Agency were 11,893. Of these, 9,501 (including 2,623 Skills Training Agency staff) were employed in field offices on delivery and
  72
  caused a 50 per cent. reduction in the average length of attendance at employment rehabilitation centres; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The average length of stay of all clients in ERCs has reduced because many more people are finding short courses of assessment and guidance are meeting their needs. However, in 1989 the length of stay on rehabilitation courses was 35 days and has remained consistent over the last five years. I am also pleased to report that the number of people helped by the ERS has increased from 12,000 in 1984–85 to about 26,000 in 1988–89.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the future of the employment rehabilitation centres which share sites with skillcentres, when the Skills Training Agency is moved into the private sector.

  Mr. Lee
  The employment rehabilitation service, which includes employment rehabilitation centres, will continue. Contingency plans are being drawn up for individual centres on shared sites which may be affected in varying degrees by the move of the Skills Training Agency into the private sector.

  Mr. Thornton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many letters and representations he has received concerning the future of the construction industry training board and its statutory levy since the publication of his paper "Employment for the 1990s".

  Mr. Nicholls
  A total of 253 letters and representations have been received by my Department.

  Youth Training Scheme
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give(a) the number of YTS places available and (b) the number of young people in training in each region, Scotland and Wales for each month from October 1988 to May 1989, inclusive.

  Mr. Cope
  The information is shown in the table.

  administration of the various programmes for which the Department is responsible. The remaining 2,392 were employed in head office; of these, 984·5 were employed in central services, 1,266·5 in policy and programmes division and the training standards advisory service and 141 in the Skills Training Agency head office.

  Employment Training
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many referrals there have been on a monthly basis from the employment service to employment training agents(a) nationally, and (b) by training area since September 1988.

  Mr. Cope
  Information on the level of employment service (ES) referrals to training agents on a national basis is given in table 1. Information on levels of referrals on a Training Agency area office basis is not available.

  Referrals to employment training training agents

  Month

  Total referrals

  6 September 1988

  96,525

  October 1988

  82,866

  November 1988

  80,407

  December 19881

  68,306

  January 1989

  91,606

  February 1989

  89,863

  March 19891

  95,765

  April 1989

  82,323

  May 1989

  74,284

  1 Five week month.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many training managers, by training agency area, were receiving either (i) the standard, (ii) special, (iii) high level, (iv) extended introduction or further assessment supplementary grants for trainees on a monthly basis since September 1988.

  Mr. Nicholls
  This information is not available without disproportionate cost. Supplementary grants are a matter of negotiation between the Training Agency area office and the individual training manager.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement as to the progress of trainees from their initial referral to the ET training agent and a placement with a training manager.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The latest evidence we have on the referral of trainees into employment training shows that 51 per cent. of initial referrals attend the training agent and 79 per cent. of these are placed with a training manager.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will place in the Library a list of local authorities that have refused to co-operate with employment training.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) on 20 June 1989 at column 137.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the total budget spent on advertising employment training; and if he will provide a breakdown as to the nature of this spending.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The total spent on advertising employment training in the last financial year, 1988–89 was £9,654,954 and this financial year 1989–90 for the current campaign £4,375,750. This is broken down as follows:

  £

  Television

  11,366,822

  Press

  1,423,132

  Posters

  1,240,750

  74
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when his Department will have completed the examination of ET training managers for approved status; and how many staff within the Training Agency are working on this exercise.

  Mr. Nicholls
  It is planned to complete the examination of employment training managers by 5 September 1990. The number of Training Agency staff dedicated to this purpose varies from area office to area office depending on local demand.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give(a) the number of employment training places available in 1989–90, (b) the number of people in ET on the latest date for which information is available and (c) an estimate of the planned ET places in 1990–91 and 1991–92.

  Mr. Nicholls
  In May 1989 there were 255,000 available places on employment training. On 23 June, the latest date for which information is available, there were 192,000 people on the programme. Operational plans for 1990–91 and 1991–92 are not yet available.

  Sullom Voe (Explosion)
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the explosion at the Sullom Voe oil terminal on Thursday 22 June.

  Mr. Nicholls
  On 22 June 1989, the Health and Safety Executive was informed that due to the failure of a length of weld on a steel pipe drain at the Sullom Voe oil terminal, oily water was released causing an eruption of water and gravel. There were no injuries.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give(a) the total numbers of long-term unemployed and (b) the long-term unemployed as a percentage of the total unemployed in June of each year from 1979 to 1989, inclusive.

  Mr. Lee
  Unemployment is analysed by duration quarterly. Direct comparisons of unemployment by duration since 1979 are not possible because of the changes from a count of registrants at jobcentres to a count based on unemployed claimants in 1983 and other changes in coverage of the count. Following is the available information, which is also in the Library. The table shows the number of unemployed in the United Kingdom who had been unemployed over 12 months and these as a percentage of the total for each April from 1979 to 1989.

  Long-term Unemployment in the United Kingdom1 April 1979–1989

  April

  Unemployed over 12 months

  Percentage of total

  1979

  366,711

  27·4

  1980

  354,101

  23·3

  1981

  515,913

  20·4

  1982

  994,395

  33·1

  1983

  1,143,436

  36·1

  1984

  1,218,162

  39·2

  1985

  1,334,181

  40·8

  1986

  1,356,521

  40·8

  1987

  1,295,146

  41·7

  75

  April

  Unemployed over 12 months

  Percentage of total

  1988

  1,029,206

  40·6

  1989

  744,120

  39·5

  1 Figures for 1979–82 are for unemployed registrants at Jobcentres; those for 1983–89 relate to claimants unemployed.

  Minimun Trainee Allowance
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if, pursuant to his reply to hon. Member for Coventry, South-East, of Monday 19 June,Official Report, columns 10–11, he will list those employers known to his Department who supplement the minimum trainee allowance; what percentage of YTS trainees are so covered; what is the average supplement paid; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  There is no list of employers who supplement the minimum trainee allowance. Twenty-four per cent. of trainees had employed status in May 1989, and were paid a wage by their employer. Survey evidence suggests that in addition about 14 per cent. of non-employed trainees receive an average supplement of £7 a week from their work experience provider on top of their trainee allowance. Payments above the minimum level are at the discretion of the employer, and reflect the value to the company of acquiring skilled workers.

  European Tourism Year
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what measures are being taken to help handicapped, disabled and disadvantaged tourists coming to Britain in European Tourism Year 1990.

  Mr. Lee
  [holding answer 30 June 1989]: Specific initiatives to mark European Tourism Year are in the planning stage. Measures to help handicapped, disabled and disadvantaged tourists are being considered by the British tourist authority which is responsible for planning and co-ordinating the United Kingdom campaign.

  Remploy
  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make available the surveyor's report on Remploy's Rutherglen factory which resulted in the recommendation to close it down.

  Mr. Lee
  [holding answer 29 June 1989]: The board of Remploy is responsible for making decisions relating to the day-to-day business of the company. The information requested is commercial and confidential to the board.

  Health and Safety
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the level of fines imposed on each of the largest 100 companies for health and safety offences in the last five years; what was the nature of the accident and the date in each case; and how many persons were killed or seriously injured or suffered minor injuries on each occasion.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 29 June 1989]: The information requested could be supplied only at disproportionate cost.
  76
  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list for each year since 1974(a) the number of prosecutions of (i) managers, (ii) supervisors and (iii) company directors and (b) the fines under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 29 June 1989]: Available data do not differentiate between offences committed by managers, supervisors and company directors. The tables list the convictions obtained under section 36 and section 37 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. Section 36 provides for the prosecution of a person whose act, or inaction, has led another individual to commit an offence under the Act. Section 37 provides for the prosecution of a director, manager, secretary or similar officer of a body corporate for offence committed by that body corporate. Information is not available for years before 1981.

  Prosecutions under section 36 since 1981

  Year1

  Convictions3

  Average penalty per conviction

  (£)

  1981

  —

  —

  1982

  6

  158

  1983

  7

  275

  1984

  7

  300

  1985

  9

  500

  19862

  3

  417

  1986–87

  9

  156

  1987–88

  9

  261

  Prosecutions under section 37 since 1981

  Year1

  Convictions3

  Average penalty per conviction

  (£)

  1981

  7

  179

  1982

  11

  293

  1983

  6

  221

  1984

  6

  208

  1985

  11

  218

  19862

  1

  300

  1986–87

  5

  400

  1987–88

  4

  188

  1 1981 to 1985—calendar year.

  1986–87 onwards—year commencing 1 April.

  2 January to March.

  3 Data covers convictions obtained by the Factory and Agriculture Inspectorates (the vast majority of cases).

  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list, for each year since 1974, the number of prosecutions of employees, and the outcome, under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 29 June 1989]: The table lists for each year since 1981, the number of convictions and average fines under section 7 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, which imposes a duty on every employee while at work to take reasonable care for the health and safety of himself and of other persons who may be affected by his acts or omissions. Information is not available for years before 1981.
  77

  Convictions under section 7 of the HSW Act

  1Year

  2Convictions

  Average penalty per conviction

  (£)

  1981

  19

  81

  1982

  21

  112

  1983

  29

  104

  1984

  23

  118

  1985

  30

  209

  Jan-March 1986

  7

  64

  1986–87

  21

  132

  1987–88

  27

  183

  1 1981–85—calendar years.

  1986–87 onwards—year commencing 1 April.

  2 Data covers convictions obtained by the Factory and Agriculture Inspectorates (the vast majority of cases).

  Factory Inspectors
  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list, for each year since 1974, the number and proportion of female factory inspectors of the total employed.
  78
  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 29 June 1989]: Since 1 April 1976 the number of female factory inspectors employed by the Health and Safety Executive, the total number of factory inspectors employed, and the number of female inspectors expressed as a percentage of the total are as follows. Figures for earlier years are not available.

  Female inspectors

  Total inspectors

  Females as percentage of total

  1 April

  1976

  61·5

  624·0

  9·86

  1977

  65·0

  676·5

  9·61

  1978

  75·0

  695·5

  10·78

  1979

  95·0

  742·0

  12·80

  1980

  105·0

  759·0

  13·83

  1981

  98·5

  735·0

  13·40

  1982

  81·5

  678·0

  12·02

  1983

  74·5

  654·0

  11·39

  1984

  71·0

  627·0

  11·32

  1985

  76·0

  652·0

  11·66

  1986

  74·0

  623·0

  11·88

  1987

  87·0

  621·5

  14·00

  1988

  84·5

  592·5

  14·26

  1989

  92·0

  604·0

  15·23

  1 June

  1989

  96·0

  621·5

  15·44

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

Royal Opera House Development Plan
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, following the Written Answer given by Baroness Trumpington on 25th May last (col. 584), they will not consider themselves satisfied that the views of interested parties on the proposed development of the Royal Opera House have been taken fully into account unless the Royal Opera House authorities have received the views of, and met representatives of, the Theatres Trust, the Association of British Theatre Technicians, the Covent Garden Community Association and the Covent Garden Trust.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Hesketh): My Lords, the development board of the Royal Opera House has had, and will continue to have, wide consultations on its proposals and it is open to all interested parties to make representations to it. When final proposals are received from the opera house my right honourable friend the Minister for the Arts will take all views into account.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I am most grateful for that Answer. May I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that since the original Question was tabled discussions have taken place between the Theatres Trust and the authorities of the Royal Opera House, and that they have been very satisfactory? So far as the development proposals are concerned, it seems likely that on the second try a project will come forward which will lead to a much better development of the Royal Opera House than at first seemed likely. Therefore, that is very satisfactory from that point of view.
However, is the Minister also aware that there are other organisations—for example, the Covent Garden Community Association—who have much wider concerns relating not only to the opera house itself but to the consequential effects of its development? Will the Minister make sure that those organisations are given equal access to the Royal Opera House authorities, and that their views are taken into account as much as the views of the Theatres Trust have been?
I will not say anything further—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I will not ask any further questions because the noble Lord, Lord
960
Rippon, who I believe is chairman of the Covent Garden Trust, is in his place, and that makes further questions from me unnecessary.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am sure that all Members of your Lordships' House will be very happy that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, is happy with the scheme. I can assure the noble Lord that the Royal Opera House authorities have been in touch with the Covent Garden Community Association. As the noble Lord pointed out, the authorities of the Royal Opera House have recently had discussions with the Theatres Trust and are preparing to meet the Association of British Theatre Technicians and the Covent Garden Trust.
Lord Rippon of Hexham: My Lords, my interest as chairman of the Covent Garden Trust having been duly declared, may I express my satisfaction and pleasure at the Answer given by my noble friend? Is he aware that we are all very grateful that wide discussions are now taking place? There is one question I should like to ask. Is my noble friend aware that there is considerable anxiety about the proposal to have an underground car park? The Department of Transport has said that it has not been consulted. Will my noble friend ensure that it is?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I shall certainly bring those comments to the attention of my noble friend Lord Brabazon.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, in answering my supplementary question the noble Lord missed out the Covent Garden Community Association. It is important that it should be treated equally and have the same consultation as other bodies. Will the Minister give an assurance to that effect?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I understand that the Royal Opera House authorities are in regular touch with the Covent Garden Community Association.

"Clocking" of Motor Vehicles
2.41 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will take action to reduce the fraudulent abuse known as "clocking" in the re-sale of motor vehicles.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, the Government are discussing with the Office of Fair Trading's used car working group its proposals for making clocking more difficult. The Government do not accept that the compulsory and blanket mileage recording system recently proposed by the group would be sufficiently effective to justify its costs and disadvantages. Suggestions for a more targeted approach have been made to the group, whose attention has also been drawn to existing and proposed private sector initiatives.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that reply. Has he seen reports that the public are still being extensively deceived over mileage figures by unscrupulous dealers? Is there any way of stamping out this malpractice other than by insisting on complete records which can be checked and by imposing severe penalties?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am of course aware of the problem. The proposals which were put to us would have involved motorists every year entering their cars' mileages on their road tax application forms, and also when cars changed hands. That would involve in the region of 40 million transactions at the DVLC and cost around £2 million to set up and £3 million a year to run. We did not consider the proposals to be justified. On the other hand, as I said in my original Answer, we are exploring other ways of dealing with the problem.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, as president of the Institute of Trading Standards Administration, I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that trading standards officers are seriously concerned about the limits of the law enabling them to follow up the clocking process. Recommendations have been made by all the motoring and consumer protection organisations. Can we not have stronger penalties and controls imposed on this most fraudulent practice as soon as possible?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, it is an offence under the Trade Description Act and successful prosecutions are being made by trading standards departments. In the year ended 30th September last there were 533 successful prosecutions involving mis-described used cars, mostly in relation to clocking. The sum of £413,840 was imposed in fines and a number of prison sentences were given.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, does the Minister recall that I asked a Question on this matter on 7th November? I referred to proposals that had been submitted by a working party comprising 16 responsible organisations. I was told by the noble Viscount, Lord Davidson, that the matter would be given consideration. Is the Minister aware how extremely disappointing his reply has been as it is in accordance with a letter sent on 16th March by his ministerial colleague, the Minister for roads and traffic, to the Director General of Fair Trading? Can the Minister tell me what consultation there has been with the organisations which comprise the working party to which I have referred? Among them are the RAC, the AA, five national local authority associations, the Institute of Trading Standards Administration, the Office of Fair Trading and five motoring trade organisations. Can the Minister not agree that consultation with them is justified, rather than offering simply the negative reply which he has given following on the negative letter received from the Minister?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I should have expected the noble Lord to have been even more surprised if my reply this afternoon had not coincided with the letter that my honourable friend
962
sent to the Director General of Fair Trading on 16th March. A copy of that very long and detailed letter is in the Library. I suggest that those noble Lords who are interested should study it. That letter gives reasons why we were not able to accept the recommendations.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, would not endorsement of the mileage on the annual MOT certificate make a significant contribution to the problem on the basis that, if one buys a secondhand car without its current certificate, caveat emptor?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the mileage is recorded on the MOT certificate but that applies only to cars more than three years old. A significant part of this problem concerns cars below that age.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, nearly every car carries a service record and if the public demanded to see it before buying a secondhand ca r, that would overcome many of the difficulties.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, that is the case. If a person is thinking of buying a secondhand car there are many ways in which he can have it checked over by a reputable organisation. I recommend that potential buyers should have that done.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, the Minister referred to the letter being in the Library. The Minister may be interested to know that I have read it because it was attached to a Department of Transport press notice. In view of the criticisms of a responsible nature of the working party proposals, does the Minister not agree that those organisations should be consulted? They strongly disagree with the viewpoint expressed by the Minister and repeated this afternoon.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we are grateful to the Director General of Fair Trading for co-ordinating the views of the bodies representing motor dealers, trading standards professionals and others to which the noble Lord referred. Their opinions were studied with great care. No doubt we shall receive a response from the director general to our letter putting forward further proposals.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, can the Minister tell me whether I am committing an offence if my speedometer stops working while I am driving my car but I continue to drive? If I am committing an offence can we have a definition of it? Can the Minister also tell me, if I am not committing an offence, how one can protect the speedometer?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: That is rather a different question. We are here discussing the matter of whether the mileage recorded on the speedometer has been tampered with when the car is offered for sale secondhand. The industry itself should be working towards producing a tamper-proof mileage recorder or some device that makes it obvious that the recorder has been tampered with.

Drug Smuggling: Mothers and Babies
2.48 p.m.
Lord Grimond Lord Grimond asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to deal with the cruelty involved in separating babies from their mothers charged with the smuggling of drugs at airports.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the real cruelty in these cases arises from the callousness of those who are willing to place babies and young children at risk in order to use them as camouflage for attempts at drug smuggling. Women suspected by Customs of smuggling drugs may need to be detained for observation or questioning. If so, children accompanying them are never removed without the mother's permission. If the mother agrees, child minders are made available to care for the children. This can be at the child minder's home or (if the mother prefers) at the airport.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, however the situation arises and whatever the relationship between the woman and the child, the child is frequently removed from the woman who is the putative mother and great distress results? Can the Minister say whether it would more often be possible for the child to accompany the mother if the mother is taken into custody? Can the Minister further say whether it would be possible to make better arrangements with the country from which the mothers and children come so that there is some check on this trade? It amounts really to a trade in children. Is the Minister aware that it is causing great distress to social workers and others at airports?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I should point out that at Heathrow in the past three months child minders were needed in only three cases to look after children of suspects detained at Customs. Arrangements for the exchange of prisoners to serve their sentences in their home country exist under a Council of Europe convention, but not all countries are a party to it.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, is there any possibility of having a treaty of agreement with Nigeria, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Grimond? I wonder whether the figures are correct. The figures that I received from the Hillingdon authority, which is responsible for taking these children into care, are higher than the figures stated by my noble friend. These hapless children have to be taken away from their parents. Not only is the child separated from its parents, but all its toys, goods and clothing are taken. The child is placed in a white foster home where it remains for two or three years, according to the sentence, and then goes back with the mother to Nigeria. Would it be possible to have a completely different arrangement? Could there not be hostels for mothers with children? Mothers would receive a probation order with a condition of residence, and the hostels would be paid for by the ill-gotten gains of the mother, or alternatively by the Nigerian Government.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, Nigeria is not a party to the Council of Europe convention. I am not exactly clear why it has not become a party, but that would be necessary before we could arrange for the exchange of prisoners. The figures which I gave were for the number of child minders who were needed to be called on to look after the children of suspects detained at Customs. It may well be that the figures my noble friend is thinking of apply once the sentence has been served. As for my noble friend's suggestion of hostels, I understand that Holloway Prison, Askham Grange open prison and the young offenders' institution at Styal provide places for 39 mothers and babies. No baby has been refused admission due to lack of space this year.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, for how long is a mother convicted of this offence allowed to keep her child with her? Can the Minister help us on that point?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I understand that when a mother is charged with an offence and remanded in custody at Holloway a baby under nine months old can stay with her. In other cases the local authority takes steps to ensure that the child is cared for, preferably by a relative or friend of the mother but otherwise by receiving the child into care.

Schools: Books and Library Services
2.53 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David asked Her Majesty's Government:
What guidance will be given to schools under local financial management on the protection and improvement of book expenditure and what steps will be taken to ensure that the role of school library services is maintained.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, under local management, each school will decide how much of its delegated budget to spend on books according to its particular needs and priorities. Where a local education authority has a school library service, it will be free to continue to manage that service centrally where it believes this to be most efficient. Where an authority chooses to delegate these resources, the schools themselves will decide whether to continue to support the service.
Baroness David: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer which is moderately satisfactory as regards the school library service. Why, in their information on local financial management, have the Government provided no guidance on the level of school purchase, particularly in view of the Secretary of State's previous statements that he expects that expenditure to rise?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, local financial management in no way affects the overall amount of money available for schools. It simply represents a fairer and more open way of distributing the available resources between schools and ensuring the best match between needs and resources. Evidence

965
from pilot LMS schemes shows schools choosing to spend more rather than less on the direct needs of the classroom, including books.
Baroness David: My Lords, will there be any monitoring? I understand that pilot schools have kept up the level of expenditure—even if it is not high enough—to what it was before. However, there needs to be monitoring, because in the light of the GCSE and the national curriculum, expenditure on books should rise considerably.
Viscount Davidson: Yes, my Lords, I agree. There will be monitoring, which is why we are having the pilot schemes.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the department aware that, while this is primarily an education question, the Library Association is keen to help and assist in such matters?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Lord's help.
Lord Peston: My Lords, bearing in mind that there is no adequate substitute for books in education, has the noble Viscount seen the excellent volumes called Book Check Action File, published by the Book Trust? Those documents enable schools to determine what they ought to be spending on books. Do the Government agree with the main proposition of those volumes that each school ought to have 10 up-to-date attractive and informative library books for every pupil?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I have not seen that one but I have seen Better Libraries: Good Practice in Schools, a survey by Her Majesty's Inspectorate, which perhaps the noble Lord might like to read too.
Baroness David: My Lords, as the Minister has mentioned the HMI report, is he aware of another report by HMI on secondary schools—it is an appraisal published this year—in which it is stated:
"Libraries were in general the weakest aspect of the schools' resources. Only one-tenth of the schools had good libraries, and a further third were adequately provided for. More than half the schools had less than satisfactory provision; one in seven being poor. The provision and use of libraries are matters for considerable concern".
Her Majesty's Inspectorate was clearly not happy about the position. Will particular attention be paid to what happens to the school library service?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, one of the purposes of the HMI survey was to highlight good practice in the use and management of libraries in schools. Schools will, I am sure, wish to take account of this document in deciding whether to support an LEA library service. I should advise the House that plans for spending on education in 1989–90 should enable LEAs to increase provision for spending on books and equipment in secondary schools by 39 per cent. when compared with spending in 1986–87, and in primary schools the increase will be 31 per cent. That is good news.

Business of the House
2.56 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 Standing Order 38 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be dispensed with for the purpose of taking the Motion in the name of Lord Trefgarne on Thursday 13th July to take note of the Statement on the Defence Estimates (Cmnd. 675-I) before the Motions to approve the Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts (Continuation) Order 1989 and the Visiting Forces and International Headquarters (Application of Law) (Amendment) Order 1989.—(Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Statute Law (Repeals) Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): 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 recommitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of recommitment be discharged.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Common Land (Rectification of Registers) Bill
Lord Denham: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to acquaint the House that Her Majesty and His Royal Highness, having been informed of the purport of the Common Land (Rectification of Registers) Bill, have consented to place their prerogatives and interests, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.

Dock Work Bill
2.58 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 5 [Compensation for former registered dock workers who become redundant]:
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy moved the following amendment:
Page 3, line 28, after ("employer") insert ("for any period").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment arises out of a question which I asked the Minister at Report stage. After reading in the Official Report the reply which he gave me on that occasion, I felt that we on this side of the House had no alternative but to put down this amendment.
The amendment is concerned with the qualifications for the redundancy compensation

967
which is put into the Bill as an alternative to and a substitute for the present level of compensation under the registered docks scheme. Under the scheme, for voluntary severance, compensation for 15 years' service of up to £25,000 is possible. That will no longer exist when the Bill comes into effect. In its place, the Government have proposed in Clause 5 a system of statutory compensation which at its maximum leads to £35,000 for 15 years' service but requires three qualifications.
Our amendment deals with the third of those qualifications. The first qualification comes under Clause 5(2)(b). It says that the person must be dismissed for reasons of redundancy. In other words, unless the person is dismissed for reasons of redundancy, quite obviously he is not entitled to compensation. The second qualification occurs in subsection (2)(a). It provides that if, immediately before the passing of the Act, the person was a registered dock worker, and if subsequent to the enactment of the legislation that person is dismissed for reasons of redundancy, he qualifies under the first two qualifications.
However, the problem arises—at least, we submit that it does—because of the third qualification. Subsection (2)(c) provides that,
"he"—
that is to say, the would-be redundant claimant—
"has been in the employment of that employer since that date".
In other words, at the moment when the redundancy occurs and when the compensation becomes payable, the individual must be in the employment of a registered dock employer. When we first saw the Bill the provision seemed sensible and straightforward enough. Obviously the individual concerned had to be employed in the industry and had to be employed by a registered employer. However, a problem arises with the word "since". The question is, does the clause as drafted cover the situation of a dock worker who has had an interruption in his employment contract which occurs after the date of enactment but before the compensation period runs out? Of course, the Government say that after three years there will be no more compensation in any event. We shall be stuck with redundancy compensation of the first sort.
Therefore we are asking whether there is a service break guarantee implied on the face of the Bill. The amendment proposes that we insert the words "for any period" in line 28, so that the clause would read:
"he has been in the employment of that employer for any period since that date".
If we insert those words, obviously a service break guarantee exists.
Many Members of the House may argue as to whether this is really a problem. They may ask why there should be such a service break, and why should someone who is a dock worker, formerly employed as a registered dock worker, who left the service for reasons other than redundancy be able to come back into the service, be re-engaged and then subsequently qualify—or fail to qualify, unless the amendment is accepted—for redundancy payment.
There are many reasons for this. Because of the way that the industry works there are many reasons for which a dock worker may be placed in that position. I do not wish to burden the House, but I have five examples where such a situation could arise. First, there could be an accident. We have been told by the Government on many occasions that they accept that this is a dangerous industry. There could be a fall, there could be an accident with machinery, or dockers, as I am told by my dock-worker friends in dock-work phrases, can "do in their backs". Indeed, you can often damage your back working as a docker.
If the person concerned feels that he is unable to perform the task then of course he may be dismissed. He may leave the employ of his employer and may even go on to undertake some other work which is outside the area of registered dock work. But, subsequently, the person's back may improve. He may no longer suffer from an injured back. Therefore the person applies for a job, doing the ordinary tasks which he did before. He would have been able, under the old scheme, to go back to work as a registered docker—but that is no longer the case since the scheme is to be abolished. In any event, there has been a period of perhaps two or thee months when he was not employed as a registered dock worker. Does that fact take the person outside the scope of the scheme? Is that what is implied by the words as they appear at present in the Bill?
However, the incident may not be an accident. My second example concerns a medical problem; that is, something which is not accidental. Nowadays people often fall ill, sometimes very seriously ill. Doctors often tell them that they have no alternative but to retire and leave their job. But, suddenly the illness or affliction, however serious it may be, regresses. People often recover from such conditions. They return to work. They are taken on in their old employment. If that happens, they have been out of employment for a period of time. Are such people covered under the provisions of the Bill? A dock worker may have 20 years' service in his favour. He may have some medical incapacity which takes him out of work for six months. Is he to lose that 20 years' service under the provisions of the Bill?
Another example concerns voluntary severance. People sometimes choose to leave and undertake other jobs. They seek other employment in an endeavour to better themselves. However, they may well find that they do not like the new job that they have taken on and that they wish to return to dock work. A person may return to his old employer and, because he is a good worker, the employer is perfectly prepared to take him on again. In the old days the person would go back as a registered dock worker, but now it would be as a dock worker. That is the third example. I wish to know whether such people are covered by the provisions of the Bill.
The fourth example is this. There may be, and often is, a sudden act of alleged misconduct. I suppose that the most obvious example of this is when a supervisor, foreman or some other person in authority considers that there has been an act of peculation, some dishonesty, and the individual is dismissed. Of course that could not have happened

969
under the old scheme because the procedure had to be gone through and the person concerned could always appeal to the local committees. However, that will not happen now.
Under the new scheme a person can be dismissed for an act of alleged misconduct. But, as sometimes happens in the industry, subsequent investigations prove that the person was innocent. In other words, the person who was dismissed should not have been dismissed and the employer, who is a reasonable man, re-engages the worker. The time when the person was not employed may only be a matter of weeks, but has he lost the right to redundancy pay? That is the question we are asking.
Finally, there is another matter I must raise. I apologise for raising it yet again, but although I referred to it on Report I think that the Minister, or those who gave him information for his reply, misunderstood what I was trying to say. There could be, for example, industrial action. When there is industrial action, as the Minister said on Report, there is a breach of contract. If there is a breach of contract the individual can be dismissed as there is now no protection. However, every employer who dismisses workers engaged in industrial action does not take the matter to the point where he never re-engages the persons concerned. That is part of the to and fro of industrial relations. The employer says, "Unless you are all back to work on Monday, you are all sacked". It is quite possible that all the workers are sacked, but ultimately there is a settlement. Perhaps the union is brought in, or ACAS is consulted. Part of the settlement is the re-engagement of all those workers who were dismissed in the course of the industrial action.
That situation frequently arises when there is strike action. The matter does not go to an industrial tribunal; the employer loses his temper, sacks the workers but ultimately takes them all back. Everything is then okay, all is forgiven and life goes on. But, have the dockers involved lost the right to redundancy pay?
I turn to the Minister's reply on Report on 28th June at col. 794 of Hansard. I thought I asked him what happens if a docker is dismissed for reasons other than redundancy. But, my understanding of what the Minister said at the time is that he thought I had asked whether a docker loses his right to redundancy pay if he has been lawfully dismissed for reasons of industrial action. Of course the Minister replied that such a worker would lose his right to redundancy pay. I agree with him. However, that was not my question. I am asking, what happens if the worker is subsequently re-engaged?
There is a further point I must stress. I am sorry if I overemphasise this, but I want the Government to give a straight answer on the matter. There are three conditions: one has to be a registered docker; one has to be in the employment of a registered employer; and one must be dismissed on grounds of redundancy. If the worker left for some reason other than redundancy, and he were subsequently re-engaged before there was any prospect of redundancy under the terms of the Bill, and subsequently there is not merely the prospect of
970
redundancy but actual redundancy, is the individual covered in the Bill? Some may say: "Well, the man on the benefit counter will tell you. If you are dismissed on grounds of redundancy, when you go along to him subsequently and say, "I want my redundancy pay", he will decide". We do not believe that that is enough. We do not believe that that is satisfactory. We do not believe that at this point the man on the benefit counter, or whoever, should read Clause 5(2)(c) and decide what is meant by:
"in the employment of that employer since that date".
The point should be decided by the Government. It should be decided on the face of the Bill. Some may say, "If you do not like the answer, you can go to the tribunal; you can go to law". We do not believe that that is satisfactory. The point should be clear on the face of the Bill, and so we turn to the face of the Bill. We ask the Minister: what does the word "since" mean in that context? Does it mean ever since? Does it mean all the time? "We have been together now for 40 years and I have hated you ever since". Does it mean ever since or does it mean that there could have been breaks in the service? "I did not hate you all the time; only part of the time. Every now and again I stopped hating you when I remembered." It was an interrupted relationship. Is that covered on the face of the Bill? If the individual changes his job and goes back, it is arguable that he was not employed as a docker since the date of the passage of the Act, but for only part of the time since then.
Fortunately, we offer the Government a simple amendment to make the point clear. The provision should read, "He has been in the employment of that employer for any period since that date". That must be what the Government intend. Surely, the Government do not intend that unfortunate dockers who may be subject to injuries, accidents or movement to other jobs who are then voluntarily re-engaged by their employers should lose all the service they have had under the scheme. I hope that the Government accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, I hope that the Government will clarify the terms of the subsection. The Minister did not do so adequately on Report, although, as the noble Lord said, he may not have fully understood what the noble Lord was seeking. If the amendment were confined to cases which were not of a disciplinary kind, I should be wholly sympathetic to it. For instance, as the noble Lord has said, if someone were to fall sick during the relevant period and on that account were to be dismissed and subsequently re-engaged, it would seem inequitable that he should lose his entitlement to redundancy pay. However, in drafting the amendment so that it could apparently cover even cases where someone is dismissed because he has gone on strike, I am troubled lest dockers should be placed, by statute, in a position different from that of all other employees.
As we were reminded on Report, rightly or wrongly it has always been the case in this country that anyone who goes on strike can be dismissed for breach of contract, but he does not thereby lose

971
entitlement to redundancy pay but risks losing it by giving his employer other possible grounds to dismiss him.
On the general question, there is a strong case for bringing the position in the United Kingdom into line with that in many other countries where, during a lawful strike, the employee's contract is suspended rather than terminated. I question whether that privilege should be accorded now to dockers alone, for as I understand it—and it may be that I do not understand it in view of what the noble Lord has said—that might be the effect of the amendment. However that may be, like the noble Lord, I should be grateful if the Minister would tell us precisely what the subsection means, especially in relation to people who, having been dismissed, are then re-engaged.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I must compliment the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, and his noble friends on one thing. The more this Bill progresses, the fewer, the shorter and the simpler do their amendments become. The amendment has a disarming simplicity, but that is as far as my compliment can go. I have to say that we on this side of the House do not agree with the amendment. I doubt whether that will come as a surprise to the noble Lord. I shall explain exactly why we disagree and why we think the amendment should not be made.
As the noble Lord so clearly explained on Report, Clause 5(2) sets out three conditions which must be fulfilled if a person is to qualify for a redundancy compensation payment under the scheme to be made in regulations made under this clause. The third of those is that where a person—a former registered dock worker—is dismissed by reason of redundancy within the period during which the compensation scheme operates, he must have been in the employment of his former registered employer since the date on which the compensation scheme took effect. That date, as noble Lords who have been following this Bill are well aware, will in fact be the date on which the Bill receives the Royal Assent. The Bill therefore provides that the former registered dock worker must, when he is made redundant, have been employed continuously by his former employer between the enactment of the Bill and the date of his being made redundant.
The noble Lord wants the entitlement to redundancy compensation to remain if the period of employment is broken. He wants it to remain if a former registered dock worker has left the employment of his former registered employer, no matter what the circumstances, so that if he should be reinstated, or otherwise taken back into employment by that employer, but subsequently be made redundant within the three-year period in which our special compensation scheme will operate, he will still qualify for compensation under the scheme.
The proposed amendment would apply in any case where a former registered dock worker left his employment, but was subsequently taken on again
972
by the same employer. It would apply, for example, where an employee left of his own accord because he preferred to accept some other job with some other employer, or to go into business on his own, which was one of the examples the noble Lord gave. I see no reason why someone who leaves employment under those circumstances should not lose his right to redundancy compensation.
Some noble Lords may feel that one of the other examples of the noble Lord, that of someone being dismissed for ill-health and subsequently being reinstated, is more deserving of sympathy. I have to say that it seems to me extremely unlikely that a former registered dock worker whose health has unfortunately become so bad that his employer can no longer find suitable work for him and has to dismiss him for that reason, is ever likely to be taken on again by his employer. However, if he is so dismissed, he will be entitled to an immediate sickness pension from the registered dock workers pension fund, regardless of his age at the time. He will also have the right to claim to an industrial tribunal that he has been dismissed unfairly. The noble Lord also referred to the position of a former registered dock worker who goes on strike. Here of course we come to the heart of the matter. The Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 specifically provides that for the purpose of qualifying for a redundancy payment under the Act, continuity of employment is not broken when an individual goes on strike. The Act states in Section 81 that to qualify for a redundancy payment a person must have been continuously employed by his employer for at least two years. It also states, in Schedule 13, paragraph 15, that:
"The continuity of an employee's period of employment is not broken"
by a week which does not count for calculating the length of the employee's service,
"if in that week, or any part of that week, the employee takes part in a strike".
There is no equivalent provision in this Bill and there is no equivalent provision in the regulations detailing the compensation scheme, which we published some weeks ago in draft. So why are we apparently treating former registered dock workers more harshly than the generality of employees? Why have we apparently abandoned our principle of treating them the same as everyone else?
It is important, if I may say so, to keep one's eyes very closely on the ball. The first point to grasp is that the former registered dock worker who goes on strike does not forfeit his right to a compensation payment just by going on strike, any more than any other employee forfeits his right to a statutory redundancy payment just by going on strike. He does not break the continuity of his employment for the purpose of our special compensation scheme.
Secondly, he does not forfeit his right if, while he is on strike, his employer decides to make him redundant and dismisses him on the ground of redundancy. In that case, he will get the compensation payment to which he is entitled under this Bill and the compensation scheme to be made under it. Thirdly, he will however forfeit his right if, while he is on strike, his employer dismisses him for

973
breach of contract, or indeed for some reason other than redundancy. But if he is so dismissed and is not subsequently reinstated or re-engaged by his employer, he is in exactly the same position as any other employee under the Employment Protection Act. Any employee dismissed for breach of contract, or for some reason other than redundancy, forfeits his right to a redundancy payment.
However, suppose the employer does re-engage an employee who was on strike and whom he dismissed while he was on strike. In the case of an employee other than one to whom this Bill will apply, the period for which he was on strike will not break the continuity of his employment. He will therefore still be eligible for a statutory redundancy payment, if he has completed two year's service with his employer or as soon as he has completed two years' service with him. The period during which he was on strike does not count towards the qualifying two years, or for the purpose of calculating his total length of service and thus his redundancy pay entitlement. But the fact of his having been dismissed for breach of contract while on strike, and then having been re-engaged, does not disqualify him from a statutory redundancy payment if he is later made redundant.
The position of a former registered dock worker under this Bill is however different. If he is dismissed for any reason except redundancy, that breaks the continuity of his employment. If he is later re-engaged by the same employer, he cannot regain his right to compensation. So if, having been re-engaged, he were then to be made redundant within three years of the passing of this Bill, he would not receive any compensation under our special scheme. He would, however, be eligible for the statutory redundancy payment under the Employment Protection Act. For that purpose, the whole of his time on the dock work register and his service up to the date of his going on strike would count, as well as his service since his re-engagement. So he would be in exactly the same position as any other employee.
The situation that I have just described is one which it seems is not likely to happen. It seems to me unlikely that if an employer dismisses his former registered dock workers for breach of contract while they are on strike, he will be prepared to re-engage them once the strike is over. It is even less likely he will do so if he thinks he is going to have to make them, or some of them, redundant in the foreseeable future.
The noble Lord may take a more cynical view. He may say that that is just what an unscrupulous employer will do, because that way he will get his old employees back but escape the obligation to pay them the £35,000 or £20,000, or whatever, under this Bill, if he does decide to make any of them redundant. Indeed he may say that an employer wanting to make registered dock workers redundant will deliberately wait to see whether they go on strike, in the hope that if they do he can get his redundancies on the cheap by dismissing the men at the outset for breach of contract so that they lose their right to redundancy compensation.
Let us suppose that the noble Lord is right about that. Is it unjust? Is it unfair? I submit that it is not.
974
The statutory payments for redundancy that will be available under this Bill will be many times larger than those available to the generality of employees. The taxpayer will be paying half the cost of them. It would be letting the registered dock worker who goes on strike have his cake and eat it if he knows that if he is dismissed for breach of contract, he will suffer no penalty at all if he should be re-engaged. It would tip the balance too far towards the employee. Moreover, it would reduce the chance of the dock worker who has gone on strike and been dismissed being re-engaged. If the employer knows that if he then needed to make the employee redundant it would cost him up to £17,500, it would make him reluctant to re-engage him. If the strike had financially damaged the employer, there would be more risk of his becoming insolvent if he took the men back with that liability. So the taxpayer would have to step in to pay the full cost of redundancies.
I hope that I have given a very clear explanation of why we on the Government Benches believe this amendment to be wrong. In essence, it would be too wide and too generous. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw it. If he does not, I must urge the House to reject it.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I wish to ask the noble Lord to think again about the two cases which he discussed at the beginning. There was the case of the man who was injured which I do not think the noble Lord mentioned but he would be in the same category as the man who was sick, who left for those reasons, but recovered and was re-employed. The noble Lord said that he thought that was very unlikely to happen. I think it is very likely to happen. It happens again and again in ordinary industry that people leave if they think they are seriously damaged and the doctors and everybody else think they are seriously damaged. It is quite common for an employer to keep them on the books for a while and then to say, "We cannot leave them on the books indefinitely, we shall take them off'. But the man gets better (as happens very frequently), he reapplies and comes back. All the noble Lord said to us was that he thought it would not happen. I should have thought that those cases were in a totally different category from the others which the noble Lord discussed.
One can argue both ways about the man who has been on strike; but the people who have left because they were sick and then return are surely in a much stronger position to be considered for redundancy than any of the other categories discussed.Will the noble Lord think again about that?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I think that the case of injured or sick people would be covered by the remarks I made about sickness. The same would apply to an injury. I said that it was unlikely that somebody would be taken back. However. I pointed out that they would have the right to claim unfair dismissal to an industrial tribunal which would hear the case. The trouble is that the amendment covers not only that situation but every other kind of dismissal which I have already mentioned. The position would be exactly the same in those

975
circumstances for any other class of employee. We have tried not to make a special case for registered dock workers.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister a question arising out of what he said. He will know that Mr. Todd has tried to conform to the law as best he can, and that there is now a second ballot. It is understood that that ballot will not take place until the Bill is passed and the scheme has been abolished.
Let us assume—I am only assuming—that the ballot is in favour of the dispute, and that the dispute is about the removal of the scheme. I support anybody who voted for the dispute because I think that the removal of the scheme is absolutely outrageous. After all, in the early part of this year the Government had no intention of doing that. Nothing was said in the Queen's Speech. There was not a word about it. It was suddenly introduced because some employers said, "You've got to do it"; and so did certain Back-Benchers. That being so, the question I put to the Minister is this. Is he saying what some employers say now: that if the men go on strike within the period of time that I mention, their claim will be disallowed and they will not be entitled to any severance or redundancy pay?
3.30 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we are on the Third Reading of this Bill. We have already had the noble Lord's views as regards whether the scheme should be abandoned. In answer to the particular case he mentioned, as I said in my speech, going on strike would not necessarily prevent someone from being eligible for the redundancy scheme. On the other hand, if someone were dismissed for breach of contract, he would not be eligible for the scheme.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, we have had a very wide debate on Third Reading. I hope it will serve as a precedent of what we can do on Third Reading. I shall deal first with what the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, said. I am not saying, and I would not wish to say, that in this amendment we are providing, by a back door, a right to suspension in the case of industrial action. There is a very clear difference here. The employer concerned has to re-engage. We are not protecting a man who is dismissed in a strike. As regards his contract, that is the end of it. The employer concerned has to re-engage. But what we are asking is when an employer voluntarily re-engages a man, does his service stand to the benefit of that worker? The Minister says that service does stand to the benefit of the worker concerned in the case of the redundancy payments legislation. As regards that legislation, it is the case that service does not have to be continuous. If it is considered as uninterrupted as regards the redundancy payments legislation, why cannot the same apply in this case? That is my answer to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Rochester.
I now turn to the Minister. I suppose it was meant as a compliment when the Minister said that the amendments were getting simpler and simpler. I
976
have to say that he gets meaner and meaner. The Minister said that this provision is too wide and too large because the people involved are ordinary people and are not wealth creators. Such a provision could not be wide enough or large enough for wealth creators, but when it comes to ordinary dockers it is too wide and too large.
The Minister went through the various arguments that I used. He said, without any qualification, that the employment would have to be continuous employment for the provision to apply. There is no doubt whatever that the Government consider there is no chance of any cover unless the docker concerned has been continuously employed. If he is dismissed for six months because his leg falls off, he is considered to have lost all his service. The Government consider that to give such a person any benefit in those circumstances would be drawing the provision too wide and too large.
The Minister referred to ill-health. He and the noble Baroness said that they could not imagine that service would be considered to be discontinued for reasons of ill-health. I sometimes wonder where the Government live. Perhaps when Members of the Government are ill they do not get their pay stopped or get the sack. However, many other people do. In the case of redundancy payments, people suffering from ill-health would not normally lose their continuity of service. However, under this Bill they would lose continuity of service, because anything else would be considered to be drawn too wide and too large.
I am sorry that we moved to the subject of industrial action. The Government could have come forward this afternoon with something that might have taken the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, with them. The Minister could have said that he appreciated the case of ill-health and sickness. However, the problem is that Members of the Government on the other side of the House are obsessed with industrial action. They believe that the only thing to do with strikers is to grind them down. The Minister could have said that he wanted to exclude strike action from the provisions of the amendment. We would have accepted that. At this stage we would have accepted that. If the Government had said that they would make that exemption when the Bill returned to another place, so that this provision only covered ill-health and sickness but specifically exempted strike action, we would have accepted that. Any concession from this Government, however narrow and however small, is worth having.
The Minister does not satisfy me and he does not attempt to satisfy me. He talks about good employers and bad employers. However, I say to the Minister that one of the arguments I was going to use—however, I did not wish to burden the House with this—is that the Government are driving the good employer into illegality. I did not talk about bad employers. The Minister is quite correct to say that bad employers will manoeuvre in such a way that they escape their share of redundancy pay. However, the good employer will tell lies. He will fiddle, or at least he will be under pressure to do so. When the docker goes to the benefit office to find

977
our whether he has benefit, the good employer will collude with that office to ensure that the man in the benefit office thinks the contract is continuous. The man in the benefit office will be furnished with the illegal words that will prevent him from saying that the docker cannot receive redundancy pay. That is what will happen.
The unions, too, will be forced into arguing that every dismissal should be classified as redundancy, because if it is not classified as redundancy the docker will not be able to get the money. That is a fine way to encourage the observance of the rule of law. All the bad employers can use it, and all the good employers are forced into forms of dishonesty in order to do the decent thing, all because this provision is too wide and too large. We think that the Bill is too dreadful, and we intend to divide the House.
3.35 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 69; Not-Contents, 117.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

McCarthy, L.

Amherst, E.

McNair, L.

Aylestone, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Birk, B.

Mellish, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Mishcon, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Mulley, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Nicol, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Northfieid, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Paget of Northampton, L

Perry of Walton, L.

Chester, Bp.

Peston, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Phillips, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

David, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Rea, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Rochester, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Ennals, L.

Seear, B.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Serota, B.

Ezra, L.

Shackleton, L.

Falkland, V.

Shepherd, L.

Gallacher, L. [Teller.]

Soper, L.

Galpern, L.

Stallard, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Stedman, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Grimond, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hampton, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hayter, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hirshfield, L.

Underhill, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Walston, L.

Kennet, L.

White, B.

Leatherland, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Longford, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Allerton, L.

Beloff, L.

Ampthill, L.

Belstead, L.

Annaly, L.

Blatch, B.

Arran, E.

Blyth, L.

Auckland, L.

Borthwick, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Bellwin, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

978

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Butterworth, L.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Caithness, E.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Caldecote, V.

Margadale, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Marley, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Carnock, L

Merrivale, L.

Cayzer, L.

Mersey, V.

Cockfield, L.

Middleton, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L

Cottesloe, L.

Munster, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Nelson, E.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Norfolk, D.

De Freyne, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Onslow, E.

Dilhorne, V.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Dundee, E.

Orkney, E.

Eccles, V.

Oxfuird, V.

Eden of Winton, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Effingham, E.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Elibank, L.

Porritt, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Quinton, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Reay, L.

Faithfull, B.

Reigate, L.

Foley, L.

Romney, E.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Gainford, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Grantchester, L.

Seebohm, L.

Gridley, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Shannon, E.

Shrewsbury, E.

Halsbury, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Slim, V.

Havers, L.

Somers, L.

Henley, L.

Strange, B.

Hesketh, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Hood, V.

Strathspey, L.

Hooper, B.

Teviot, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Ilchester, E.

Trafford, L.

Ironside, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Joseph, L.

Windlesham, L.

Kimball, L.

Wolfson, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Wynford, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Young, B.

Lauderdale, E,

Young of Graffham, L.

Long, V.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly,
3.43 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
There is no question that the Bill touches on matters of deep concern to a number of noble Lords on all sides of the House, for different reasons. Any Bill which brings to an end a statutory regime which has existed for 40 years is bound to do that. This is especially true when the purpose of those statutes was to improve the working conditions of a group of workers who, even by the standards of those days, suffered particular hardship because of the nature of the industry in which they worked. Poor working conditions in the docks were the product of a technology, and consequent organisation of work, which owed more to the 19th century than the 20th. No one listening to the bitter memories of the days before the dock labour scheme, invoked with a passion born of personal experience by the noble

979
Lords, Lord Mellish and Lord Sefton, could fail to grasp the meaning of the scheme to them and their fears for the future.
However, progress is such that the well-intentioned reforms of one era can quickly become the obstacles of the next. That is the Government's view in this case, and I believe that it is shared by the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, and his colleagues. Employment rights and obligations of employees and employers generally have become more comprehensive. Dock work itself has finally been transformed by the same process of technological change which had already begun to provide the spur for better standards and conditions in other industries when the scheme was introduced. As a result, the docks of today require levels of capital investment and skills comparable to those of any modern industry. That came over very clearly in the contribution from my noble friend Lord Crickhowell which reflected his association with the industry.
In today's changed circumstances the controls of the scheme, and its labour monopoly, have served all too often to impede change which might have produced greater prosperity and genuine security for the workers whom the scheme sought to protect. I believe it was my noble friend Lord Trafford, who questioned whether some of our greatest ports, London and Liverpool in particular, would have declined as far and as fast if they had been able to respond more readily to the tougher competition which all ports face.
The Bill we have been considering brings an end to the dock labour scheme, provides for transitional arrangements under the guidance of the National Dock Labour Board, and the establishment of statutory redundancy arrangements for former registered dock workers. It is neither a long nor a complicated Bill by the standards to which we have become accustomed. The Government have seen no need to propose amendments of their own because they believe that the Bill expresses their intentions clearly and without technical flaws. Indeed, none of the amendments tabled by noble Lords have sought to correct deficiencies of wording. Even the apparently minor change proposed by the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, this afternoon sought a change in the meaning of the Bill, not its clarification.
The Government have resisted all other amendments to the Bill, either because they sought to overturn the central principle that the scheme should be wound up with the minimum of delay and without imposing a special statutory framework for its replacement, or because they sought to impose additional requirements for the transitional period. There were other amendments, for example on the terms of compensation for former registered dock workers, but I think that those two categories encompass the overwhelming majority.
Those noble Lords who supported amendments coming under the first heading will understand their incompatibility with the intentions of the Bill, even if they disagree profoundly with those intentions. In respect of the second category, the Government's
980
resistance was often less a matter of principle than of their belief that they were unnecessary to achieve a rapid and smooth transition to a position where dock employers and employees in scheme ports were bound by the same statutory rights and obligations as employers and employees elsewhere in industry.
The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, subscribed to that aim on several occasions, and yet felt it important to seek an exceptional requirement that the Secretary of State should satisfy himself of the adequacy of training and welfare arrangements for dock workers before bringing the transitional period to an end. I can assure the noble Lord that the Government share his concern that adequate arrangements should exist. However, the statutory framework for welfare in our ports is already comprehensive and there is every indication that training provision will be developed by the industry to meet its own needs, with the assistance of the Bill's special provisions to allow the board to dispose of relevant facilities—notably its training and medical facilities—in the industry's interests.
Anyone who has followed the four sessions we have devoted to this Bill cannot doubt that the issues have been fully debated. We have found ourselves returning to the same points and arguments on several occasions. There have been many distinguished contributions, and if I mention some I mean no discourtesy to others of equal merit. My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter spoke about the future opportunities for our docks without the scheme with a conviction matched only by the passion of the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, in defence of the scheme. My noble friends Lord Lucas of Chilworth and Lord Peyton of Yeovil drew on their close association with the transport industries in different capacities.
I thank also the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, and the noble Lords, Lord McCarthy and Lord Underhill, whose approach throughout has been typically thorough and unfailingly courteous. I hope that they will accept that, whatever divides us on the means to this end, we share their desire to see a prosperous ports industry capable of providing reasonable terms and conditions for all its workers and a genuine basis for stability of employment.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, we have now reached the final stage of the passage of the Bill through Parliament. We on this side of the House have never viewed it with favour. Not only do we not like the Bill; we strongly object to the manner in which it has been introduced. As my noble friend Lord Mellish has constantly reminded the House, it is, after all, not very long since we were told that the Government had no intention of doing away with the dock labour scheme. Then, quite suddenly, a Statement was made to both Houses, followed immediately by a White Paper and a Bill the very next day.
There has been no adequate explanation for that rush, nor have we been told what the emergency was. There was no consultation, either. Why the Government bothered to issue a White Paper, which

981
is normally for consultative purposes in advance of a Bill, has never been explained. We have repeatedly complained about the lack of consultation with the union, only to be told that it was not necessary to consult because the Government knew the result in advance. Were the Government out to provoke a dock strike? Has the union been canny enough to refuse to be provoked? Did the Government want to find a scapegoat for the balance of trade crisis? Whatever happens, they have not succeeded in doing that.
Nevertheless, the Government have persisted with their aim of pushing through the legislation with almost unprecedented haste. Clearly, the word has gone out from on high that nothing must impede the Bill's rapid progress onto the statute book. As has been pointed out on several occasions from these Benches, the lawyers may complain, but they are doing rather better than the dockers. If the press stories are accurate, it now looks as though they have been able to pressurise the Government into having second thoughts. Unfortunately, we have been unable to persuade the Government to do the same for dockers.
Then there is the Bill itself—a short Bill designed, as the Minister said, to do away with a scheme that has been in operation on a statutory basis for over 40. years. As noble Lords have pointed out—not all of them from these Benches—there is no attempt to put anything in its place. The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, spoke about the need for a national strategy, as we did from these Benches, but to no avail. Apparently, the Government are quite content to leave that important industry to the operation of market forces and to the employers.
We have repeatedly been told by the Government that the reason for the unprofitability of some scheme ports is the existence of the dock labour scheme. Again, when it has been pointed out that not all scheme ports are unprofitable, and when the Government have repeatedly been told that Rotterdam, for example, operates a scheme not unlike our own dock labour scheme, and that continental ports have registers of dock workers and oppose casualisation, there has been no response from the Government.
We have repeatedly stressed the dockers' legitimate fear of a return to casualisation. We have heard from my noble friend Lord Mellish, who has experience of the industry, just what conditions were like for dock workers before the scheme came into existence. My noble friend Lord Callaghan has also spoken of his experience when he was an MP for a dock constituency. All those who have spoken in debates on the Bill have asserted their opposition to a return to the bad old days.
However, this is an industry in which a return to casualisation would be only too easy. It is said that the employers are against casualisation now because they need a highly skilled, permanent workforce. But there is still a demand for less skilled work. The union fears that we shall see the emergence of a core of highly skilled workers with a pool of casual labour. That is not unlikely and the assurances that the employers have so far given fall far short of what is required, given the history of the industry.
982
We have sought through our amendments to maintain a role for the Government and, with it, some kind of assurance for the workforce that the bad old days will not return. The Government's refusal to meet those fears and their opposition to the ILO convention on casualisation has strengthened the view that the loss of the scheme will once more put dockers' livelihoods at risk.
Then there is the matter of health and safety, and training. At Report stage, we sought to salvage some protection for the workforce when we urged the Government to accept the amendment put down by the noble Lord, Lord Rochester. That would at least have ensured a continuing government commitment until the Secretary of State was satisfied that adequate provision was being made in those important areas once the scheme had gone. Again, we ran into total opposition from the Government. At no time during the passage of the Bill have they been prepared to give even a small amount of reassurance to satisfy our fears. The most modest of amendments, including that moved by my noble friend Lord McCarthy this afternoon, have met with total opposition.
To those of us on these Benches the most unacceptable argument of all which has been advanced by the Government and some of their supporters is that dockers in the scheme are somehow privileged. We are told that they have privileges that other workers do not have; yet, at the same time, we are told that workers in non-scheme ports are better off. But is it a privilege to have good health and safety provision and medical and training centres? If it is, then it is about time that that privilege was extended to other parts of industry. Is it a privilege to have some degree of security of employment with reasonable compensation for redundancy in the event of termination? Is it a privilege to have the right not to be unfairly dismissed?
After all, this is not the only industry to have an internal appeals machinery. I have repeatedly told the Government that in many industries there exist, particularly for non-manual staff, voluntary redundancy arrangements that are better than those for the dockers. In very many industries, the redundancy terms available under the Redundancy Payments Act are topped up by negotiated agreements. There is nothing very special about the arrangements for dockers except that theirs is a statutory scheme, but, as we have repeatedly said, there is a role for government in an industry like this. Nor can it be said that dock work is all that highly paid. A docker must work long hours to earn about £15,000 a year. We should compare that with some of the salaries around nowadays, particularly in the managerial field. To such people, a docker's annual wage would be so much small change.
We are not defending privileged workers here. However, through their union and through representation on the boards established under the scheme, dockers have some say in their industry and how it is run. Admittedly, that is a minority voice, but it is a voice nevertheless. Perhaps it is that aspect that the Government do not like. Europe's social dimension is anathema to the Government and

983
workers' participation is something with which they apparently do not agree.
I cannot commend the Bill to the House. As the Minister has said, throughout its passage through the House we on this side have done our best to secure some continuing protection for the workers in the industry. We deeply regret that we have not been able to achieve our objectives. Before I sit down, I should like to thank the Minister for the courtesy with which he has dealt with our amendments, but I should also like to say that I am sorry that the Government have found that they could not accept any of them.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, on these Benches our feeling about the Bill as it leaves the House is very much as it was when it came here, so I shall be brief. We have made it plain throughout that in today's conditions the dock labour scheme has outlived its usefulness and should now be brought to an end. We continue to feel that, in keeping with normal practice, the Government should have given other interested parties an opportunity to express their views before determining the precise arrangements under which the scheme was to be abolished. But, on the Motion, that the Bill do now pass, we must consider the position as it now is and not as we would wish it to be.
At the outset of our discussions, I said that my noble friends and I were concerned about one point in particular; namely, the absence of any provision in the Bill to ensure that, after dissolution of the National Dock Labour Board, there were adequate arrangements for the training and welfare of people who continue to be employed as dock workers and for the retraining of those made redundant. As the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, has already said, that was why I moved an amendment at Report stage proposing that the transitional period between the passing of the Act and the dissolution of the board should not end until the Secretary of State was satisfied that adequate alternative arrangements had been made for the training and welfare of dockers.
I shall not rehearse once more the arguments in favour of that suggestion, but I was disappointed that the Government resisted it. As I said at the time, in so doing they missed a good opportunity to demonstrate that they were not implacably resolved to have the Bill enacted in its present form, but were willing in that small way to take account of the genuine concern felt by dockers about their future welfare.
I cannot end without expressing the fervent hope that in the ballot that is now being conducted a majority of registered dock workers will vote against strike action. I should like to see negotiations begin as soon as possible between employers and union representatives at the various ports now covered by the dock labour scheme, so that there is early agreement on the employment conditions which should operate in future in those ports.
It remains only for me to join with the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, for the courteous way in which he
984
has piloted the Bill through the House. Also, if I may, I should like to compliment especially both the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, and the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, on their contributions to our discussions.
4 p.m.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, as the noble Lord has just said, the whole House is indebted to the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, for the way in which they have conducted the debates on this Bill. I should like to put on record that all those associated with the dock industry will be grateful for their contributions, their extraordinary knowledge of the situation, their sympathy and their understanding. I want that clearly understood.
I suppose that it was only to be expected that a chap like me might stand up and defend those with whom he has worked for many years and who understand the docks perhaps even better than the Minister does, surprising as that may seem. The fact is that the original Act came only as a result of pressure from everyone concerned—good Conservatives and, as they were in those days, good Liberals. The Labour movement as a whole introduced the measure which brought in the original dock labour scheme as we know it. For reasons that I do not understand, this Government have decided to abolish the whole scheme. They have no mandate to do that. Their manifesto said nothing about it. No mention of it was made in the Queen's Speech. In a Question put earlier this year the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, asked about the national dock labour scheme, and the Government replied that it was not their intention to abolish it. They said that to him and not to me.
I was delighted with that Answer. But here we are, a few weeks later, confronted with this Bill. Incidentally, it went through the House of Commons after a guillotine Motion to make sure that protesters shut up and did what they were told. A guillotine was imposed on this Bill so that a great deal of it was never discussed or debated. It was brought into this House in the knowledge that a great number of noble Lords on the other side of the House who have no knowledge at all of the dock industry, and who know nothing about the scheme, could be dragooned into the Lobbies to vote for its abolition.
It has been said time and again—and I put this point in particular to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, because he consistently opposed the scheme right from the beginning, but I put it also to the Minister—that the abolition of the scheme is based on the economic argument. Where are these economic arguments? The House has never been given any figures. It has been glibly said that the registered ports were not economic. I asked very simply (I am a simple-minded guy) if we could be given some figures. An article which I read on this subject, and perhaps I made a mistake and its facts were wrong, stated that the registered ports were making a 30 per cent. profit. Is that right? If it is not right, why does the Minister not rise and say so? Why does he not say that they are not making a profit but are losing money? On the other hand, if

985
it is true, I ask him: What is the margin of profit required? Does it have to be 30 per cent., 40 per cent. or 50 per cent., and are we to be told about it?
Throughout the whole debate an argument has been put forward that dockers were in a privileged position and that the national dock labour scheme enabled them to function in a manner denied to every other industry. The phrase that was much used by the other side was that the scheme meant "jobs for life". Let us look at that argument—and flatten it.
Initially there were 61,000 dock workers covered by the scheme. Today, there are 9,000. That is a funny old job for life, is it not? The numbers have gone down by 51,000. All those dock workers are not dead; most of them have just left the industry—they have been made redundant, or changes in the industry have meant a complete reorganisation and change of work. Nobody has been more co-operative in that respect than the dock workers. They agreed willingly to changes. They went to Tilbury where there was operated the new method, of containerisation (a dreadful word), which replaced a lot of their work. For some years there was peace and tranquillity in dockland. Now the whole of the docks is in uproar again. I ask, why?
The Government have no mandate for this Bill. The Liberals have suddenly announced that they are in favour of the abolition of the dock labour scheme. That is strange; I have never before heard that from the Liberals. They did not say anything about it before, and did not put down a Question on the subject. Now suddenly they take this view. At least the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, wanted to get rid of the scheme many years ago, when his own party argued against it and said that it was doing all right.
As noble Lords, will know, I was in the other House for 37 years. During that time the Conservatives ruled for 14 years and the national dock labour scheme was in force throughout those years. Why was a measure to abolish it not brought in at that time, when they had the power and the authority to do it? The answer is that the Government were quite happy with the scheme as it then was and now is. This Government have bowed to pressure from a few employers and a small number of Back-Benchers. It is very sad, particularly so for the dock workers.
Let me say a final word on this subject. It has been argued throughout our discussions that a lot more could be done if there were local negotiations but that the unions are determined to have national negotiations. I say to the Minister that there has been a lot of nonsense talked about this matter. Local negotiations have taken place for years and years. Ever since I have known the dock industry there have been local conditions, local variations, local cargoes, local rates and indeed local everything. But the rate of pay was agreed nationally and applied to every dock worker, so that whether a man worked in Merseyside or London he received the same rate of pay. That was a national agreement.
This was not special to the dock industry. The other great industry of which I have some knowledge
986
is the catering industry. One of the biggest firms in the country used to be Peak Freans, and I remember speaking to its management and asking how disputes were avoided. What, I asked, were the procedures? The management said that it was because people locally were given the chance to say what they wanted. Yet every one of the company's agreements was national. There were no arguments about rates of pay, conditions of work and so on. It was the same with the National Dock Labour Board. When that came into being its rules applied right across the country. Now that board has been wiped out.
Dockers were never privileged. They have to work very hard for what the receive. I do not deny that there will be bad men among them. I look around this Chamber and I daresay that there are one or two such here. We do not have to rush down to the docks to see such people. The vast majority of dockers try very hard to do what they are supposed to do. For no reason at all, this Government have decided to abolish the one thing that was created for them by the great Ernest Bevin, for he was the architect of the scheme. It is now to be wiped out.
The convention of this House is that we do not vote against the Third Reading of a Bill. If this side of the House were to do so on this occasion, our votes would be smashed to the ground. So what does it matter? I end by joining with the noble Baroness who has just spoken in thanking the Minister who has had charge of this Bill. I say in front of the noble Lord, the Leader of the House, that he may well be proud of him. He has been courteous and decent throughout. He has conducted himself in a way that is a credit to his party. That is all that I have to say about this rotten Bill.
4.9 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, whatever the views on the merits of this Bill, no one can fail to be affected, perhaps even moved, by the strong feeling which it has aroused among a number of noble Lords opposite, and most notably, the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, and the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, who spoke with real emotion, understanding and sincerity. Noble Lords will also recall at a previous stage the fine speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, who came to the House specially for that purpose.
I recognise at once the sincerity of feeling which lies behind those views. This Bill has aroused emotions which one does not always detect in your Lordships' House in regard to other measures. I am bound to say that I have not found it quite so strong for a long time and I personally very much respect it.
However, the Bill is a perfectly definite Bill which aims to do one thing: it is a clear-cut measure designed to abolish the dock labour scheme.
Lord Mellish: Why, my Lords?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, it is for the Minister to say why. However, if I may respond to the noble Lord's invitation, which I always do most willingly, I might add one or two reasons. As he said, I have for some years been convinced that the dock

987
labour scheme—whatever its merits, or the justification for it originally—was out of date. It was a relic of a type of organisation, perhaps common in the 1940s, but quite unsuited to the needs of the 1980s and 1990s. If one wants an argument about it, one has only to compare what has happened in the scheme ports, to which the dock labour scheme applied, with that in the non-scheme ports.
The noble Baroness referred to one or two European ports by way of contrast. Surely a more relevant, more immediately striking contrast is with non-scheme ports in this country. Of course I now give way to the noble Lord.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, if non-scheme ports are so excellent in every way, can the noble Lord tell me what the Minister never tells me: why is their productivity 33 per cent. below that of the scheme ports?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, it is for very good reasons. It is because of the type of cargoes and business that they deal with. It is quite impossible to measure productivity in the conventional way, one against another. However, what is striking—and the noble Lord must admit this—is the way in which they have grown, and the way in which traffic in them has grown compared with the decline in the scheme ports. That is indisputable. Given that, it would have been quite wrong for the Government to allow the dock labour scheme to go on. It had outlived its usefulness.
The use of the word "privilege" annoyed one or two noble Lords opposite. But it gave dockers certain advantages which were not open to their fellow workers in almost any other trade. One was the curious provision under which, if an employer packed up, another employer in that port was bound to take on—whether or not he wanted to do so—the dockers whom that employer had previously employed. It might well give him excessive manpower; it might well add to his costs; but he had to do so. Noble Lords also know perfectly well that a number of dock workers would be summoned not to do any work, but simply to stand by and then to be paid while others in limited numbers did the work. This kind of thing, although understandable no doubt in the context of the 1940s and of the deep feeling about casualisation, is unacceptable today when this country has to earn its living by efficiency, including the efficient use of labour.
Therefore, I very warmly welcome the courage and determination of the Government, knowing, as they did, that the Bill would be opposed as it has been.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, guillotined!
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, if the noble Lord talks of guillotines, I must recall to a former Labour Chief Whip in the House of Commons that the use of the guillotine has never been confined to governments of one particular colour. No doubt the noble Lord could speak on the guillotine with great expertise as he applied it often.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, I applied it on sensible measures and not on such rubbish as this.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, that is a matter of opinion.When I was in the Commons, I thought that practically all the measures to which the noble Lord applied the guillotine were absolute nonsense. Indeed, the noble Lord may recall that not only did I think that, but I said so on many of them. If the noble Lord looks back he will find that I was right. It is quite absurd to try to distort the argument on this by referring to the guillotine in particular when that point is sought to be made by someone who was a singularly skilful and vigorous exponent of the guillotine when he filled the relevant office.
This is a Bill to remove an organisation which has outlived whatever usefulness it may have had. I know that it still arouses sentimental feelings. I know that it arouses memories that I share of that great man, the late Ernest Bevin. However, if one makes a cool comparison on the scheme and non-scheme ports in this country, it becomes increasingly clear that a Government which allowed this scheme to continue would be failing in their duty; failing in their duty to the British economy; and, finally, failing in their duty to the dockers whose employment in the long run is dependent on the efficiency of the service that their ports provide.
I join with noble Lords opposite in saying how much I appreciate the way that my noble friend Lord Brabazon has handled this Bill. He kept the issues clearly before us. He did not—and rightly in the circumstances—accept amendments because none of them would have been helpful to the direct and main purpose of the Bill. But he rejected them with great courtesy. He must have a feeling of modest and well-earned satisfaction that we have now reached this stage. I am sure that noble Lords are very grateful to him for his skilful handling of the Bill.
I wish the Bill all success. I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, that it would be foolish and silly if strikes were to occur, and that there is ample room for negotiations in particular on a local basis in the ports. Such negotiation would be to the benefit of all concerned: dockers, employers, and the British economy as a whole. In passing this Bill, we are contributing significantly to making our country the more efficient, more worthwhile economically, and a better and more competitive country than it was. That surely must be the objective of all of us.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I shall be brief because my noble friend on the Front Bench, and my noble friends Lord McCarthy and Lord Mellish, have put the case excellently. I am sorry that the Minister did not notice that I spoke at Second Reading, although he said that he mentioned only a few people.
I am very saddened by this Bill. I speak only because I have the greatest respect for the people who work in the docks, as I said earlier. I was interested to read in a Sunday newspaper yesterday—not a Socialist one, I hasten to say—that the Minister in another place was to be complimented for having skilfully manoeuvred the Bill through two Houses of Parliament in order to

989
get on with the job. That may be of interest to the Minister in question—who I gather has been under some cloud with the Prime Minister—but it is not a reason for legislation. This Bill is a backwards step; let us have no dissembling about it. We are not moving into the 20th century, but back into the 1930s. If the dockers strike, I would say that it would be the least that we would expect them to do.
I hope that the Government at last will take this message. They are trying to override everyone: the teachers, the doctors, the lawyers (although I gather that they are now backing down) and the people who work in the communication industries. They cannot all be wrong.
The Government are trying to force through the Bill very rapidly. We talk about courtesy. Of course the Minister is very courteous. He has a lengthy brief and tries to destroy us by blinding us with science. He gave long answers where short ones would have been more sensible. It is a terrible, destructive Bill. Let us have no mistake about it. I am very sad to see this day.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, perhaps I may have a moment or two of your Lordships' time largely to assure the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, that some of us on these Benches have had business in and around the docks. My knowledge goes back to 1948 when I came out of the army and went to work in Southampton, leaving there in 1963–64. The effect in the latter years on Southampton Docks has been a lack of exploitation through the dock labour scheme. I was involved in transport, overseas trucking, cold storage, warehousing and so forth. There is no doubt that the scheme greatly prevented a number of commercial companies from coming into the docks where there is now virtually a wasteland. The abolition of the dock scheme will undoubtedly given commercial companies, in many different sectors, further opportunities to enhance their business and, indeed, the dock and port industries.
The noble Lord, Lord Mellish, has consistently reminded your Lordships of the reason for the scheme starting. Nobody has ever argued with him about that. What we have been arguing about consistently, since the Bill came to your Lordships' House, is the need for change. There is a need for change which I am afraid to say your Lordships on the other side of the House have refused to accept in a number of industries. When he talks about 51,000 going down the drain, that is absolute nonsense because many of those who worked in scheme ports are still in the port industry, in non-scheme ports. It is equally nonsense for those who say that the Government have refused to ensure that health and safety in the docks is continued, because we have not put anything in its place. I do not hear anything from non-scheme port employees or employers that there has been a rash of accidents or a diminution in health. The port industry is a dangerous industry, but no more dangerous than the construction industry with its specialist equipment: no more dangerous than road building with its very specialist equipment. Employers have been able to provide alongside the legislation which this
990
Administration has put in place suitable health schemes and training schemes in all those industries.
My final word is to echo what the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, and my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter said. I greatly hope that the 9,500 dockers being invited to ballot will be persuaded that their best interests lie in staying in work and, together with the employers, making the industry as successful as the non-scheme ports.
4.23 p.m.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, is quite right. One should begin by saying what one can say for the Government. One can say and one is pleased to say that the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, has conducted the case in a smooth, gracious and efficient way. But that is all one can say for the Government. Those of us on this side of the House are bound at this stage of the Bill to wonder what we have gained by our opposition to the Bill. I am afraid that we have not gained an inch of ground. Perhaps two clarifications fell from the lips of the noble Lord. At one stage, I think it was on Report, he told us that he would not insist on an arbitrary end to the transition period and subsequently he said that the way he reads the Bill covers voluntary severance as well as compulsory redundancy. Those are small matters and I do not believe that they amount to an inch of ground, but in every other way, as previous speakers have said, he has rejected all our attempts, even—I do not agree with his description—our last final attempt to change the drafting of the Bill.
We honestly believed that the noble Lord would not say that the amendment meant continuous. It is appalling if he says that that phrase means continuous. I thought he meant it to cover all circumstances and that we were merely making the Bill clearer. It was intended to be a drafting amendment. It was a tiny amendment of substance because the Government were taking the narrowest view of what the words meant.
If we cannot say we have gained an inch of ground, we cannot say that we have actually improved the arguments. We tried. The noble Lord, Lord Mellish, tried repeatedly to persuade the Government and their supporters to go beyond such words as "sensible" and "undoubtedly"—all these things which really mean "our opinion" in the first place—and persuade them to fill in some of the gaps in their arguments. Why do they persist in talking about a job for life when the great majority of dockers have been removed from the docks for quite modest severance pay? We never found an answer.
Why do the Government say that there is £1 billion in subsidies and severance pay when only about one-third of that money went to the dockers, who on average received 35 weeks' pay? Most important of all, why do they talk about restrictive practices, when the productivity levels in the registered docks are above the productivity levels in the unregistered docks?
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, tells us that it is all very complicated and difficult. One is asked to believe that if the figures went the other

991
way, he would not use them. But if the productivity level in the registered docks was 33 per cent. below the productivity level in the unregistered docks he would feel too decent to bring that out. Of course we know that productivity is difficult to measure, but it is no more difficult to measure in the docks than anywhere else. The fact is that the Government do not have any explanation and on the basis of their argument with all the so-called restrictive practices in the docks, these figures are impossible to explain.
The Minister has given a number of pseudo-arguments. I make no apology for referring to them because he still refers to them. He says that productivity may be higher in the registered docks, but they had to lose the labour to get it. That is as much as saying that in the unregistered docks they retained the labour and that is why they do not have it. That is as much as saying that the level of manpower must be higher in the unregistered than in the registered docks. That is a fine defence—is it not?—for the unregistered docks. Alternatively, he says—and the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, is fond of saying this for he said it again today—that we must not keep talking about productivity, it is not nice; think of the way they have grown; think of the way they have taken 30 per cent. of the trade. If productivity is higher and if we are always being told that wages are reasonably more or less the same, it must be capital utilisation which is the reason and it must be something about the way in which the unregistered ports are run which has nothing to do with labour utilisation at all.
When we look for things which have nothing to do with labour utilisation, we have no difficulty in explaining the growth of the unregistered docks. It is due to where they are; it is their degree of specialisation. Sone people say it is because the registered docks have to operate as a kind of common carrier and have a diversity of trade, much of which has a low profit ratio. There are all kinds of reasons given, which have nothing whatever to do with labour costs, to explain the rate of growth in the two different dock sections of the industry.
The Minister is always referring—because I am always asking him to explain—to the Ministry of Transport's transhipment study. He used it again the other day. It is a study which shows that the handling costs at Felixstowe are 30 or 40 per cent. below Tilbury and Southampton. He knows as well as I do that these comparisons are not worth anything. It is one unregistered port against two registered ports. There are no figures for 38 scheme ports and no figures for 34 non-scheme ports. Why do we have these three ports in the scheme?—because they are the only ports that the Government have looked at.
There is no explanation in the transhipment study—they do not attempt any explanation—for why the handling costs are different. There is nothing about total costs and nothing about labour costs. We have said to the Government over and over again that if they wish to justify what they have said about the relative inefficiencies and restrictive practices in the two sectors of the docks industry, and if they
992
wish to be taken seriously, they must put forward comparative labour costs across the two sections of the industry. But of course they never do.
We have not developed the argument and we have not plugged the gaps. It is not without significance to note that all we have done is to change the emphasis of the argument. We have heard it this afternoon. Had I more time I should quote the Minister because this afternoon he used what I call the "Dark Age defence"—the terrible expense of running the registered ports. When he was asked to explain the paradox of jobs for life, the absence of high redundancy pay, the absence of relative high wages, the amazing figures on productivity, he shifted, as did his noble friends. They all began to talk not about Dark Age defence but about Golden Age expansion and expectation. We were told, "It will be much better in the future if only we can get rid of the scheme. It is not that the scheme creates real privilege".
The Government cannot consider them to be real privileges because they are produced by trade unionism and one cannot have such benefits; they are illusory. But when the registered dockers are forced to be free and come out from under the dark umbrella of the registered dock labour scheme then, say the Ministers, everything will be better. The noble Lords, Lord Crickhowell and Lord Harmar-Nicholls, told us that in Committee. This afternoon the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said the same. It is only the dock work regulation scheme which prevents the registered dockers from living on the fat of the land. They will receive higher wages, better training, freedom from union monopoly. Somehow the registered dockers cannot see that.
So the Government have shifted from Dark Age defence to Golden Age expansion. That is significant because they often ask us, "What would you do? What does the Labour Party propose to do? What will the Labour Party do when it faces the fact that we have passed this Act? Will it bring it back?" It all depends on whether the Government are right. If they are absolutely right and we have Golden Age expansion, and wages and employment rise, then there will be no reason for bringing back the dock labour scheme. If there is no casualisation and everything works out as the Government say it will, then there will be no reason to do anything, will there?
There is also the fact that the Labour Party proposes a widespread expansion of all kinds of other employee benefits. It proposes a new training scheme; an extension of the functions and powers of the Health and Safety Commission; and a charter of employment rights. Therefore, even if they are not entirely right in what they say, it may be that general legislation will solve the problem. It depends on whether the Government are right and we see this Golden Age, or whether, as we and the Transport and General Workers' Union fear—and we hope that the fear is misplaced—casualisation will begin to emerge. We fear that there will be the same depression of terms and conditions in the docks industry as there has been in every industry in which the Government have abolished wages councils. Wages councils kept up minimum standards and

993
benefited those directly covered by trade unions and also other workers. The danger is that our fears will prove to be correct.
Meanwhile, we say farewell to this scruffy little measure. There was no consultation, no mandate, no amendment and no mercy in this scruffy little measure. We say farewell to it in order to make way for the seventh son of Frankenstein the week after next; yet another Employment Bill. Even before that Bill pops into this House they are talking about the eighth and ninth son of Frankenstein down the other end. I do not suggest that the Minister likes the measure. I hazard a guess that most noble Lords opposite—I do not say all—do not like it any more than we do. They know that they are on auto-pilot and that this scruffy Bill must go through.
4.35 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I do not intend to repeat all the arguments which were made at Second Reading and during the other stages of the Bill. As noble Lords have said, this is a short Bill, with one purpose: to abolish the dock labour scheme. In the words of the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, the scheme has outlived its usefulness. Therefore, it is not surprising that the arguments have been somewhat repetitive.
I should like to deal with a couple of points which were raised this afternoon. First, it was suggested that the Government acted provocatively in introducing the measure, in the hope of creating a national dock strike and possibly influencing the balance of payments figures. I assure noble Lords that we do not wish to see a national dock strike; that is the last thing we wish to see. And we do not believe that there is a need for one. As my noble friends Lord Boyd-Carpenter and Lord Lucas of Chilworth said, the best future for the docks—and they have a bright future—is the efficiency of the ports free of the scheme. That is the best guarantee that they can have of jobs for the future.
Comparisons were made with ports overseas but, as has been said on several occasions, we do not need to make such a comparison. We have the example of our own non-scheme ports to follow. They combine efficiency with decent employment conditions. Indeed, other countries are looking to improve the efficiency of their ports and some are relaxing the restrictions therein.
A number of noble Lords, notably the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, expressed fears that casualism may return to the docks. I understand those fears, but I believe that they are totally unfounded. No one—the Government and especially the port employers —wishes to see a return to the casualism of the 1930s and 1940s. But no one has explained to me why the abolition of the scheme will mean a return to those days. The fact is that today the ports industry involves modern cargo handling techniques, capital intensive equipment and other expensive and advanced equipment quite unsuited to casual labour. Employers need a properly, well-motivated, permanent workforce. In order to see that the fears of a return to casualism are misplaced one has only to look at the experience of the non-scheme ports
994
which currently employ only 6 per cent. of their workforce on a casual basis. That figure is similar to that in other industries throughout the country. We also have assurances from employers in 93 per cent. of the industry that they have no wish to see a return to casualism.
The noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, and the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, spoke eloquently on the issue. The noble Lord said that I did not understand the docks. Perhaps I did not understand the docks of 40 years ago when the scheme was introduced. However, over the past two or three years I have made it my business to visit as many ports as possible, both scheme and non-scheme ports. Therefore, I hope that I have an understanding of what happens in the ports in 1989. With his experience of the ports industry my noble friend Lord Lucas answered some of the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Mellish.
I have never said that the scheme ports were not profitable although I do not believe that they are making 30, 40, or 50 per cent.—whatever figure was quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Mellish. However, I said that they could be more profitable after the abolition of the scheme. I also said that some of them are now profitable only because of the substantial sums of money which have been spent in their restructuring, and that has involved the scheme.
The noble Lord, Lord Mellish, made an interesting point about local negotiations. We should like to see local negotiations take place in order to bring an end to the dispute. However, pay is one of the few issues which at present is not negotiated nationally. It is negotiated locally, even in the scheme ports. That has not been the case for long and probably was not so when the noble Lord was involved.
Lastly, I thank all noble Lords who said kind words about my conduct of the Bill. My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

Transport (Scotland) Bill
4.40 p.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sanderson of Bowden): 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 Sanderson of Bowden.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD STRABOLGI in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Transfer of operations of the Group]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 10, after ("programme") insert (" which he will lay before Parliament for approval").
The noble Lord said: For the convenience of the Committee, I should like to speak to Amendments

995
Nos. 1, 2 and 3. This follows the procedure in relation to similar amendments in another place, where the Bill went through without a single amendment being accepted. I do not intend to delay the House although I expect to receive some answers from the Minister regarding matters that were not dealt with in the other place to my satisfaction, at least when I reread the proceedings.
The amendments deal with the likelihood—or, in some English experiences, the certainty—that the Bill will be used by unscrupulous buyers to indulge in very lucrative but destructive asset-stripping. At Second Reading I referred to the Hampshire Bus buy-out by Stagecoach. The assets were sold off to the greater good of the buyer. There was an almost criminal neglect by the Government to provide for the defence of the public purse in the English Bill.
The Minister will be aware that Amendment No. 2 differs from the amendment moved in the other place during Report stage. In this House we ask that the Secretary of State and not the employees should approve any sale of assets within five years. Although we would prefer that the employees were involved, we could, if the Secretary of State had to approve and notify Parliament, question in Parliament the reasons for the selling off of the assets. This sale of assets in many cases could be perfectly legitimate. It could be to the benefit of bus services and to the people who use the services who, I stress, in the past provided the money to build up those assets.
Amendment, No. 1 is aimed at starting on a proper footing the process of selling off the bus group. If the Secretary of State has reached a decision on how this most important process for the future of transport in Scotland should proceed, it is only right that Parliament should know about it and be able in its collective wisdom to assist the Secretary of State in his mission to carry out what we think is an ill thought-out concept. Nevertheless, the Bill may be improved by Parliament helping the Secretary of State.
Amendment No. 2 is in many ways the important amendment in this group. Following Report stage in another place I looked at this matter carefully. I am sure that the Minister will accept that we require better answers than those that were given in the other place. I make no apologies for covering the same arguments. The Scottish people should be made fully aware that the Government have been warned of the dangers of asset-stripping. We have made attempts at every stage in the other place and in this Chamber during the passage of the Bill to propose measures that could prevent asset-stripping. The Government may be complacent as to whether this will happen in Scotland. If it does happen, it could have a devastating effect on the Government's already very weak grip on Scottish public opinion. Other examples will no doubt be brought forward from the English experience and we shall be able to point these out to the people of Scotland.
In order to remind ourselves of the dangers, I should like to run through the basic facts of the Hampshire Bus case. I do not believe that this can be often enough explained. Hampshire Bus was sold
996
to Stagecoach for £2.1 million. Within two weeks, Stagecoach sold the City bus station and the coach station for £4.1 million. It then sold half the bus fleet for £1 million. Therefore, having bought the company for £2.1 million, within weeks it sold part of it for £5.1 million. The bus-using public had to queue in the rain until Southampton City Council spent £138,000 of ratepayers' money to build sheltered stands. Can the Minister assure us that this will not happen in Scotland? If it does, where in the Bill are there any reassurances? Will the Secretary of State defend the valuable St. Andrew's Square bus station in Edinburgh, the two Glasgow stations or those in Stirling, Aberdeen and a host of Scottish cities and towns?
It is preposterous that the Bill does not protect the public purse, when the English experience shows what the Bill allowed people to do. Hampshire Bus is the worst example that has so far come to light, but there will be others. If an amendment is not made to the Bill there will certainly be many instances in Scotland.
The third amendment in this group attempts to defend the travelling public from a private monopoly situation. I have no objection to the way in which Stagecoach runs its business. I do not know enough about the company, although I have heard and read stories. However, I am sure it is an efficient group. It has said quite plainly that it intends to bid for every part of the Scottish Bus group. Is the Minister happy about this situation? If so, where is the competition to come from in years ahead? If Stagecoach buys all the Scottish bus companies it will have a monopoly throughout Scotland. That is quite contrary to what the Government said was the purpose of the Bill. I agree that there may be a monopoly in terms of the Scottish Bus group or some of the local authority buses, but they are answerable through their boards to the Secretary of State and, ultimately, to Parliament. The local bus organisations like Clyde and Lothian are all ultimately responsible to the elected councils. If there is a monopoly situation in which Stagecoach succeeds in buying a fair proportion of the Scottish buses, particularly in adjoining areas, then we shall have no defence at all. I hope that the Minister will be able to give some assurance on the three important points raised in these amendments. I beg to move.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I was unable to be present at Second Reading of this Bill, but I welcome it very much. I believe that bus travellers in Scotland will welcome it enormously once they get the benefit of local private operators who are free to run buses in the way which local people want and to which local people can respond.
I agree with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, about the importance of new operators not being swallowed up in one big company. That will put us back where we started. I shall listen with great interest to what my noble friend has to say about it.
As regards Amendment No. 2, the noble Lord is suggesting that it shall not be possible for a private bus operator who buys one of the local companies to sell it again within five years. I wonder what will

997
happen if the company is proved to be a flop and it cannot cope. If the company wanted to sell to another company that could cope, it would be at the mercy of the Secretary of State who might refuse to allow the sale for one reason or another. That would not suit the local travelling public, who would have a company that was not operating very well. I wonder whether that is not tying the hand of the new company too much, and whether it would not so reduce the attractiveness of the company to potential buyers that no one would be willing to purchase it.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, for speaking to the first three amendments en bloc because, as he has said, they do hang together.
The first amendment seeks to require the disposal programme for the Scottish Bus Group to be approved by Parliament. I should like to remind the Committee of the background to the development of the disposal programme. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has already made clear the basis on which the Scottish Bus Group will be offered for sale. It will be sold in 11 units. Clause 2 of the Bill sets out the Secretary of State's main objective in preparing the disposal programme, namely, to promote sustained and fair competition in the bus industry. He is also required to have regard to the encouragement of employee participation and to the net proceeds of sales. We have made it clear that we attach great importance to the encouragement of bids involving a high level of employee participation. This the noble Lord knows, because I said so at Second Reading.
The programme will contain a statement of the general approach to be adopted in carrying out disposals, including a timetable and a description of any measures required in preparation for disposals. The programme will state the units to be offered for sale and indicate the detailed arrangements for inviting and considering bids. In particular, it will set out the basis on which a preference will be given to bids involving significant employee participation. It will deal with safeguards relating to property disposals—I shall return to this important issue in a moment—and the number of companies one buyer can acquire. Bids will be invited on the basis of information memoranda to be issued at the time of sale by the Scottish Transport Group.
The programme will also state that prospective purchasers, in making bids, will require to show their intentions for pensions arrangements and travel concessions for employees, and their policy towards the disabled and other vulnerable groups. No disposal will be recommended by the Scottish Transport Group until an interested management-employee buy-out team has had sufficient time to mount a bid.
In the light of these undertakings which have been given about the contents of the disposal programme, and the fact that it will be published, I do not think that, as regards the first amendment, parliamentary approval should be asked for. I believe this mirrors the legislation in the Transport Act 1985, where legislation did not require the disposal programme to be approved by Parliament.
998
The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, went on to deal with the second amendment, with which I wish to deal at some length.He has asked that the business should not be resold within a period of five years with the consent of the Secretary of State. The amendment states:
"It shall be a condition of purchase for any undertaking proposed for sale under this section that the business shall not be resold within a period of 5 years with the consent"—
I presume the noble Lord means,
"without the consent of the Secretary of State'"?
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: The Minister must be working from an earlier Marshalled List. There is a correction on the latest Marshalled List pointing out that the business shall not be resold,
"without the consent of the Secretary of State".
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: So there is. I apologise. I acknowledge that, as experience after privatisation with former subsidiaries of the National Bus Company suggests, there may well be pressures which could result in some subsequent resales after privatisation. I do not think that it is realistic to try to legislate against these. For one thing, the amendment would do no more than delay re-sales and would not ultimately prevent them from taking place. Furthermore, any such limitation would be a restriction on the competitive freedom of a company after privatisation which did not apply to companies with which it was competing. Such a restriction might, for example, make it more difficult for the company to raise new capital to expand its operations It might, therefore, be counterproductive in terms of the objective which underlies the amendment. I would also remind tie Committee that safeguards against the development of monopolies already exist in competition law, which applies just as much to the bus industry as it does to other industries.
The Director General of the Office of Fair Trading can refer matters to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. I wish to take that matter a little further. Following a reference, and a report by the MMC to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, he can ask the director general to seek undertakings from the persons concerned about how they will act in future. If necessary, the Secretary of State can make an order, and such an order can require the reversal of a merger between companies. As regards the bus company, following the privatisation of NBC, the OFT has monitored the situation closely and has taken action where it has considered this to be necessary. For example, in a case involving a merger between companies involved in providing bus services in the Bristol area, reference was made by the OFT to the MMC. The OFT is currently investigating the recent takeover of bus companies in the North-West of England by Stagecoach, the company to which the noble Lord referred.
There are thus very positive safeguards already in place against the establishment of monoplies in the bus industry as in other sectors of the economy. The noble Lord mentioned the Hampshire bus situation.

999
I am aware of the general background of the purchase of Hampshire Bus by Stagecoach. Here we feel it is essential that property assets are properly valued and that measures are taken to prevent them being sold off after privatisation at a large profit. Specialist property advisers have been appointed by the Scottish Transport Group to value all the properties of the bus group and to advise on the best treatment of those properties in the course of sale. Property advisers will also be appointed by the Secretary of State.
There are a number of options for dealing with properties. The first is to take out the property from the company and sell it separately, which might apply to property that is not essential for the running of the bus undertaking. A second option is to sell the property with the company, but to ensure that the price received fully reflects the range of values for the assets. A third option is to sell the property with the company, but with a legal charge on the property which ensures that it is subsequently sold within a specified period for development purposes and that the Government will receive a specified share of the development proceeds. A fourth option would be to dispose of an operational property separately from the company, but with a long lease arrangement to allow the company to use it to prevent early disposal for development.
We shall be considering all these options very carefully in the light of the advice that the group will be getting from its property advisers and from the Secretary of State's property advisers, and will take appropriate action.
As well as the competition legislation—I know very well of the genuine fear that the noble Lord has about what he calls asset stripping—I wish to refer to a very important part of the plans that my right honourable friend wishes to approve. I have mentioned that management-employee buyouts are a means by which we wish to see employees participating in the future of their own companies.
It is usual in the case of MEBOs for the team involved to set up a new company to purchase the whole of the issued share capital of the company being sold. In this way they can set up whatever shareholding arrangements in the new company they consider appropriate. The company could make provision in its articles of association to limit the ability of shareholders to dispose of shares outside existing groupings of shareholders by, for example, establishing pre-emption arrangements under which shares would require to be offered in the first instance to the existing shareholders. Articles of association can be changed only if 75 per cent. of the shareholders vote to do so. The structure of shareholding arrangements will be considered at the time of drawing up the disposals programme. The Secretary of State will be taking into account these matters when considering bids in the light of competition objectives. I hope therefore that the noble Lord understands that we are taking this matter very seriously indeed.
The last amendment in this group states:
"In giving effect to subsection (1) above, no single buyer may own more than two of the subsidiaries set up for disposal".
1000
This amendment not only seeks to limit to two the number of bus subsidiaries one purchaser could acquire under the disposals programme, but also appears to require no purchaser to own more than two of the companies disposed of for all time. I think that that is what the noble Lord means. On reading the amendment, that appears to be what he has in mind.
I fully appreciate the noble Lord's intention. The main aim of the Government's privatisation policy is to increase competition and hence efficiency and responsiveness to the consumer. The Secretary of State decided that nine bus operating companies, together with a coaching firm Scottish City Link and SBG Engineering Company, would provide the best balance between competition and stability in the Scottish bus industry. For competitive reasons we decided that it would not be appropriate to privatise Scottish Bus Group as one entity and would clearly not wish a single buyer to purchase several SBG companies.
As regards outside bids, we would not wish a single buyer to purchase several companies. In the NBC privatisation the maximum number of operating companies sold to a single buyer was four. Applying a similar proportion to the SBG subsidiaries, any single purchaser would be limited to one subsidiary, but any such limitation will depend partly on which companies are involved and where they operate. Prospective purchasers could set up separate companies so as to be able to acquire more than one subsidiary, or there could be links between purchasers.
Each case therefore requries to be considered on its merits at the time of sale. It is necessary to examine who the prospective purchasers are and what links they may have with other bus companies. I agree that there is a need to avoid a single buyer acquiring too many bus companies—there is nothing between us on that—but I do not think that legislation on this point is the best course. Having heard my explanation of the three amendments, I hope that the noble Lord will consider withdrawing them.
5 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: The noble Lord, Lord Sanderson of Bowden, is, as usual, persuasive. I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, will recognise that the amendments are not necessarily the best that could have been produced by a government draftsman. I spoke at Second Reading on some of these matters. I am somewhat reassured by what the Minister said. However, he has not reassured the Committee in relation to the Hampshire example given by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael. If it could happen in Hampshire, what is different about Scotland?
Are the Government saying that they are taking a different view in relation to the Transport (Scotland) Bill from the position which exists in England? I detected from what the noble Lord said that that might be the case, but simple folk like me need to have it spelt out in words of one syllable. We need to be assured that in bringing forward this Bill for

1001
Scotland the Government have learnt from their mistakes in relation to buses in England.
People are worried about a monopoly. Indeed, the Government are always worried about monopolies in public undertakings. The Labour Party is always worried about monopolies in private undertakings. I hope that we on these Benches can take a slightly more dispassionate view. There is always a tendency towards monopoly in circumstances of this kind. The very workings of the market tend towards monopoly. I accept what the noble Lord said about the mechanisms of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission operating in this respect, but the potential for asset stripping is of a different order. The evidence so far clearly points towards the danger of asset stripping. Can the Minister give more reassurance that this will not happen in Scotland?
Lord Underhill: As a non-Scot perhaps I may intervene for a moment, in the light of what the Minister said about the National Bus Company. He should add some further points and give some assurances. Are there not instances of former National Bus Company regional units buying up or amalgamating with other units of the NBC? Is there any guarantee under the Bill that this will be avoided with the dissolution of the Scottish Bus Group? There are a number of instances of regional units of the NBC taking over or merging with other regional units of the NBC. I believe that the Minister wants to avoid that happening, but can he give further assurances before my noble friend replies?
The Earl of Perth: The Minister certainly satisfied me on Amendments Nos. 1 and 3, but on Amendment No. 2 he set out four safeguards against a wrong happening. It may well be that one of them is effective. However, why cannot we have one further safeguard to avoid the risk of someone pulling a fast one against the Government or the local authority? We have in the past seen examples of bad deals. It has generally been by the Government or the local authority. The further safeguard proposed in the amendment might be worth considering.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, that the Minister is persuasive. He assured us that were he in charge everything would be absolutely all right and that there would be nothing even faintly shady. However, I still felt uneasy at the end of his speech. The noble Earl, Lord Perth, said that we can accept the Minister's recommendation in regard to Amendments Nos. 1 and 3, but his explanation was woefully inadequate in regard to Amendment No. 2.
The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, said that the Secretary of State could frustrate a failing company. That is not how we expect Secretaries of State to behave. The difference between the Secretary of State and a private company is that he is in the limelight and can be questioned in Parliament. If he were doing something as silly or as evil as to frustrate a company he would soon be exposed. If he were trying deliberately to run a company into the ground in order to get assets—for what purpose, I am not
1002
sure—it would soon be found out. The noble Baroness did not quite grasp the point about which we were concerned. We are trying to right a serious wrong that has been created in England and could be created in Scotland.
The noble Lord said that five years is too long a period. It is quantitatively and qualitatively considerably better than two weeks. The disgraceful case in Hampshire illustrated that almost anything is better than that. The Secretary of State is ultimately responsible to Parliament and the press are able to examine his actions carefully.
I accept the Minister's assurances but they are not written on the face of the Bill. Unfortunately, some of the people in the bus industry and those who are coming into the industry are the kind of people who will read the Bill without thinking of the nice words and the kind intentions of the Ministers or the politicians. That certainly applied to some of the people who were in the industry and who caused it to be regulated about 50 years ago. It seems absolutely imperative that the Minister decides or makes clear to the Secretary of State that one or more of these safeguards, at least as regards property, must be put forward before this sale will be trusted by the people of Scotland.
Further, to make the political point, it will not take much to topple over into the brink what is left of the Minister's party in Scotland. I am sure that he is well aware of that fact. The Government have done a great deal as regards Prestwick to help matters in one corner of Scotland. Therefore could they not do a little in respect of the buses to help those in the other corner?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I must return the compliment and say to the noble Lord that he is most persuasive. I am glad that he recognises the work that we have done in Prestwick, although I doubt whether that is recognised by all quarters of this Chamber. Two main points emerge from the discussion and I must say that I am grateful to those noble Lords who have taken part. First, there is the question of what can be summed up in the phrase "asset stripping of property". Secondly, there is the general point made by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, as to whether we have learnt any lessons from the NBC privatisation. As regards the latter, I believe that the answer is, yes.
Perhaps I may give a further example. We have talked about the Stagecoach takeover of Ribble and the fact that that matter is before the Office of Fair Trading. It would therefore be wrong for me to comment on it. However, there has also been the question of Badger Line Holdings Limited and Midland Red West Holdings Limited. Of course that matter went before the MMC. The report has now been published and it will of course go to the Secretary of State for Transport in England. I understand the commission concluded that there was no material loss of potential competition in the provision of commercial services. However, the report indicated that the merger may be expected to operate against the public interest with respect to competitive tendering for local authority supported services. The report recommends that the Director

1003
General of Fair Trading shall seek undertakings from the holding company concerned as to its future behaviour in regard to tendered services and that if such undertakings were not forthcoming the merger should not be allowed and divestment should take place. I understand that discussions are still continuing on the procedure for fair tendering.
I think that the latter gives point to the general remarks I made as regards the fact that there is the law on competitive tendering, and so on, upon which we can fall back. However, what is worrying noble Lords, especially the noble Earl, Lord Perth, and the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, is the question of asset stripping. I hoped that what I had already said indicated, without me
having to elaborate on the matter, that we in Scotland have looked carefully at the problems which have arisen over asset stripping.
One option in property disposals is to place a legal charge on the subsequent disposal of the property. Therefore the Scottish Transport Group or, after its dissolution, the Secretary of State, can share in development proceeds. Such an arrangement was used in many cases in the NBC privatisation. We shall use that method where appropriate in the Scottish Bus Group sales. I hope that, by indicating that we are very alert to that point—quite apart from the general remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, about how sensitive the Government's position may be in Scotland on that issue—by reinforcing what I said earlier and by giving the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, this particular answer, the noble Earl, Lord Perth, will understand that I have set the scenario by which we fully understand the difficulties which may arise. That applies not just to me, but also to my colleagues. As I said, we fully understand the difficulties as regards the disposal of property. I trust that the answers I have given will mean that noble Lords will not think it necessary to press these amendments.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I thank the Minister for the care he has taken over his reply to these amendments. We shall, however, have another chance to look at the matter. I think he will agree, especially as regards the points made about the protection of assets, that we need to consider the issues raised at leisure and to read in Hansard what has been said. We may perhaps return to these issues at a later stage of the Bill's proceedings. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 not moved.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Implementation of the programme]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 3, line 12, at end insert—
("( ) Any financial assistance made available for management or employees buyouts shall be available for up to three buyout attempts by existing management or employees within any one of the undertakings created by the Act.").
The noble Lord said: Clause 2(2)(a) provides for the Secretary of State to help those in management or otherwise employed in an undertaking to acquire a controlling interest in that undertaking. The Secretary of State has spelt out the amount of assistance which he intends to underwrite. It comes to 75 per cent. of professional fees up to the sum of £65,000—that is to say, the Secretary of State will give assistance for one bid per company for one employee/management buy-out. The money will be required to be repaid if the bid is successful. Therefore, at the very worst we are talking about the Secretary of State perhaps paying out the maximum amount in respect of two bids for any one company. We all know that it is unlikely there will be more than two employee/management bids for more than two or three companies.
That provision is helpful so far as it goes. However, it has been suggested that there could possibly be more than one employee/management buy-out. It has also been suggested that some managements will not want to have employees involved in the new organisation and that it may be just as likely that some employees will feel that they could do a better job by buying the company and installing their own management team from outside, or even from among themselves.
To allow for such a situation we are asking, by way of the amendment, that more than one employee/management bid should be given financial support. I would not expect more than one such bid to be made in all cases—only perhaps in a few cases, if any. However, surely there is a principle involved here. Without this amendment the Scottish Office will need to make a decision very early in the sell-off programme as to which bid it should support. Once the office decides to support one bid it has virtually killed the other one. The sum of £47,000 would need to be raised. Of course, it could be considerably more but even the sum of £47,000 would be a big help towards obtaining an assessment and ensuring that a proper bid is worked out for the company. In other words, before a fully developed tender and firm offer have been prepared by professionals for the groups trying to bid for the services, the Government will be forced to smile at one group and reject the bid of the other.
I believe that a total purchase price of about £300 million has been agreed, although, as an aside, we shall not be told anything other than the total that is received for the Scottish Bus Group. I am not sure that that has been decided. I believe that it was suggested by the Minister in another place that he would think of giving the total. I do not see why the public should not be told the price of each company after the deal has been made. Scotland is the sort of place where people will soon know what has been paid. I do not see why the Government should not let us know the price as soon as the bids are accepted. With a capital valuation of about £3 million, the figure seems small beer if multiple buy-outs of the assets are made. The Government seem to be already pre-judging the bids from inside the industry.
I may be unfair but from reading the speech the Minister made in another place it seemed that

1005
seminars would be held for managers who are interested in bidding, but not for employees. The employees will be putting a relatively higher proportion of their worldly goods into buying if it is decided that they will participate, but they will only be able to see some nice glossy video presentations. I find that unacceptable.
The Government seem to be favouring the idea of management buy-outs. The Government's intention to treat the companies' business performance and assets as confidential may be more of a hardship to the employees than to the management, because in the nature of things managements will have more figures available to them than will the employees, should the employees decide to go on their own.
Will the Minister comment on the Government's attitude to the financial backing for employee buy-outs? It has been drawn to my attention that financial backing from outside organisations, including other bus operators, banks and financial companies, will be considered by the Government not to be bona fide worker-management buy-outs. I do not know where their money will come from. If outside finance is introduced, the bid will not be defined as internal.
It has been drawn to my attention that the Luton and District Bus Company, which is the first successful employee buy-out, has agreed to invest up to 15 per cent. of the finance required. That would apparently disqualify Western Clydeside employees' bid from being an internal bid. I have only recently been told that. This is a wee bit like the famous case of additionality, about which we heard so much a few months ago at one of the by-elections. Although I have not expressed the point as well as I should like to have done, I am sure that the Minister understands what I am getting at. The amendment would be of considerable help in giving substance to the promise that encouragement would be given to employee, management or employee-management buy-outs. It would not be expensive for the Government. I beg to move.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: As the noble Lord said, this amendment seeks to require the group to make any financial assistance offered to management-employee buy-out teams available to up to three buy-out attempts in any one company.
As already announced, assistance will be made available by the Scottish Transport Group in the form of an underwriting of 75 per cent. of the costs of the professional fees required to mount a bid up to £65,000, that is a maximum assistance of £48,750. The assistance will require to be repaid in the event of the bid being successful. This will be made available to one management-employee team per company.
In eight out of the 11 subsidiaries for sale, financial assistance has now been offered by the Scottish Transport Group to management-employee teams. Assistance has not yet been offered in the case of Western Clydeside, Citylink and SBG Engineering. In the case of Western Clydeside, no decision has yet been made because the company's workforce is divided between a MEBO (management-employee
1006
buy-out) bid and an EBO (an employee buy-out) proposal, and we wish to give time to see whether a unified internal bid may in due course be forthcoming. I must point out to the noble Lord that there is no disqualification for an EBO receiving the money. That is a point that he wished to have clarified.
The best chance of success for a management-employee bid will arise if it is the only such bid from within the company. The difference between us here is not so much on financial grounds—as the noble Lord said, it is not a great deal of money—but on a point of principle where we take a different view from him. A single co-ordinated bid is more likely to compete effectively with outside bids in terms of the financial backing it was able to raise and the price it could offer, than would separate bids from different parts of the workforce. To offer financial assistance to more than one internal team could therefore be counter-productive in the extent to which the objective of encouraging employee participation might ultimately be successful. I should make it clear that any offer of financial assistance to a buy-out team will not confer any official or preferred bidder status to that team.
I must emphasise that there is no prejudgment in this matter. All bids, from whatever source, for a company will be given equal consideration on the basis of the merits of the bids, irrespective of whether they have received financial assistance. The fact that financial assistance may or may not have been paid is therefore not a relevant factor in the consideration of bids.
In view of the fact that this matter comes down to one particular area of concern for the noble Lord, I should like to comment briefly o a the Western Clydeside situation. It is entirely possible that in due course there will be more than one employee-based bid for Western Clydeside. A choice may have to be made with regard to financial assistance. If that happens, and I hope that it does not, I can assure the Committee that each bid will be given full consideration irrespective of whether it has received financial assistance, and that preference will be shown to any bid involving significant employees' participation. That is the fundamental point that I wish to make.
The noble Lord asked about the publication of sale proceeds. This brings us back to a point I made on Second Reading. As he said, we have said that we would publish the total proceeds of the sales. The suggestion that the amount paid for each company should be published raises difficult problems of commercial confidentiality. During the privatisation process it would clearly not be a good idea to publish what had been received for each company, because that could well affect prices at subsequent sales.
That is a real point of difficulty. It might lead to less satisfactory prices, as the process of privatisation proceeded. Publishing the prices once the sales were completed, which the noble Lord asked for, also raises problems of commercial confidentiality because the companies involved might well be concerned that the price they paid for the business should not be revealed to their competitors. As the noble Lord says, that may become known but it will certainly not come from the Government.

1007
The noble Lord mentioned seminars and videos. It is inevitable that the management will take the lead in developing buy-outs. But that does not mean that the employees cannot participate fully. As I have already said, we have made it clear that a preference will be given to bids with substantial employee participation. That would not include management only buy-outs. I fully understand the point that the noble Lord makes; I understand who might have put the matter to him. However, I hope that with this explanation he is reassured that on a point of principle we feel that it is better that the money should go to one operation in any particular company rather than spreading it.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: In some respects the Minister has helped, but in others he has clouded the issues. I understand the question of the divulging of prices during the process but I am not sure how long afterwards matters should still be commercially confidential. I am always a little worried about commercial confidentiality; it is a phrase which is considerably abused.
As regards management/employee buy-outs and employees only buy-outs or management only buy-outs, I can see the danger that there could be a split company. However some evaluation must be made as to which is the real buy-out. I do not know how those outside St. Andrew's House will be able to feel that a fair decision has been made. We may find one or two particularly strong people in the management team who will go their own way, separately from the rest of the management team, gathering just enough employees to make a respectable bid. Another group may be more in tune with and more acceptable to the workforce; it may come forward and want to make a bid as well. So there could be two perfectly legitimate groups trying to obtain a decision. I do not see how we can know whether the Scottish Office is making the decision on the basis of favouritism or the strength of particular individuals.
I can give examples where individuals have been able to play the system rather better than others. I am not saying that they were evil; they were wise individuals, able to play the system better than those who in other ways were just as good.
I still find it slightly worrying that at the end of the day the Secretary of State will decide or—let us be honest, since there will be a great deal of material to wade through—the Secretary of State will take advice from the people in the Scottish Office as to which decision to make. I hope that the Minister will give the example which I have tried to put forward a little more thought before we reach the Report stage of the Bill. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clauses 4 to 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Transfer of shipping companies]:
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 5, line 4, at end insert—
("(2A) An order appointing a day under subsection (2) above may make such amendments or repeals of any enactment (including an enactment contained in a local or private Act and any order, regulation or other instrument having effect by virtue of an Act) pertaining to the Group as appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient in consequence of the transfer.").
The noble Lord said: The main purpose of this amendment is to ensure that existing powers vested in the Scottish Transport Group to act as a harbour authority may be vested in Caledonian MacBrayne when it is transferred to the Secretary of State's ownership. At present in a number of ferry terminals throughout the west coast the Scottish Transport Group is the formally appointed harbour authority, although day-to-day functions are carried out by CalMac which is a wholly owned subsidiary. It would clearly be anomalous to leave STG with harbour powers when it was no longer responsible for shipping services. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 5, line 11, at end insert—
("(4A) The Secretary of State shall ensure that the interests of users, local people, and employers are given representation equal to that of commercial and management interests on the Board of Caledonian MacBrayne Limited.").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is self-evident. It was fully discussed at the Committee and Report stages in another place and concerns the composition of the board of Caledonian MacBrayne Limited. I stress that I am not discussing the advisory groups or the users' committees, I am speaking specifically about the board of Caledonian MacBrayne.
I believe that it is true that we all accept that a good strong board is needed for CalMac. No one doubts that there must be experienced commercial control within the board and I want that as well. I do not want a board controlled by a group of people who are there because they are nice or because they happen to live in the area.
Recent history however has taught us that those boards are bodies which have non-executive directors, usually one of whom, to put it bluntly, is a Tory-placed man or woman. One cannot perhaps be quite as explicit in this Chamber as some of my colleagues were in another place, particularly those who know the Western Isles. They were a little fed up with quite unrepresentative people being put on boards and quangos to look after the Highlands and Islands.
We want people from the area on the executive boards, provided we can get the calibre of people, but basically we want people on the non-executive boards from the area. They should be people with interests in the area and a following there. They should be people of strength in the area and with knowledge of the area. Again, I must stress that only one in five of the electors in Scotland vote Tory. It

1009
is an affront and an insult to the mass of Scottish people that time and time again places are found for people who are quite unrepresentative but who come from a particular wing, usually the wing that is "one of us" in the Conservative Party in Scotland. I hope that in the case of the Highlands and Islands where there are no Conservative Members at all, the Minister will see to it that party political considerations are not involved in the management of Caledonian MacBrayne in the islands. I stress that I am speaking of the non-executive side. I beg to move.
Lord Tordoff: The only quarrel I have with the amendment is the use of the word "equal", otherwise I go along with it. If one is making a general premise that non-executive directors should be equal to executive directors on boards, that is a different argument. I feel that there is an argument for that but it should not be incorporated on the face of the Bill.
I certainly support the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, in saying that local representation is important and that the people who are to serve on the boards should have a local base. I do not wish to get deeply involved in the matter of government party placement on quangos, although it certainly exists and has existed more with this Government than any other in living memory. It ought to be stopped now. However, that is not what the Bill is about.
I support the principle of the interests and views of local people and of local companies having some proper representation on the board along with the commercial management interest. But I cannot support the concept necessarily of equal representation.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I fear that the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, and I have been here before. There are shades of the Housing Act in the amendment and I think we debated the point at the time of that Bill.
The object of the amendment is to require the Secretary of State to ensure that the interests of users—local people and employers—are given representation equal to that of commercial and management interests on the board of Caledonian MacBrayne. The Secretary of State is at present considering the membership of the new Caledonian MacBrayne board. That is, geographically, perhaps not an easy task, but it is easier than reflecting in the Scottish Transport Group board the CalMac interest. I expect the noble Lord will understand what I mean by that.
We expect the board to consist of around six to nine members and each member will be appointed for the contribution he or she can make. The Secretary of State has made it clear that he will appoint some people with first-hand knowledge of the islands served and their needs, and it is therefore likely that the membership will include some people who are resident in the islands and who as a consequence are regular users of the ferries. I have no doubt about that. An important part of the members'
1010
jobs will involve being able to assess how good or bad the ferries are.
However, we feel it would be unnecessarily restrictive for the Secretary of State to appoint a range of members who would work together in the best interests of both the company and the travelling public if the Act were to specify equal representation for the categories of people suggested in the amendment. It will be very important for the board to contain a significant level of commercial, financial and shipping expertise as well as a first-hand knowledge of the islands. Individual members might well combine these qualifications, and setting aside specific places for particular interests could easily result in the exclusion of people with a valuable contribution to make. To cater for a range of categorised interests could also involve the creation of a larger, more unwieldy board which might be split by localised issues.
In making appointments to the board, it remains our intention to strike a proper balance between the commercial expertise needed to run a modern business and the local knowledge and commitment required to best serve the interests of ferry users. The noble Lord knows that, under the arrangements, this will mean an emphasis on longer-haul ferries that travel to the outer islands. We believe the amendment would inhibit the Secretary of State's ability to achieve such a balance. As the Minister responsible for the Highlands—I refer now to the Highlands and Islands Development Board which is my responsibility—I reject the charge that the non-executives on that board do not reflect the feelings of those who work in the area. I happen to think that they do that extremely well. I say personally, with my responsibility for 1he Highlands and Islands, that the non-executive members of the CalMac board will be able to reflect that same commitment when the Secretary of State has been able to persuade the right people to join it.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: We shall all await with great interest the appointment of the board. I am sure that a number of Members of the Committee on both sides of the Chamber will pu1 their names forward. However, we shall await with great interest the appointment of the board. Perhaps we shall return to this issue on a later occasion. The Minister is so reasonable that it is difficult to object to many of the things he says. He makes his remarks with the best of intentions. I can only hope that the provisions are carried out with the best of intentions by others. I beg leave to wihdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 5, line 13, leave out second ("by") and insert ("in pursuance of").
The noble Lord said: This subsection specifies the parliamentary procedure for an order appointing a day for the transfer of the securities of the shipping companies to the Secretary of State. The amendment is a drafting one whose purpose is to bring the wording into line with normal practice in references

1011
in legislation to such parliamentary procedure. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 8 to 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 [Dissolution of the Group]:
5.45 p.m.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 8, line 12, after ("order") insert ("made by statutory Instrument").
The noble Lord said: When the disposal programme for the Scottish Bus Goup has been completed and Caledonian MacBrayne transferred to the Secretary of State's ownership, the Scottish Transport Group will be wound up. This will be done by order, and Clause 14 specifies that the order may contain any necessary provisions for this purpose. It is appropriate that such an order should be brought to the attention of Parliament and published, and it is therefore necessary to make the order by statutory instrument. The amendment provides for this to be done. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 8, line 33, leave out ("or any other Act") and insert ("Act or any other enactment (including an enactment contained in any local or private Act and any order, regulation or other instrument having effect by virtue of an Act)").
The noble Lord said: The main purpose of this amendment taken with government Amendment No. 5 is to ensure that any remaining powers vested in the Scottish Transport Group to act as a harbour authority may be provided for after the group is dissolved. As I have already explained, it is intended to transfer these powers to Caledonian MacBrayne under Clause 7 when the company is transferred to the Secretary of State's ownership. Should, however, this not be done for any reason, or if there were any remaining outstanding matters in private or secondary legislation pertaining to the Scottish Transport Group at the time of dissolution, this amendment will ensure that the appropriate provision may be made. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Royal Assent
5.47 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Hayter): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Police Officers (Central Service) Act,

Hearing Aid Council (Amendment) Act,

Dock Work Act 1989,

Kingston upon Hull City Council Act,

Tees (Newport) Bridge Act.

Clergy (Ordination) Measure
5.48 p.m.
The Archbishop of Canterbury The Archbishop of Canterbury rose to move, That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Clergy (Ordination) Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent.
The most reverend Primate said: My Lords, the purpose of this Measure, which we ask should be presented for Royal Assent, is simple. We seek to permit a variation, in exceptional circumstances, to the general rule that no person may be ordained who has married a divorcee or has himself or herself been married after a divorce in the lifetime of a previous partner.
Under existing law, there is an absolute bar to such a man's or woman's ordination. The law does not disbar someone from being ordained on the grounds of divorce alone. It is remarriage after divorce during the lifetime of the previous partner which creates the bar.
After lengthy and considered debate the General Synod decided, by a substantial majority in all three Houses, that this should be a rule to which exceptions might be allowed. Such exceptions should only be permitted after the circumstances have been fully weighed. Procedures for this have already been published and guidelines agreed by the most reverend Primate the Archbiship of York and myself to ensure maximum consistency. We believe this Measure to be theologically sound. We believe it to have wide support in the Church. We believe that justice requires it.
There are claims that the "right formalities" have not been observed in the submission of this Measure, that it should have received two-thirds majorities in each House of the Synod. The Times said this morning that your Lordships have "a proper role in ensuring" that the formalities have been observed.
The central point is that under the synodical Government Measure of 1969, which contains the synod's constitution, a proposal is approved if it receives a simple majority in each House. There are some cases which attract special procedures under Article 8 of this constitution, which speaks of:
"a measure or canon providing for permanent changes in … the Ordinal",
that is the form of service for the ordaining of deacons, priests and bishops annexed to the Book of Common Prayer. Neither this Measure nor the Canon would change the wording of the Ordinal. When a question is raised as to whether Article 8 applies it is determined by a clear procedure. The question was raised; the procedure was applied, and it was determined that Article 8 did not apply.
Alternatively it is argued that under the Worship and Doctrine Measures 1974 a two-thirds majority in each House is required for making a Canon. But that relates only to a Canon under the Worship and Doctrine Measure, it can have no application to a Canon which is made under the Measure which is before your Lordships' House.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Bridge, advised the Ecclesiatical Committee that "the right

1013
formalities" had been observed. It seems that at least a majority of the committee accepted that advice.
There is a long history of dispensations for various causes by an appropriate authority in the Church. An example today concerns the age of ordination. A dispensation is a means by which the exception allowed may assert more vigorously the principle from which it is an occasional departure. It was the clear wish of the synod that in the matter before us we should proceed by dispensation and that the ultimate discretion should lie with the Archbishops of Canterbury and York. We do not wish to rescind the existing Measure or the Canon. We wish the principle to remain. However, we believe that there are cases in which its provisions are inappropriate. We believe that the procedures for dispensation, though tightly drawn, are manageable. We believe that the archbishops have the means to carry out their responsibilities with care and justice.
The question of justice is illustrated by what happens to a clergyman when his marriage fails. In many cases such clergymen will continue in office without any disciplinary consequences. Only in cases where there is misconduct in terms of the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure can action be taken to deprive an incumbent of his benefice. If an incumbent who is divorced remarries, or if a bachelor priest marries a divorced woman, in most cases he is able to continue his ministry. There is no legal barrier to that.
I should add that at present no substantial body of opinion in the Church of England has emerged which would wish to change this. Here I must mention the Motion standing in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale. Were his amendment to be carried not only would mine be negated but other unfortunate consequences would follow. Would it not be somewhat inconsistent for Parliament, which has legislated for easier divorce, to call in question the enabling Act itself by making a judgment on the discipline of the Church? More than that, it would be intolerable that a beneficed clergyman going through a divorce procedure, perhaps against his will, should automatically lose job, house and income, which appears to be what the noble Earl seeks.
As I have said, there is no substantial body of opinion in the Church of England that supports such a move. It seems somewhat strange that so draconian a proposal
"that no beneficed clergyman who is divorced … may continue to minister"
should come from one in whose own Scottish Episcopal Church there is no legislative bar to the ordination of those who have remarried after divorce, let alone those who have simply been divorced.
There are many examples of clergy whose experience of marital failure and subsequent establishment of a strong second marriage has enhanced their effective preparation of couples for marriage. The witness of failure, forgiveness and renewal is crucial to the understanding of the gospel. We live under grace. We seek to witness to that grace in relation to those currently barred from ordination.
1014
There are still other searching tests to be applied to the character of those who seek ordination; but we believe that a person should not invariably be barred at the outset by the single matter of his or her marital status.
Perhaps I may illustrate the point by means of some actual examples. A man intent on ordination falls in love with a woman who years before has been deserted by her husband. There were grounds for a legal annulment of the marriage but the couple were advised to seek divorce because it was simpler and would avoid publicity. The marriage of the man to that woman would put a stop to the pursuit of his vocation. Yet the irony is that if they postponed their marriage until after the ordination no penalty would automatically attach to it.
Perhaps I may take a second example. A woman is badly battered by her husband and finds comfort, help and advice from her local priest and church. She is confirmed. Years later she marries again and her new husband becomes a Christian through her witness. He has not been married before. Gradually he feels himself called to the priesthood, but he cannot test his vocation because of his wife's previous marriage. The absolute bar to his ordination is not a witness to the forgiving and life-changing faith he and his wife have experienced.
The anxieties expressed by those opposed to this Measure, both in the synod and in the Ecclesiastical Committee, have been clearly set out in the report of the committee. It is first said that the measure would weaken the Church's witness to the doctrine of indissolubility of marriage. Our Lord taught that marriages are meant for life. Anything else spells failure. There is no question about that, and no going soft on that. But he was not legislating for an institution. His words are divine insight into the truth and challenge to follow it.
That point has been weighed very seriously at all stages of our debate. We believe that we should be able to hold up the ideal of matrimony as a lifelong commitment so attractively that we can have the confidence to cope with the exceptions that rightly deserve special consideration. I agree profoundly that the number of marriage breakdowns in our society is a tragic development; but the reasons are complex. It would be difficult to prove that the removal of religious sanctions to uphold marriage as an institution has itself given rise to a higher divorce rate. It would be easier to prove that teaching the special blessing of a lifelong union is the way to reverse the trend.
All Churches vary in their treatment of that difficult word "indissolubility". The Roman Catholic Church makes use of extended grounds of nullity. The Orthodox speak of the concept of the death of a marriage, and allow second marriages in church. Those Churches are equally attempting to cope with pastoral realities as they strive to build good marriages and family life and witness to the sanctity of marriage.
Secondly, it is said that,
"The Church should require exemplary standards of the clergy.
We do not dissent from that opinion of the Committee in any degree. But there are many whose

1015
sins in the past have had to be forgiven and overcome. As the scriptures tell us, Peter was an apostate and Paul was a murderer of Christians. A would-be ordinand said to me, "If I had committed a serious crime in the past, you would test my vocation. But, since my wife was divorced years ago, you won't". I believe that it is intolerable that we should be forced by law into so unjust a pastoral approach.
A third reason given is that it is inappropriate to amend the canon law in that particular respect while leaving the regulation barring the marriage of divorced persons in church unamended. Those are related but distinct questions. It is perhaps worth pointing out that no lay persons are disqualified from office, whether they be churchwarden or church commissioner, on grounds that apply to those who seek holy orders.
In regard to remarriage in church, the difficulty is that each wedding service is a witness to what Christians believe about marriage—I recognise that—whereas an ordination is not a witness to the nature of marriage, but a sign that God can call ordinary, sinful people to his service and, through grace or forgiveness, open up the way to holiness of life
The last argument advanced against the Measure is that there are no criteria specifying the basis on which the discretion of the archbishops would be exercised. We have tried to meet that final point in my recent statement to the House of Bishops, explaining the kind of considerations that would be taken into account in determining dispensations. It is clear that the Faculties will be far from easily obtained. It should be emphasised that the application for a dispensation would not be put by the candidate, but by a diocesan bishop after his own searching inquiries. We cannot allow our discretion to be codified or it would then cease to be a discretion, but the general principles are clear. A copy has been placed in the Library.
Several hundred years ago the Church of England decided that a married clergy was God's will for his Church. It was then that the clergy's personal and domestic lives became involved ineluctably with what happens to marriage in society. There is no way in which we can simply say that, whatever happens to marriage in our society, the clergy will somehow be exempt, either miraculously or by legislation.
As we consider law and practice in this matter, more than one doctrine or principle is at stake. I prefer to lay stress on grace and forgiveness and believe that I have the mind of the Church in asking your Lordships to support the proposal. The consideration given to it in synod was thorough. There has been a wide-ranging debate in the Ecclestical Committee and in the Legislative Committee of General Synod, both separately and in a joint conference, and I testify to its constructive character. I hope that your Lordships will now find it expedient that the Measure be forwarded for Royal Assent. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Clergy (Ordination) Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent.—(The Archbishop of Canterbury.)
6.7 p.m.
The Earl of Lauderdale The Earl of Lauderdale rose to move,
That the debate on the measure be adjourned until the present anomaly as between candidates for ordination and incumbents has been corrected to ensure that no beneficed clergyman who is divorced, or has married a divorcee while a former partner of either is living, may continue to minister.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, perhaps I may begin by saying that I am sure that the whole House was deeply moved by the sincere and wonderful words that we have just heard from the most reverend Primate. I should like to take this opportunity to say that I take no relish whatever in the line that I propose to expound, least of all since it is contrary to the purposes of the most reverend Primate, to whom I and my family are personally grateful for his great kindness. I am sure that he will realise that one is only trying to speak the truth in love.
First, there is no question about the legitimacy of an amendment under the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919. There is no question that Parliament has the right and duty to scrutinise and even, if necessary, to vote on a synod measure. Parliament represents the state Church's constituency—all who live in England—like it or not. That is how things are under the 1919 Act. There are quite recent precedents for Motions and debates, and indeed, votes on measures received from the synod. I have in mind those in 1963 and 1964 about Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction on the one hand and the vesture of ministers on the other.
The debate is not about divorce as such, let alone the misdeeds and ill-doings of many of us here present. It is about the priesthood and—as a layman I say this with the deepest respect—about the priesthood being tampered with. There may be procedural claims that the synod should have handled the matter differently and have come to this House on a matter of such gravity only on the basis of a two-thirds majority. I am not competent even to comment on that as an issue of law. However, as a layman I have to say—and I think I echo the voices of many—that we have had a lot of upsets in quite recent years and I claim that the present anomaly between canon law and civil law, instead of being corrected, is to be made worse. Clergy who are parties to the breaking of a lifelong oath may apparently minister at the taking of that oath.
The Preface to the Ordinal in the Book of Common Prayer requires candidates to be "of virtuous conversation". I submit that that can hardly mean that a man of virtuous conversation is one who is party to the breach of a lifelong oath. However, much we as individuals have erred, we as what I would call church back-benchers—pew members—want to look up to our clergy and be able to honour them without reserve. It is reasonable enough that we should look to them for an example.
I submit that the Church needs a holy and pious priesthood. We need that much more than, if I may use the term, a layer of clubbable good companions.
The most reverend Primate quoted from The Times. That newspaper has reminded us that we might well look into the question of whether the synod should not have seen this issue as sufficiently fundamental for the requirement of a two-thirds majority in each House. Personally, again as a pew member outside the synod and holding no office whatsoever in the Church, I have to say that it seems to me that the minimal requirement should surely have been an overwhelming majority. In fact, we find that 15 per cent. of the bishops were against it, as well as 30 per cent. of the clergy and 40 per cent. of the laity. Whatever the legal niceties may be, I believe that we are entitled to say that there is a moral case that such a change should only be proposed on the basis of a two-thirds majority.
We all agree that the ecclesiastical set-up as between Church and state is awkward at the very least. But part of that set-up is indeed the Ecclesiastical Committee which was established by the Act of 1919. It usually passes measures fairly easily and they then come to your Lordships' House. It is common to pass them in the dinner hour, more or less on the nod. But on this occasion that was not the position by any manner of means.
The Ecclesiastical Committee, consisting of 15 Members from each House, held six meetings stretching over a period of more than a year—in fact, 13 months. There was an average attendance of 22 Members out of 30. One vote went eight to five against the Measure, with 11 abstentions; in other words, there were 24 Members present. The Measure was finally deemed expedient by a single vote, there being 10 votes to nine, with one abstention, including the vote of the chairman from whom I am glad to learn that we shall hear later on in this debate. So by any measurement it was only by a squeak passed by the Ecclesiastical Committee as expedient.
In the committee, the record of whose proceedings is available to all Members of the House from the Vote Office, it emerged that whereas at first the committee had been led to believe that only a handful of cases was in question, and of course the discretion proposed would be very narrowly used indeed, there were in fact more than 200 cases. Then, as an olive branch held out toward the synod, the committee invited the archbishops to describe the criteria that they would use if the Measure were passed. That particular point is contained in the final paragraph of the report, paragraph 9.
The archbishops were invited to provide that information when the Measure was presented. It was tabled on the 19th June. In fact the address of the most reverend Primate to his own House of Bishops was at approximately the same time—the 19th June—and he then listed his criteria. As the most reverend Primate said, they are available in the Library. However, I have to say that as recently as last Thursday, just a fortnight after the Measure was tabled and only one parliamentary day before this
1018
debate, they had not reached the Library. Several telephone calls had to be made to the synod in order to obtain copies, and I only got a copy with considerable difficulty. No doubt there was some slip-up in the machinery.
The archbishops were asked to produce the criteria as a kind of olive branch—and I say "olive branch" because, although I am not a member of the committee, I used the privilege of being a Member of this House to sit in what one might call the "strangers gallery" and listen to the proceedings—and the principles that were set out in the most reverend Primate's speech to the House of Bishops seemed to take us back rather than forward. A new doctrine, if I may use that term—or perhaps "principle" is a safer word—of distance in terms of both time and space regarding the events in question is enunciated.
I want to ask, putting it very crudely, this question: Is a murder any less a murder because it was committed 20 years ago? Of course we know, and I think that everybody in the Committee agreed, as will everybody, that there are cases within very narrow bounds. The most reverend Primate cited one this afternoon, mentioning a person who is converted to Christianity late in life after these events. That is a very different situation. However, it has to be said, and I am sure that your Lordships will recognise the principle that has often been enunciated here and elsewhere, that hard cases make bad law. Although it is proposed to build up a body of case law in these matters, which is some consolation to the rest of us, we have no idea of how the next generation of archbishops will handle the matter, whatever body of experience they may inherit.
This is not simply a question about divorce. If I may say so, it is not really even about the priesthood, because there are many ways of serving the Church outside the priesthood, and to that point I shall return. This concerns a man or woman who has been involved in, or at some point has consented to, the breach of a solemn lifelong vow. I put the question: Shall that man—or woman, if it is a woman deacon—then preside when others take the same solemn vow before God and in the presence of the congregation which is there to witness it?
We are told that the unworthiness of a minister hinders not the effect of a sacrament. Thank goodness that is so. Come to that, thank goodness the unworthiness of a communicant does not affect the benefit of the communion. But in the case of marriage is it not the fact that the minister, priest or deacon who is presiding, presides as a witness on behalf of the Almighty and the sacrament is in fact administered by the two parties? So the question of unworthiness does not really arise in this case.
I ask: Shall such a man who has been involved, either directly or by indirect consent, in the breach of a lifelong vow taken by someone else, be the one who at the end of the ceremony declares, as he folds his stole over the couple's hands, "Those whom God hath joined together let no man put asunder"? Is he the man to advise bridal couples beforehand? Is he best placed to encourage those in marital difficulties to stick to it and not to take the easy way out?
We are sometimes told that the priest who has been through the misery, pain and suffering of divorce is better placed than others to give such advice. I should like to put a different point of view. Surely the priest who is deeply spiritual, whose life is steeped in prayer, who is a man of tranquillity, calm and quietness, and a man of purity, is better placed than the man with what I call human experience. We are told that it is the pure in heart who shall see God. I ask whether such a person is the one to prepare children for confirmation, Is he the one to help us to pray? Is he the one to lead us in private austerity, such as fasting? Is he the one to lead us in meditation? Is he the one to be authorised to give the absolution which is provided for in the Book of Common Prayer, at the Visitation of the Sick, and in the homily at Holy Communion? Is he the one to give absolution, whether in private or public?
Perhaps I may say this in the nicest possible way, but sincerely. I take this opportunity to beg the most reverend Primate and his fellow bishops not to ignore the laity. Aside from raising money for the Church, it is the laity sooner or later who beget the clergy and ultimately the bishops. We beget ordination candidates. We often go to great lengths to foster vocations. My father's vocation was fostered by his mother at the age of 10. My son's vocation was fostered by myself from childhood. I speak therefore with some feeling on this matter. I have seen the priesthood from close to all my life. My grandfather was a priest. My father was a priest. My brother was a priest, and, happily, my son is a priest. From that close view, I am well aware of the strains which no mere human solace can assuage and of the great spiritual loneliness and terrible sense of frustration which priests endure. Nothing but grace can put that right or support them.
I believe that we have a duty to support and never to debase the priesthood. As I consider this, I wonder what Wesley, Pusey, Liddon, King, Temple or Lang would have said. It seems to me that we are being invited to assent to a glaring and unworthy contradiction. My Motion is a plea in the long run to look at the whole matter fundamentally, from the 1919 Act onwards. We are so often told that clergy must respond to the trend of times and difficulties. Times were always difficult. We are also bidden in scripture,
"Be ye not conformed to the world but be ye transformed".
This is a measure which in my view overtly bows the knee to what I think our Lord would have called the adulterous world around us. I see the Church in danger, and so I beg to move.
Moved, That debate on the measure be adjourned until the present anomaly as between candidates for ordination and incumbents has been corrected to ensure that no beneficed clergyman who is divorced, or has married a divorcee while a former partner of either is living, may continue to minister.—(The Earl of Lauderdale.)
6.27 p.m.
Lord Bridge of Harwich: My Lords, if the law leads to results that the intelligent layman would regard as ridiculous or anomalous it is time that the law
1020
was changed. The present state of canon law which this measure seeks to modify is just such a law. Let us consider the position of two men aspiring to ordination in the Church of England. The first is a married man. Either he or his wife were parties to a previous marriage which broke down and was dissolved; the previous spouse of one of them is still living. The second man was convicted of murder. He was sentenced to life imprisonment and he has now been released from that sentence on licence. The second man may repent. He may be forgiven and, in appropriate cases, he may be accepted for ordination. The first man may not. The absurdity of the situation appears from this consideration. The only circumstance which can release the first man—the married man—from the absolute ban on his ordination is the death of his wife, or the death of his own former spouse, or the death of his wife's former spouse. How can one of those fortuitous circumstances affect his suitability or acceptability as a minister of the Church of England? It is the absoluteness of the ban, its rigidity and inflexibility, which makes its operation irrational and arbitrary. It is only that rigidity and inflexibility which this measure seeks to mitigate.
Manifestly the greatest anomaly in the present situation is that the absolute ban applies only to those seeking ordination. It has no application to those already ordained. When I read the Motion for the adjournment of the debate on this measure which has been moved by the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, I thought that he was going to speak to the Motion which stands in his name. Noble Lords will have read it. The proposal is that the measure should be adjourned until the present anomaly as between candidates for ordination and incumbents has been corrected. The noble Earl's proposal, as expressed in the Motion—although he has not spoken a single word in support of it—must imply this. There should be legislation so that any bishop, priest or deacon in the Church of England who has been a party to a marriage at some time, or who marries having a previous spouse living, or who marries a woman with a previous spouse living, is guilty of an absolute ecclesiastical offence. In order to cure the anomaly, such a measure would have to operate retrospectively so as to disqualify and deprive of their benefices all those who had at some time in the past contracted offending marriages of the kind to which the legislation was directed. That being so, even if the legislation were not retrospective, it would have such an element of legalistic rigour that, in my submission, it would be wholly unacceptable to public opinion either in the Church of England or in the country at large. I ask rhetorically: who will introduce such legislation? Clearly it will not be the General Synod of the Church of England. If not the synod, then who else? The only way in which the anomaly will be removed, therefore, is by this modest measure proposing the conferring of discretion by canon on the most reverend Primates.
Perhaps I may say a word about the roles of both the Ecclesiastical Committee and Parliament in a measure of this nature. Parliament, in the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, conferred upon the then Church of England Assembly the power to legislate on its own affairs by measures

1021
which would acquire the force of law only if approved by affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament. The old church assembly is now the synod, whose constitution is governed by the Synodical Government Measure 1969, but the Ecclesiastical Committee still derives its constitution and its functions from the Act of 1919. It consists of 15 Peers, appointed by the Lord Chancellor and 15 Members of the House of Commons, appointed by the Speaker. I do not know what the qualifications are, but I presume that they are all communicant members of the Church of England, though the statute does not require that they should be. I suspect that the primary qualification is a willingness to be drafted.
The function of the Ecclesiastical Committee derives from the statute. Every measure has to be submitted to the committee for report before it is laid before Parliament. The committee is required to report:
"its views as to the expediency [of a measure], especially with relation to the constitutional rights of all His Majesty's subjects".
That is the statutory language from which the committee derives its function. It defines the scope of its function and is a very imprecise and unsatisfactory phrase.
As your Lordships know, this measure has aroused strong controversy in the Ecclesiastical Committee, but my suspicion is that a large measure of that controversy arises from differences of view as to the scope of the committee's functions as defined by that term. My view has always been and remains that the essential function of the Ecclesiastical Committee is to act as a kind of parliamentary watchdog. We are to scrutinise measures which come up from the synod to make sure that they do not encroach upon or conflict with the general law in such areas as, for example, the liberty of the subject or rights of property.
But, when the synod has passed and approved a measure relating to the internal domestic affairs of the Church, and certainly when the only matter of controversy arising from a measure turns upon a point of theology and doctrine, it has always seemed to me to be a quite improper exercise of any function conferred on the Ecclesiastical Committee for its members to prefer the latter's own views to the views which have been expressed by the Church's representative body by appropriate votes of the three houses of the General Synod.
It is at this point that I must say a word about the technicalities raised regarding the two-thirds vote. This was before the Ecclesiastical Committee. It was debate by me ad nauseam in correspondence before the Ecclesiastical Committee ever sat and it arises from a total misconception of the effect of the Worship and Doctrine Measure 1974. I am sorry about the technicalities, but to understand the point one must appreciate the elementary difference between primary and secondary legislation. We all know the difference between an Act of Parliament and a statutory instrument. The analogy in the synod is a measure and a canon. The measure is the synod's primary legislation, which of course requires approval by resolution of both Houses. Legislation
1022
by canon is the synod's secondary legislation, which does not require approval.
A canon can only be enacted so far as it is authorised by a measure, and the Worship and Doctrine Measure authorises legislation by canon in certain matters relating to worship and doctrine. Section 3 of that measure provides that legislation by canon under the authority of Section 1 or 2 of the Worship and Doctrine Measure must be by two-thirds majority of those voting in each of the three houses of the synod. That measure has nothing whatever to do with primary legislation by measure, as the most reverend Primate has already pointed out. That is governed by the Church's constitution, found in Schedule 2 to the Act of 1969, paragraph 5. The normal measure is to be approved by a simple majority of those present and voting in each of the three houses. It is only the special measures, to which the most reverend Primate has referred, which require two-thirds majority under paragraph 8 and, by the procedure which conclusively resolves any question as to the application of paragraph 8, it was determined that this measure was not a paragraph 8 measure. So the point on the Worship and Doctrine Measure 1974 is wholly without substance and is misconceived.
Next there is the question of majorities in the synod, which were, as has already been pointed out, some 85 per cent. in favour in the House of Bishops; 68 per cent. in favour of the House of Clergy, which was well over two-thirds; and only marginally less than two-thirds in the House of Laity, at 61 point something per cent. The point about majorities has been echoed in the minority view expressed in the Ecclesiastical Committee's report that the approval of a measure in the synod does not express the voice of the Church. If the voice of the Church is not to be expressed by a constitutional vote of the synod, I do not know how it is to be expressed.
I have already taken longer than I intended, but finally I want to say a word about the role of Parliament. The General Synod, with its House of Bishops and its elected houses of the clergy and the laity, is the body to which Parliament has committed the primary responsibility for legislating in ecclesiastical matters. Of course it is right that synod legislation, primary legislation, should require Parliament's imprimatur before it becomes law. The question is, on what grounds is it appropriate that imprimatur should be withheld? It goes without saying that if some constitutional issue arises out of a synod measure, Parliament should resolve it. I appreciate that, if a measure comes before Parliament which threatens to split the established Church asunder, that would indeed give rise to a constitutional issue. The possibility of such a measure coming before the House in the foreseeable future is obviously present in all your Lordships' minds, but the present measure is not of that nature at all. Controversy over the measure lies in the relatively narrow field of theology and doctrine, which it is surely within the competence of the Church's representative body to resolve. It would be quite inappropriate, in my respectful submission, for Members of your Lordships' House to take the stance that their own personal views of the

1023
theological merits of the issue should stand in the way of implementing the Church's own solution to a difficult problem which has been approved by the Church's own elected body acting entirely within its statutory constitution.
6.39 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, I should like to begin with an apology. I was called to give evidence on behalf of the General Synod to the Ecclesiastical Committee of Parliament. During the course of that examination I was asked about the number of people likely to be considered under this draft Measure. I recognise now that I was less than clear in my answers and if in any way I misled the committee I apologise both to the committee and to the House. No figures had been ascertained at that stage. I could therefore rely only on my own experience.
At the time that I gave evidence I had been a bishop for five years. During that period I was aware of only one person in my diocese whom I should have liked the freedom to consider under this proposal. If that is typical then there would be about nine cases a year under consideration by different diocesan bishops, some of whom might become the subject of an application to the archbishops.
Since I gave evidence to the committee an inquiry has been made about the number of people known to be hoping for consideration under the Measure. Across the whole of the Church of England the figure is about 240. That is not an annual figure; it is an accumulated figure. It is the total which has accumulated over the period since the Measure was first suggested. Although it represents the number of people who are known it does not mean that that number will form the subject of an application.
The person in my diocese to whom I have already referred is known to my officers but I have not yet met him. I have indicated that I cannot consider him until the law allows. When I meet him I may decide that the circumstances do not justify any application or that he is not a suitable person. Whatever the number may be to whom the archbishops give a faculty it must be seen against the annual number of ordinations in the Church of England. At the present time it is running at approximately 528 a year. So I hope that shows that although the numbers may be larger than when I gave evidence to the Ecclesiastical Committee we are talking about a small number of people who are exceptions to the General rule.
Who are the people who might be considered under the provision? The potential candidate in my diocese married a divorcee some 15 years ago. His wife's first marriage was never consummated. When she wanted that marriage dissolved the lawyers advised her that it might be more straightforward to obtain a divorce than a decree of nullity. So she took her lawyers' advice and obtained a divorce. Therefore, the man concerned is now married to a divorcee and automatically barred by law from consideration. Had his wife been advised differently by her lawyers she might have obtained a decree of nullity and her present husband would have no impediment.
1024
Let us take another situation. A growing number of those coming forward for ministry are new Christians brought to Christian life and faith later in life. A man may contract an unwise marriage in his early years before he is a Christian. His wife leaves him for another man. He obtains a divorce and both he and his first wife marry again. As a result of his trauma the man grows and matures, is helped by the Church and becomes a Christian. But because of what he did some years ago before becoming a Christian he is legally barred from ordination.
A contemporary of his, who in his pre-Christian days was promiscuous and had a number of transitory partners but never actually married, also matures, settles down, marries and is converted to Christian faith and life. He can be considered. It is in order to be free from such awkward situations that this modest Measure is proposed.
I have a further concern. The present bar to ordination is not attached to divorce but to remarriage. On any strict understanding of the doctrine of indissolubility I can understand that. But the Church of England as a whole has never adhered to a rigid doctrine of indissolubility. We uphold firmly that marriage is lifelong, exclusive and total in its commitment and it should not be dissolved. For most of us the primary failure is the breakdown of the marriage and the divorce rather than the subsequent decision to remarry. So the law excludes at the wrong point.
Furthermore, we must ask: why is this one offence of remarriage a legal impediment? As the law stands at present we can ordain a penitent murderer and a reformed embezzler but not a divorcee. Commonsense and justice indicate that at least there should be provision for exceptions to such a legal impediment.
In his maiden speech the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, rightly referred to the importance of having high standards in the priesthood. I fully and unequivocally support that. Our difficulty is that we can use only men. I must tell your Lordships—if you have not already noticed—that men are sinners; a bundle of frailties and failures. Therefore, we must all minister from a position of failure and the experience of forgiveness. Although we must work for the highest possible standards we cannot expect perfection. We must recognise that priests are and will aways be human.
I suggest that this is a most modest Measure passed by a majority in the General Synod of 293 to 147. That is a majority which I suggest any parliamentarian on this side of the river would describe as "substantial" if not "overwhelming". It gives a discretion—and no more—to the two archbishops after scrutiny by our diocesan bishop. Surely there is nothing here which will overturn Church or state or the relations between them.
6.47 p.m.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, I apologise for entering into the debate as a totally unqualified layman but simply as a communicant of the Church of England. I have deliberately come

1025
without notes because I believe that if I do so I am less likely to detain the House for any length of time.
Of course, I do not question to the slightest degree either the sincerity or the seriousness of the arguments put forward with obvious passion by my noble friend Lord Lauderdale. But I must argue that the amendment that he has proposed is utterly misguided. I wish to support in every way the speeches of the most reverend Primate and the right reverend Prelate and of my noble and learned friend on the Cross Benches who is the chairman of the Ecclesiastical Committee.
I hope that one phrase will not be heard again in the debate. I am referring to "hard cases make bad laws". That is an utter misuse of a jurisprudential cliché. The fact is that silly and unjust laws make hard cases. One cannot justify a silly and unjust law on the basis of a cliché which is designed to illustrate a totally different truth.
The real truth is that the debate has become a matter of serious consideration not only because of the inherent importance of the subject matter but, as my noble and learned friend Lord Bridge has pointed out, because it raises the serious question of the relationship between the established Church of England and the state as represented by the Queen in Parliament. I take the same view on that matter as did my noble and learned friend.
I have one or two qualifications for so doing. In one way or another I have interested myself in every one of these debates since the Prayer Book controversy of 1928. Few of them have been helpful and where the opposition to the Church organs have been successful they have almost always done more harm than good. They have nearly always been inspired by religious beliefs held with more passion than common sense. We must consider where we stand in this matter. The Church of England has always been accused of Erastianism. A little bit of Erastianism does you good, and I think that some part of the accusation sticks.
However, we must consider what a body of this kind—and I am looking at the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby—has to say about testing the vocation of a man who wants to enter the priesthood of the Church of England. I am told that the passage of the synodal Measure was entirely at large. The synodal Measure introduced the Ecclesiastical Committee, whose terms of reference were correctly cited by my noble and learned friend. It is quite clear to me that when Parliament sanctioned that Measure and the synodal government was introduced, it was really saying that the constitutional rights of all Her Majesty's subjects was a proper matter for Parliament to safeguard, and the word "expediency" where it occurs in the earlier part of the terms of reference must be read in the light of the whole clause.
We have to consider questions of public interest rather than the particular view of the sanctity of marriage which my noble friend Lord Lauderdale has put forward. I should like to assure him that whatever else may be true, to my detriment, I hold as serious a view of the obligations of marriage as he does, although I do not agree with the application of it to this Measure.
1026
Let us consider how the matter has developed. It happens that I was the first Lord Chancellor to have to consider the effects of the Private Member's Bill which was enacted in 1969, when I was in another place and when I was the spokesman for home affairs and therefore had to take part in the debates. The second time that I was Lord Chancellor I realised at once that the points which I had put forward by way of criticism of that piece of legislation were so serious that in every Session of Parliament during which I held that office, I tried to bring in a family law reform measure to make sense of the situation which was developing.
However, one has to recognise that since 1969 the secular status of marriage is a contract leading to a status. It is not a sacrament. It can exist equally between two divorced persons; it can exist between two Quakers who do not have sacraments, between two Moslems who believe in polygamy; it can or cannot exist between two atheists; it can exist between any persons capable of contracting a marriage in this country, whatever their religion and whatever their religious views. The secular status of marriage is a contract leading to a status.
I know that my noble friend did not intend to mislead anybody in any way, but it is utterly false to say that a man who marries a divorced woman—a woman who has been divorced—is necessarily either breaking his own oath if he has been divorced or encouraging her to break hers. Those churches that hold the indissolubility of marriage—the Roman Catholic Church being the most notable example—have a very elaborate jurisprudence of nullity which is totally different from our own. If an ordinand presents himself for ordination in the Church of England, wishing to marry or having married a lady who has been married for the second and third time after two or three divorces, he is not necessarily infringing the particular view of marriage held by the Church of England because the original partner of the first marriage may easily be dead. If this Measure were not passed, the fact that his partner had been divorced twice and the latest of the partners was still alive would be an absolute bar against ordination.
Where are we going as between Church and state? The position is this. Secular divorce and secular marriage at the present state of the law are part of the secular law of the state. They do not form part of the ecclesiastical and sacramental view of the nature of marriage to which I have no doubt whatever my noble friend Lord Lauderdale subscribes. We must recognise that fact. What we are discussing in this Measure—were we to go into the merits, which I am not, in the short time that I wish to take—is the reality of a vocation from God to enter into the Church of England priesthood. What I am suggesting—and I only echo what has fallen from the Bishops' Bench on this occasion—is that that is a matter which has to be tested by the Church authorities and not by the Queen in Parliament.
If a public interest issue were involved or if the rights of all Her Majesty's subjects were involved, I should be the first to claim the right for Parliament to veto any ecclesiastical Measure which the Bishops

1027
put forward. However, they are talking about something within their peculiar jurisdiction. The Measure was passed by the Synod by substantial majorities in each of the Houses. Usually, in Parliament, a majority of one is considered to be enough. We do not usually decide that if there is only a small majority we ought to defer the measure before it receives Royal Assent. We are not people to talk about two-thirds majorities. I am not prepared to take very much notice of that point for the exact reason given by my noble and learned friend on the Cross Benches.
There is a very serious point which we have to consider. The Church of England is a denomination among many other religious denominations in this country. I happen to belong to it and I hope that I am a loyal member. It is not for Parliament to carry Erastianism too far. It is for Parliament to study public policy questions; and questions of whether a man's vocation to the sacred ministry is a true vocation coming from God or a form of self-congratulation as to his own sanctity are not matters for us. I hope that this amendment is decisively rejected.
6.58 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I enter this debate with the very greatest hesitation, recognising how little I know about the theology of the matter and how little experience I have of these questions. However, I speak very much as a layman, a very ordinary member in the pew. It is as a layman and from a layman's point of view that I should like to say a few words. Before doing so, I should like to say how very much I agree—if it is not presumptuous to say so—with the speech made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham.
Behind the arguments today lies the question of the relationship between Parliament and the Church and the Church's right to settle its own affairs through its own elected machinery. I think it is of the greatest importance that we bear that point in mind when we vote on this Measure.
Looking at the matter from the view of a very ordinary layman, perhaps I may say this. If a man, through his wife or his own experience, is prohibited from being considered for a priesthood, how is that going to look to the laity as a whole? I suggest that everybody in this House must know through their own friends and family, if not through their personal experience, people who have struggled through the hideous business—and for most it is a hideous business—of divorce with all that that means. In fortunate cases such people have been able to make a second marriage which has been a very fulfilling experience for them.
Surely we have all seen how very good relationships and good families have developed through those second marriages. How are those people going to feel if it is said that someone in their own position is not even to be considered for the priesthood? It is a way of saying to them that what they have done is not acceptable. Otherwise, why should a person with that experience be turned down out of hand, and not even allowed to be considered
1028
for the priesthood? It is an implied condemnation of the way in which they have attempted to solve their own very difficult problems.
The next point that I wish to raise is how grossly unfair such a ruling will be to individuals. We can all cite particular cases which we know about. Let us consider the case of a man's wife who leaves him and goes back to the man with whom she lived before she married. Of course one does not know the circumstances, and one never knows all of the circumstances in such cases. These matters cannot be judged from outside. She goes back to her previous lover, and the lover and she now wish to marry. What can the husband do except agree that she should be free so to do? He divorces her. He does not wish to do so; but he does so because the alternative is that she will continue to live with her lover to whom she wishes to be married, but she will not live in a married status.
The man who has divorced the woman thereby releasing her for the marriage that she now seeks, if the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, has his way, is not to be considered for the priesthood. My Lords, what is the right action for a man in those circumtances? Is he to say that because they have entered into an indissoluble relationship for the rest of her life she is not to be allowed to marry her lover although she has not the slightest intention of returning to the man to whom she has been married? Can that be fair and right?
As a very ordinary layman, I feel very strongly indeed that it is quite extraordinary that we attach so much importance to sexual offences in relation to all other kinds of offences. You can be cruel or greedy; you can cheat and be arrogant and avaricious; but those defects are apparently forgivable. However, if you trip up in your sexual relationships, that is not to be forgiven. I simply cannot understand that as an argument, and I cannot accept it. The noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, raised what I suppose is a theological difference between us. He said that you want to be able to look up to your priest. I hope that the Bench of Bishops will not misunderstand me; but, frankly, I do not particularly want to look up to my priest. However, I do want to be able to talk to him. When I talk to him, I hope that he can understand. It is my belief that it will be far easier for members of the laity to speak to those who are sanctioned by the archbishops—and I am sure it will not be done frivolously—and I believe they will be men and I hope women in due course, with understanding, because of the experience that they have been through.
7.4 p.m.
The Marquess of Salisbury: My Lords, much has been made in the speeches this evening of the exceptions and the benefits that will arise were those concerned given the opportunity to join the priesthood. I wish to query whether we are advocating going down the right road. I have always had doubts whether government by what I call "exception" is not in effect lowering the general standard. I wish particularly to speak about the impact that it might have on the congregations under the ordinands.

1029
We all know that we look up to our parish priest and we expect him to set a standard. It seems to be extremely difficult, if he has broken some rules of the Church, that he should retain respect in the same way as he would have done if he had not been so involved. There are many other opportunities within the Church which such a man can take without being ordained. I wonder whether we are looking at the matter the wrong way round. The question is whether we are lowering Christian standards in this way. I suggest to your Lordships that this Measure is one of a series. Over the years exceptions have continued to be made in various spheres including divorce. Is it right that we should go further without the risk of weakening Christian standards which the Church is supposed to promote?
I wonder how much the teaching of the Church is now concentrated on Christian ethics. Is not the Church going down the road of care? Of course it is necessary to have pastoral care, but do we really need to have a Church acting as second fiddle to the social services? The money raised there could perhaps be used more profitably by paying better salaries to the hard working parish priests. The Church very seldom now tells people what they should not do. It is quite happy to tell them what they ought to do. I wonder how long it is since any of your Lordships have heard the Ten Commandments read out in Church. For my part it is a very long time ago. One of those is that thou shalt not commit adultery. That is what we are talking about now.
I have listened with great care to what the most reverend Primate the Archbishop had to say. I am not clear whether he is satisfied that this Measure is in line with the teachings of our Lord as set out in Chapter 19 of St. Matthew where He says:
"And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery".
That seems to be fundamental to the issue that we are talking about tonight.
So many of the laity have lost touch with the Church. It does not seem to me that they can be attracted back to the Church by going easy on the moral issues. If one were to draw u parallel between Christianity which seems to be weakening its hold and lowering its standards, and Islam which has maintained its toughest rules, we see Islam forging ahead at this time. Perhaps that is the reason why. I wonder whether this Measure is part of a long line of minor Measures and whether it is one that is not going to be to the detriment of the Church.
7.9 p.m.
Lord Soper: My Lords, I wish ardently to support my noble friend the most reverend Primate in what he has proposed. Consequently, much as I respect him, I object to the amendment which is in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale. I begin by reminding myself that I am a Peer within this House but, despite the ecclesiastical appearance, I carry no sprituality whatsoever here. I believe that that is the beginning of an understanding of the problem that underlies a great deal of what has been said so eloquently today.
1030
There is an inevitable collision between the proper rights of a House such as this and the proper rights of a Church, the Anglican communion. There are aspects of relationships which require law, but if I may refer to the third leader in The Times this morning, I believe that we should have no truck in this House with doctrine as such. That does not come within our purview. The House does not of necessity possess the expertise and the experience which would be required to make a formal and final judgment on a moral issue.
It is in that sense that we are embarking on a false course if we imagine that it is within our power in this House to modify or alter the main principles of Christian morality. But as a noncomformist I would say that only within the framework of disestablishment can there be an effective future for the relationships between Church and state. However, having said that, I find that it is a rather incomplete relationship that I bear to the Christian faith and to the Christian Church.
I am a minister of the Methodist Church. In that ministry I would claim to be a churchman. In its history I would remind myself that John Wesley was an ordained priest within the Anglican communion, and that not a few years ago I had something to do with the attempts which were made between the Anglicans and the Methodists to come together, to recapture that sense of unity whose loss I for one deplore. In that regard I believe that there is for me at least a responsibility to put my own case for the adoption of this Measure and to explain my own sense of the indignity which in some respects is imposed on my most reverend friend in having to bring it before the House.
I look for the time when the Methodists will become a preaching order within the Catholic faith, a preaching order indeed within the Anglican communion. It is in that regard that I feel a sense of responsibility for what in the future may be a disestablished Church, but nevertheless a united and more effective one. That brings me to the consideration of these projects which are included and have relationships, mainly sexual. Perhaps I may remind myself and your Lordships that there has been a transformation in the whole concept of sexual behaviour, much of it for the worse, some of it for the better. But one thing has emerged which is germane to the purpose to which we are looking in this debate. A larger element is required of forgiveness and of understanding in those relationships which were much more categorically either approved of or attacked in my own lifetime.
I resent the concept that at least has been apparent in what has already been said, that there is required some doctrine almost of perfection in those who minister, as I have been doing for the past 60 or more years, in many areas of domestic and personal relationships which have a large element—perhaps a dominant element—of sexual context. I do not believe that in the Church we must look for those who are immune from the temptations or the disabilities that follow after misbehaviour.
It was in what used to be Ceylon that I heard a most eloquent preacher saying that the prime requirement for a minister of the Gospel was that

1031
he should regard himself as one thirsty sinner in a desert able to tell other sinners where they could find water. I recognise that such an enterprise would require something almost of a Water Bill to apply it to the various conditions which prevail in any attempt to expose that to public concern and to public edition. But I believe that that is the prime requirement. I have found in my lifetime that the repentant sinner in many cases becomes a more ardent advocate of that which he has previously ignored or transgressed. Though I would not believe that sexual indulgence or infidelity in marriage qualifies one for a better counsellor, I have every evidence in my past experience as a minister to say that, over and over again, it is easier, as the noble Baroness has said, to talk to somebody whom one can assume will understand what one is talking about. In that regard I believe that this Measure is proper, selective and accurate.
In general principle, I deplore a breakdown of marriage, but in many cases I have found that marriages have died and should be buried. I believe in the concept of a resurrection, but with other partners. What I do deplore is the assumption that this evil, if it is known to be part of the background of one who desires to be ordained, prohibits the kind of effective ministry which a repentant sinner is entitled to believe can be his.
I refer the House to the great Pauline concept of the second Adam, who comes to the fight not only bearing wounds and scars but also that enlightenment which is the product of those who have been genuinely sorry for their sins. And within the protection that is offered in this Measure I believe that both archbishops will be competent to discriminate between those whose divorces have become just means of sexual gratification or sexual negligence and those which are part of the on-going process of the good life. It is in that latter sense that I believe the Measure to be right. I believe that there is sufficient justification for acceptance that the various points in the Measure which are open to complex relationships and results can be effectively dealt with by the provisions of the Measure itself. I wish it well.
7.17 p.m.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, I wish to express a word of support for the Motion which has been so eloquently moved by the most reverend Primate. I fear, on the other hand, that I cannot support the Motion of my noble friend Lord Lauderdale, much though I sympathise with the passionate conviction with which he put his case, and which I well recognise from many occasions in the past when we have been on the same side. I should also like to thank the ecclesiastical committee for its report on this Measure. I note its recommendation in favour of it, which I was glad to see.
In studying the report and appendices I observed that it reflects the deep concern which was expressed by my noble friend Lord Lauderdale at the distressingly high number of divorces today and at the suffering that flows from them, especially for the next generation of the young who start with disturbed
1032
lives. I sympathise with those who are anxious about this Measure. However, I recognise that the General Synod was persuaded by a majority in each House that the balance of justice and mercy in cases where an applicant for ordination has been divorced or is married to a divorced woman, requires that there should be a discretion vested in one or other archbishop to dispense with Section 9 of the 1964 Measure.
I should like just to mention a constitutional point, because I rather suspect from reports which I have read in the press, that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, will be firing off some broadsides on this aspect. I read the evidence of Professor McLean and I also listened to, and was enlightened by, the speech made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bridge, this afternoon. This Measure makes no change in the ordinance; a simple majority in each House of the General Synod is sufficient to take the decision. The Measure is limited to a dispensation; but the order remains in being as before. I feel that that fact must weigh substantially against the arguments which I am sure the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, is about to let loose.
After reading the report most carefully, I must say I recognise that the pros and cons of the argument are evenly balanced. However, in reaching my decision on the Measure, I have been most conscious as a parliamentarian, as others have said this evening, that we have substantially devolved by the 1919 and 1969 synodical Measures to our Church in the body of the General Synod, the general responsibility for managing its own affairs, except in a few reserved instances—of which this is not one. It seems to me that the decision in this case should lie within the judgment of the General Synod and that we in Parliament ought not to argue it all over again.
Lord Bridge of Harwich: Hear, hear!
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, I am delighted to hear the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bridge, say that. Indeed, he has heard a great deal about the matter from the Ecclesiastical Committee.
In this context, I should like to add that I believe this substantial Measure of independent government for our Church will in the long run redound for the greater strength and vitality of our Church, and especially its appeal to the younger generation. I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Soper, as regards his feelings on the matter. I confess that, like many others, I have been strongly critical of action or inaction by our Church leaders in recent years. However, I am still convinced that substantial independence will be for the long term benefit of our Church. Being of that mind, I shall support the Measure and reject the amendment.
7.24 p.m.
Lord Denning: My Lords, I have listened to all the arguments in favour of the Measure. In a way, I come into the debate as an ecclesiastical lawyer of old standing. It is nearly 50 years ago that I was Chancellor of the Dioceses of London and Southwark. It was part of my duty to advise those

1033
bishops on the ecclesiastical law regarding it. First, I shall define marriage in our English ecclesiastical law. Marriage is the personal union of one man with one woman, for better or for worse, to the exclusion of all others on either side, so long as they both shall live. That is the ecclesiastical law of marriage. It is the duty of the Church of England to do all it can to maintain that law and not allow exceptions to it. However sympathetic you may be with the people involved, that is the ecclesiastical law. I am not speaking of the divorce law or the civil law in any way; I am speaking of our ecclesiastical law.
There is a report in this suitably coloured book, called "red" . It reports the proceedings of the Ecclesiastical Committee. I am afraid that I must criticise that report. In paragraph 6, under the heading of "Expediency", it says:
"Section 3(3) of the Act of 1919"—
that is the Act which gave the Church of England Assembly its own legislative powers—
"requires the Ecclesiastical Committee to report 'its views as to the expediency' of a Measure".
Indeed, we have those views on that matter by a narrow majority. But it continues to say—and these are the words which have been omitted altogether—that,
"especially with relation to the constitutional rights of all His Majesty's subjects".
But, this is the important sentence:
"The present Measure in no way affects constitutional rights. The Committee is accordingly concerned with its `expediency' in the most general sense".
In my submission, that is a complete error by the Ecclesiastical Committee. The important words in question are,
"especially with relation to the constitional rights of all His Majesty's subjects".
I repeat, "the constitutional rights".
Now I go back to the Book of Common Prayer of 1662, which was made law by the Act of Uniformity which prescribed the doctrines of the Church of England. It prescribed it in the Apostles' Creed, if you please. Is anyone going to alter that by a narrow majority? The Act of Uniformity prescribed the doctrines of the Church of England; it also prescribed the forms of service and the regulations under which a man can become a clergyman. These matters are all in the Book of Common Prayer. They have all been made law by the Act of Uniformity which remained on our statute book right up until 1974. I shall return to that matter presently. But, then there is our Act of Uniformity and our services.
I expect that many of your Lordships, like myself, have from the age often attended church on Sundays. We have all said our creed. Is that to be altered by a narrow majority? The only way in which it could have been impaired was when we reached the 1974 Measure on doctrine and worship. That Measure repealed—the first Act to do so—the Act of Uniformity. In its place, it gave the General Synod power to change and alter our Book of Common Prayer. The synod should be very careful before it changes or alters the Book of Common Prayer. It not only contains some of the best literature in our
1034
English Language, but it is also the governing instrument for the doctrine of the Church of England, for the forms of service and for the ordinands who come before it.
This is where I return to the Book of Common Prayer. As I read the 1974 Measure, if we are to alter, vary or make exceptions to precepts in that book, then we must do so by a two-thirds majority. This is what the Book of Common Prayer says when it comes to a man who has been guilty of any crime or impediment being ordained. I expect that the right reverend Prelates will all know the text by heart. The Book of Common Prayer contains special provisions for
"The form and manner of making of Deacons.".
Let me remind right reverend Prelates of the conditions:
"¶ Then the Bishop shall say unto the people:
Brethren, if there be any of you who knoweth any Impediment, or notable Crime, in any of these persons presented to be ordered Deacons, for the which he ought not to be admitted to that Office, let him come forth in the Name of God, and shew what the Crime or Impediment is.".
Then come the rubric, printed in red of course to emphasise it:
"¶And if any great Crime or Impediment be objected, the Bishop shall surcease from Ordering that person, until such time as the party accused shall be found clear of that Crime."
Cases of murderers and embezzlers have been illustrated this afternoon. They are all notable crimes. A man cannot be ordained a clergyman if he is accused of any notable crime or impediment.
Since 1662 it has always been an impediment for a man to be married to two wives. It is an impediment to the ordaining of a deacon. That is what I go by. I go by the Book of Common Prayer. I go by the rubric of the Book of Common Prayer.
Then I turn to the 1974 Measure which makes it plain, as I read it, that if we are to make any change in, or amend, the doctrine of the Church of England, or if we are to make any change or alteration in the rubrics, then it must be done by a two-thirds majority. That is an important aspect of our constitution. The Book of Common Prayer stood from 1662 until 1980, when we had the alternative service. If we are to alter our Book of Common Prayer, it is the right of every citizen to see that it is not done except according to law. The full integrity of the Book of Common Prayer must be maintained and can be altered only by due process of law.
Section 3 of the Measure makes it clear that,
"No Canon making any such provision as is mentioned" —
that is interfering with our Prayer Book—
"shall be submitted for Her Majesty's Licence and Assent unless it has been finally approved by the General Synod with a majority in each House thereof of not less than two-thirds of those present and voting".
That provision is contained in the 1974 Measure which is part of this country's statute law. Is that not right, if we are to amend our Book of Common Prayer? Are we going to let that be done by a simple majority? It is the doctrine of the Church of England. If anyone—perhaps the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham or whoever it may be—believes that the wording is wrong or inapplicable today and

1035
wants to amend it, it cannot be done by a simple majority. It can be amended only by a two-thirds majority in each House of the General Synod. That is contained in the Apostles' Creed which is part of the doctrine of the Church of England and is contained in the Book of Common Prayer.
Impediments to ordination are dealt with in the same way. They are catered for in the rubrics. If we are to alter the rubric we must do it by a two-thirds majority. That point was never reported upon by the Ecclesiastical Committee. It said that it was not going to go into the constitutional rights of Her Majesty's subjects. I have read the section to your Lordships. It provides:
"especially with regard to the constitutional rights of Her Majesty's subjects".
An essential constitutional right of all Her Majesty's subjects is the maintenance intact of the Book of Common Prayer. If it is to be amended or altered in any significant respect—whether in the doctrine or the form of service—the 1974 Measure allows it to be done, but let it be done according to law. Let it be done by the two-thirds majority.
With all respect, my noble and learned friend Lord Bridge of Harwich said that we are not proceeding under that 1974 Measure; we are going to amend the Canon by a new Measure of our own. In other words, we cannot do it directly under the 1974 Measure; we will do it indirectly through another Measure. That is impermissible. We cannot get round this country's law by enacting another Measure, which itself would be contaminated in that way. That is the constitutional point. It is a point which affects all Her Majesty's subjects.
The sanctity—if I may put it that way—of our Book of Common Prayer has been the subect of controversy between the Houses, and, as a rule, Parliament fights shy of any alteration to it. Any alteration to the Apostles' Creed or to the ordination of deacons cannot be done without changing the Book of Common Prayer by tampering with its rubrics. As I read this country's ecclesiastical law, as embodied in Section 3 of the 1974 Measure, that is not constitutional and for that entirely legal reason—it conforms with the article in The Times today—we are concerned not so much with ecclesiastical theology as with the rights of Her Majesty's subjects not to have altered the Book of Common Prayer, which has been established by Act of Parliament for over 300 years, except in accordance with the law; and as I read the law there should be a two-thirds majority.
I therefore oppose the Measure and support the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, not on the grounds that he stated but on the wider constitutional grounds which should have been reported upon by the committee but which have not been reported upon.
7.38 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am sure that, whether your Lordships agree or disagree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, we are glad to find that he is here for the first time for many months since his 90th birthday, expressing matters with his usual vigour and great clarity of mind.
1036
I too shall speak to the constitutional point, but I wish to do so in a way which has not so far arisen in the debate. Perhaps I may say, first, that when the most reverend Primate and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford were discussing the merits—I am glad that they did because it is right that we should have some opportunity to do so—they convinced me that there were injustices, anomalies, hardships and inconveniences which need to be rectified. I am a middle of the road member of the Church and a regular worshipper. I assume, for the sake of the argument that I am about to put, and in the light of what has been said, especially by my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham, that we should concern ourselves primarily with ensuring that the Measure has been properly drawn and ensuring that it makes clear its purpose and any change in the law that it carries out. If it does not do those things I should have thought that it was failing Parliament.
What does the Measure do and how does it do it? Perhaps noble Lords will be so good as to glance at the Measure. They will find that it is entirely procedural. It does not state any principles on which it is based; it does not state what changes in the law are to be made. It gives a complete discretion, first, to the bishops and then to the two archbishops, to exercise it in a way which the two archbishops have described in a document which is not before us and which will not be part of the law. The Measure introduces a very important change in the law and practice of our Church. I must confess that I am very surprised that it has been dealt with in the way which is before us, and which I have tried to describe.
It was right for Parliament to say to the Church, "There are certain matters which are your concern and provided that you deal with them properly and in accordance with the procedures laid down, we shall not interfere". But I think that when the matters are brought before us we should know what is happening.
In my opinion, so far as concerns the Measure's effect—and we can only consider its effect because we are not told its terms—it goes too far. In considering this, I say that we should remember, as my noble friend Lord Lauderdale and others have pointed out, that we expect the clergy to be virtuous and to set an example to the rest of us. If the Measure were simply to approve the ordination—I give an example of a man whose wife has deserted him or who has had to divorce her for adultery or any other reason—for my part I should support that. To that extent I must disagree with my noble friend Lord Lauderdale.
However, the Measure would enable a married man, who, for example, committed adultery with another man's wife, to become ordained. There is nothing to stop that. It will not happen; we know that it is unthinkable. But it is no answer to say that no archbishop would let it happen. The point is that we are asked to approve a measure which would in law allow that to happen. We are told that given enough distance in time and space, many things which have been disapproved of previously and which—as the noble and learned Lord, Lord

1037
Denning, pointed out—have been considered unlawful, could become lawful.
The most reverend Primate referred to "dispensation". He said, "We do not want the procedures too tightly drawn". Surely we should not only be concerned with procedures.
The Archbishop of Canterbury: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord. I said that the procedures would be tightly drawn.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am most grateful for that interruption and correction. The most reverend Primate has helped me in a way to clarify my case. We shall have tightly drawn procedures leading to the exercise of an absolute discretion. That discretion is in no way limited. This Measure would have the effect of making the archbishops responsible for limiting the application of the law of the Church so far as concerns ordination. However great a regard one may have for each of the most reverend Primates, for all the bishops and all who may come in the years ahead, I do not think that we should turn them into law-makers, to that extent, or place on them the responsibility of limiting the application of what is a legislative provision, but so widely drawn.
I find myself in a difficulty, as your Lordships may have gathered from what I am saying. I have much sympathy with what was said by my noble friend Lord Lauderdale, but I regret that I could not accept the actual terms of his amendment. Before I came to the debate I thought that I might be able to accept them but having heard other speakers, I regret that I cannot do so.
Nevertheless I hope that for reasons other than those which my noble friend Lord Lauderdale has expressed, the Measure might be postponed or temporarily withdrawn by the most reverend Primate. I hope that he will take note of the powerful views expressed in the debate. As my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford said, the arguments are pretty finely balanced. I therefore hope that we may have placed before us at some future date a better defined Measure and a more limited Measure in its potential legal effect. Even trusting the great men of the Church whom we have to trust, in my view this Measure could cause sorrow among many churchgoers.
7.47 p.m.
Lord Robertson of Oakridge: My Lords, I wish to explain why, if your Lordships' House divides on the measure tonight, I shall not vote against it, as I did at the final meeting of the Ecclesiastical Committee. First, I wish to say something which I believe to be almost entirely irrelevant—that is, to say where I stand. I believe that the measure is right in intention and, if the general rule is waived only in really exceptional cases, that it will work out right in practice.
We know that God hates divorce but it also seems that in certain cases He blesses the second marriages of those people who have gone through the terrible
1038
experience of divorce. I say that my views are irrelevant because throughout the consideration of this measure I have taken the view that in my capacity as a member of the Ecclesiastical Committee and now of your Lordships' House, it is not my place to take issue with the General Synod on the interpretation of Christian doctrine. I believe that our main roles are to see that measures sent to us by the General Synod are properly drafted and do not clash with other legislation. For us to argue with the synod on matters of doctrine would be to bring into question the very existence of the synod itself.
I voted against the measure in the Ecclesiastical Commitee because there were no published guidelines as to how the archbishops, present and future, would exercise their discretion. I felt this meant that Parliament would not know what it was being asked to approve. The way was open also for the public to get the wrong idea of the measure. Certainly, some of the letters which I received from both supporters and opponents of the measure seemed to assume that its passing would result in a free-for-all. Furthermore, the ordinands affected by the measure might have been confused as to how it might apply to them. Now, however, proposed guidelines have been published. I should have preferred it had they been a little more easily available, as some of us had difficulty in getting hold of them. However, they have been read to me and I feel sure they will by no means lead to a free-for-all. As a result, I shall support the measure if your Lordships' House divides.
7.50 p.m.
Earl Waldegrave: My Lords, perhaps it is appropriate that I should speak after the noble Lord who has just spoken, as I was also a member of the Ecclesiastical Committee. The only reason I speak is because I was a member of that committee for several years. I am no lawyer of any kind. I am not a theologian, but I suppose I am the lordly equivalent of the man on the Clapham omnibus. I do not know what is the correct description of such a man. Perhaps I shall describe myself as the ordinary man in the motor car. I am the ordinary citizen going about his business, as it were.
When this measure came forward and we were asked to speak on it and consider it, we were extremely bewildered and found it a very difficult subject. That lasted for a period of over 18 months. The committee sat six times on this measure. Perhaps some noble Lords have not had time to examine the evidence contained in the red book that sets it all out. However, it is rather extraordinary that on this particular measure the committee sat first on 21st March 1988, then on 18th April 1988. At that meeting, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford and those responsible for the measure in the synod came to explain matters to the committee. We asked them questions and they replied.
Apparently, we were still in a muddle on 16th May 1988, at a meeting which, unfortunately, I was unable to attend and at which a vote was passed by only eight to five. The committee contains 30 members, of whom only 13 attended on that day.

1039
We then met again in July 1988, when 27 members of the committee attended. At that meeting we asked for a conference, which was a very big thing to ask. We were granted a conference. On 13th February that conference was held, and 27 members of the committee attended.
On 10th April, the sixth committee meeting was held to discuss, finally, the draft of what we proposed to do after all this cogitation. The measure was considered expedient—our statutory duty consisted in deciding whether or not it was expedient—by 10 votes to nine. One of the votes was the chairman's vote. I believe that was the first time the chairman had voted at the committee meetings.
Over and over again in those committee meetings and over and over again at the very interesting and full conference that was held where the most reverend Primates the Archbishops of Canterbury and York addressed us, there was constant use of the word "unhappiness". We said, "We in the committee are very unhappy with the measure. We do not quite understand what we are supposed to do. We think we are debarred by the passing of the Worship and Doctrine Measure 1974"—I personally opposed that measure at that time—"from discussing or having a view on theological matters, as that is the duty of the synod." Those duties were passed over to the synod entirely. As I understand it, Parliament cannot deal with those matters in detail. So, what were we to do?
Many members of the committee were not lawyers, so we could not answer the finer points of Sections 7 or 8, which needed a two-thirds majority. We did not know whether that could be achieved by a simple and bare majority of those present and voting. Therefore, we puzzled out the fact that we represented the man on the Clapham omnibus. We had to consider what kind of effect the measure would have on congregations, on people who attend church and on people who do not attend church. People who do not attend church often take far more interest in criticising what goes on in church than the people who do attend church. So the committee had to decide what kind of effect the measure would have.
What effect has the measure had? It has received very wide publicity. There have been leading articles in The Times on the matter. People have said that the measure has infringed constitutional rights. I believe the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, must have meant that we should forget about the Worship and Doctrine Measure 1974. I believe he said that we should simply turn up the rules in the Book of Common Prayer, and that if anyone touched them it would be over his dead body.
That is the position now. I still feel unhappy about the measure. We heard a wonderful speech from the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, and also from the noble Lord, Lord Soper, and I am puzzled now as regards whether I shall be considered to be just going with the herd. Perhaps noble Lords will ask themselves why I attended the committee meetings and voted against the measure and yet, when it comes down to it, I jib at the fence and turn. However, I do not feel that that is the case. I believe there are very important
1040
reasons and that there is more to this than we have been told.
I was astonished by the very large number of letters we received on this matter. I am not a politician and I do not come to your Lordships' House very often. Nevertheless, I do not think I have ever received such a large quantity of mail as I did regarding this matter. I see another member of the Ecclesiastical Committee nodding his head in agreement. Certainly, no other measure over the past dozen or so years has led to the same quantity of mail as this one. Therefore, I do not feel I can support my noble friend Lord Lauderdale in asking for an adjournment and for a piece of new ecclesiastical legislation, as I understand it. On the other hand, I do not feel that I can change my mind on this.
It is a question of interpreting the extremely difficult word "expedient". What does that mean? Our chairman, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bridge of Harwich, said he did not know what it meant. The most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury said he did not know what it meant. I must quote one thing that he said: "It certainly does not mean that you approve the measure." I quote his words verbatim from page 35 of the report:
"I never suggested that for the Ecclesiastical Committee to say that it was expedient meant they felt they had to approve of the Measure".
Well, some of us asked then, and ask now, what were we there for? That is a different matter, but I felt unhappy then as to whether it was right to say that I thought it expedient. I thought that it would stir up trouble, cause controversy, and make people unhappy. Therefore, I shall have to abstain in any vote tonight.
8 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, at this late hour I shall try not to go over too many of the arguments which have already been put forward. However, the noble Earl who has just spoken seemed concerned about the voting figures in the committee. Therefore, perhaps we might go back to the voting figures in the synod. After all, those are the votes which really matter. The Measure gained support by a very comfortable majority. The House of Bishops cast 85 per cent. of its votes in favour; the House of Clergy cast 68 per cent. of its votes in favour; and the House of Laity, 61 per cent. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford said, any government returned on the basis of such figures would consider that they had a landslide majority and a mandate for whatever they cared to do. I think that we must be convinced by the figures.
The synod has chosen the road of grace, forgiveness and redemption. No member of synod, of whatever House, will have reached his decision without prayer and thought, against a background of practical experience in the field. We in this House set great store by expert opinion. A majority of the expert opinion in this case has come down in support of the Measure.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford was concerned that the figures he gave earlier concerning the numbers affected by the Measure were lower than appears to be the case. However,

1041
the numbers involved are irrelevant. Justice has to be absolute. It does not matter whether there are one, two or 200: the answer must be the same.
Opponents of the Measure argue that the Church must set high moral standards. They imply that by removing the present anomaly the Church is proposing a loosening of moral discipline. But the Church also has a duty to set standards of justice and mercy, and those standards are just as important. We are being asked to approve a Measure which will allow the archbishops to judge cases on their merits and to overcome the injustice of the present situation. We can be confident that they will exercise their discretion with care and restraint and after full consultation.
If we accept the proposed amendment the whole argument goes back to square one and the cruel anomaly which exists will continue through what must inevitably be a long exercise. Surely the just and compassionate way would be to approve today's Measure and for those who still oppose its provisions to continue their arguments in the General Synod. That is where the argument really belongs, not in this House. I oppose the amendment and support the Measure.
8.4 p.m.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, my position is that of my old friend the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham. I am a simple communicant, unconcerned, with Church government but concerned very much with the views of my fellow parishioners.
I have listened with sympathy to the exposition of the most reverend Primate and also to the right reverend Prelate, and to their hard-luck cases. I can assure them that I spent the weekend inventing scenarios for hard-luck cases which would involve injustice but no offence whatsoever if this Measure came into force.
When the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, invited me to take part in our proceedings this afternoon my heart sank because I felt myself quite unqualified to do so. I felt sure that most of the legalistic arguments would be over my head. Having listened to them, I find that they are. I have never seen guidelines and do not really know what I shall be voting on. My main sympathy lies with the noble Lord, Lord Renton, who feels that some offence is being given, and he would like to see both Motions withdrawn to give us time to think a little more. I do not know whether my noble and learned friend Lord Bridge spoke to the point when he said that the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, was not speaking to his Motion. It is not until I read Hansard tomorrow that I shall be sure.
I had hoped that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, would clarify the way in which the leading article in The Times this morning should be read. I do not know what the writer had in mind, but it seemed to me that he meant that if the matter was doctrinal it must go through on the nod, but if it is a procedural fiddle it must not. I have no idea which of the two alternative ways of reading that article I should adopt.
1042
I should like to remind the most reverend Primate of the credibility gap that now exists between my friends, the simple parishioners who are unconcerned with Church government, and the politics of the synod. I ask myself whether the proposals are divisive or whether they will heal breaches that already exist in the community of Christendom. I remind the most reverend Primate that one of the cardinal virtues is patience. Perhaps we could be given a little longer to study the proposals. If both Motions were withdrawn and returned to later, that would be to the benefit of the members of the laity—my friends and fellow parishioners—who simply do not understand what the Church is up to.
8.8 p.m.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, I have listened with great admiration to the most sincere and moving speech by the most reverend Primate. I hope that nothing I shall say will cause him any distress, because I hold him in very high regard.
I also listened with great care and attention as I always do, to the speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham. He mentioned the need for your Lordships' House to consider the public interest in this matter. He drew a very sharp distinction between matters of the Church and of the state, those which are our business and those which are not our business. It seems to me, without any legal knowledge, that with an established Church matters of general interest to the Church must be issues with which we should be concerned. Of course it would be wrong for us to take any view against that of the synod on theological or doctrinal issues. However, in spite of what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bridges, said, it does not seem to me that this is a wholly theological and doctrinal matter.
As I understand it, we have to determine whether the Measure is expedient. That means: is it on balance advantageous and in the national interest? For one simple reason I believe that it is not. If any great enterprise or institution is to prosper its leaders must set a good and clear example. To ordain a person who has been unable to maintain the promises made in Christian marriage or who has been involved in such difficulties but who must advocate to those whom he marries the need to maintain the vows that are made in the Christian marriage service, seems to me to put him in an impossible position. It also demeans the priesthood and weakens the influence of the Church and its reputation. Therefore, it seems unwise and likely to damage the institution of Christian marriage and the standing of the Church of England, which are both important in our national life.
As regards my noble friend's amendment, the chance of correcting the anomaly to which he refers in his amendment is extremely remote. In any case, there is a considerable difference between removing the holder of an appointment—depriving an incumbent of his benefice, in the words of the most reverend Primate—and refusing to make such an appointment—refusing to ordain a man. As my noble friend Lord Salisbury pointed out, there are

1043
many other ways of serving the Church than in the ordained ministry.
I am therefore inclined to support neither the amendment of my noble friend nor the resolution proposed by the most reverend Primate, but I shall listen carefully to their winding-up speeches and try to vote accordingly. It seems to me that this is one of the most difficult issues that we have had to consider in this House for a long time. I hope that we shall come to the right conclusion.
8.10 p.m.
Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, even by the usual economic standards that I try to set myself, this will be a suitably brief contribution to the debate from a struggling and, I feel, sometimes almost fugitive member of the Church of England. After the many excellent and conscientious speeches, I am unable to add new arguments, but can only echo the anxieties that have been expressed by my noble and learned friend Lord Denning, the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, made light—as it is very easy to do—of the emphasis upon sexual offences which, after all, are a most particular challenge to the stability of the family and a sin against which many people have struggled, not always with great success. Those of us who have enjoyed, or even endured, a marriage of three, four or more decades must acknowledge that the continuing success owes something to good fortune as well as to merit and perhaps to prayer and grace. I find that one trial of advancing age is to witness the break-up of marriages of friends and family where the apportionment of blame seems not only fruitless but difficult or impossible. Yet divorce must still be generally acknowledged as a human failure that reflects the fallen nature which we all share and which demonstrates how even thoughtful, highly intelligent people seem incapable of acting far-sightedly in their own best interests, to say nothing of the interests of their spouses or offspring.
I would honestly say, as a provisional view that I shall continue to ponder, that I should prefer a repentant murderer as a candidate for ordination, to give a most spectacular example of turning from evil to witness to the Lord's forgiveness. Unlike one speaker, I must humbly admit that I and many people to whom I speak wish to look up to their minister. For the high calling of a priest, it seems to me not improper that we should seek the highest standard of conduct, not least as an example to us lesser men and women. Of course, we do not seek perfection, but we must set some limits and make some judgment about the extent and kind of failure that is easily tolerable.
I have no doubt that there are cases of divorce—to which reference has been made from the Bishops' Bench—where no personal blame or failure can reasonably be levelled at either party; yet this is a very practical matter. If a divorced man is to be ordained and licensed to conduct marriage services, it is impossible to doubt that, for weaker mortals, it may encourage a less rigorous view of holy matrimony as ideally indissoluble.
1044
I speak as something of a refugee from my local church where the Book of Common Prayer has been banished to the occasional fifth Sunday in the month. I speak for many who do not invariably find that synod reflects the views of ordinary people, especially about the rate at which change is forced upon the great mass of ordinary parishioners. With the greatest respect, I am not surprised that the great and the good—so amply represented in this House—take a more lenient view of matrimonial breakdown. It is a civilised approach to adopt, but I think that the most reverend Primate and the right reverend Prelates on the Bishops' Bench must allow for the widespread unease outside this place with which many simple Anglicans, and many outside our communion, will regard this apparent relaxation of standards. At the very least, I ask that the greatest possible emphasis be placed upon the exceptional nature of the cases that will qualify for possible exercise of discretion by the two archbishops. Indeed, in proportion, as they trumpet the exceptions, they may draw attention to our united claim that Christian marriage should be indissoluble.
8.16 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, as this debate draws towards its close, I feel like one of those fish who sees being trailed across the water over its head a fishing line baited at intervals with luscious looking baits and hooks. I shall attempt not to seize any of those lures.
We were invited by the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, to talk about the priesthood and the priesthood being tampered with. As one of the two parish priests in the House, I should be delighted to debate that subject with him at any time, if that was what the debate was about. The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, lured us with the suggestion that the debate was about adultery, a subject that a great many people like to talk about ad nauseam. But, when we reached those subjects which the debate was about, it seemed to me that the major arguments for the amendment were fairly rapidly destroyed. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Bridge, destroyed the argument about the two-thirds majority. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, destroyed the argument that the Measure allows the ordination of oath breakers and those who condone oath breakers.
There were other temptations. Behind it all seemed to be a platonic idea that there is such a thing as a platonic marriage which lasts forever and which is laid down from the beginning of the world to the end. I seem to remember that Jesus was asked a question about that and about a woman who had been married seven times. His response was, in effect, "not to be silly".
If we are talking to the subject of the debate, we are talking about a Motion to adjourn indefinitely a Measure brought forward, completely properly, by the synod of the Church of England and its spokesmen in the House. The aim of the amendment for which we are asked to vote is one which almost every speaker has agreed cannot, in the terms laid down, be achieved. If I may say so with due respect, the idea that we need to delay also seems to me to

1045
be absurd. Time and again we have heard of the number of times that the Ecclesiastical Committee has met and the number of times that this issue has been through synod. There are injustices here which are long overdue.
I should like to close my remarks with one further observation. The main point is that this measure has been brought forward properly by the Church, with the requisite majorities, as part of the settlement that now exists between Church and state and there is no reason why we should not pass it.
There is one more minor point to make. Several times the objection has been raised that much of this is management by exception; we should have rigid rules to which we can stick. As a very minor pastor in the Church, perhaps I may say that that seems to me to be the reverse of all the "pastoralia" which should happen in the churches. We deal always with individual people and individual problems. Any blanket laws which allow for no exceptions are almost certainly bad laws and un-Christian laws, in that they do not consider how we should deal with people as their pastors and counsellors within the Christian Church.
8.21 p.m.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, my only qualification for speaking in this debate is that I have had the privilege of serving for many years on the joint parliamentary Ecclesiastical Committee. My only regret is that I did not speak then as strongly for this measure as I shall do now. The reason why I did not speak strongly then was that I did not wish to prolong the agony. After listening to so many speakers I always hoped that the proceedings would soon finish. That may be regarded by your Lordships, justifiably perhaps, as a feeble excuse.
This measure has been long debated in synod in all the houses of that body, not only in the General Synod but in the diocesan synods as well. The General Synod presented us with this measure which is a mild measure, well thought out and supported by many safeguards. Noble Lords are addressing themselves, one hopes, to a law which will allow to become priests people who have either had the misfortune to have a broken marriage or have been married to someone who has had a broken marriage. Neither of those misfortunes can diminish their faith or their ability to minster religion with conviction. Surely such sad events cannot commit them to a lifelong sentence of non-opportunity in administering churchmanship. These people who seek the opportunity to become priests must somewhere along the line have repented, if they needed to repent, and thus have been forgiven.
In my humble opinion the Church of England has changed over the years for the better, and the clergy have come much more into line with present day life. There seems to be a new stimulus. During the past 20 years I have lived in two parishes and have been impressed by the way in which the two incumbents have looked after their parishioners. When I go to church I come out feeling better for it.
Returning to this measure, I must also say that I have been impressed by very genuine letters received
1046
from the victims—if one can call them such—although letters are not in themselves confirmation that the people who have written them are in the right. But that is not my concern; neither, frankly is it the concern of your Lordships. It is a matter for the diocese itself: its parson, archdeacon, bishop and—if that is not enough—its provincial bishop, the archbishop who finally approves the nominations. Surely that is the greatest safeguard.
I now turn to the synod itself. There are deanery synods which comprise a few parishes whose representatives come from the parochial church councils. Above them are the diocesan synods which represent the deanery synods. Ultimately there is the elected General Synod. We have heard the way in which the General Synod voted in all three houses: the House of Bishops, the House of Clergy and the House of Laity. In voting, they all came to the conclusion that this measure was correct. All the people whom I have mentioned were democratically elected and all of them are churchmen.
In my opinion, Parliament should think the same. The joint parliamentary Ecclesiastical Committee confirmed by one vote that this measure was expedient. That was the right decision. On what is essentially a doctrinal matter of the Church that has been deliberated upon and much considered, who are we even to contemplate reversing that decision? It would be a very grave step should Parliament oppose a decision which not only makes sense but denies Christians the opportunity to be guided by those whom their bishops and archbishops have seen fit to ordain.
I very much hope that the House will disapprove of the Motion of my noble friend Lord Lauderdale and approve the Motion in the name of the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury.
8.26 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, your Lordships will notice that on the list of speakers my name appears above the gap rather than below it. It is our normal practice that if there is an Opposition spokesman to wind up, he should come below the gap. The reason for the change is that as I understand it the Government have no speaker and take no view. There is a gap made so that the noble Earl, Lord Arran, who is prepared to speak if necessary, can explain that the Government have no view on this matter; but I shall not ask what is the Government's view and thus alleviate any anxiety that the noble Earl may feel on that point.
Nonetheless, there are one or two points that I should like to make from this Dispatch Box. First, we on these Benches do not feel that this measure is a matter that should provoke a confrontation between Church and state. We shall therefore vote against the Motion of the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, and in favour of the Motion of the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury. I say that because this is a matter which has aroused considerable controversy with my colleagues on these Benches. I wished to express that in the most forthright manner immediately when I rose to speak.
Having said that, I shall now speak personally about the measure. A number of noble Lords have

1047
observed that we should not be debating theology, and I agree with them; and that we should not be debating the legality of the measure, and I personally agree with that. Certainly I would not wish to dispute theology with the most reverend Primate; nor would I wish to dispute legality with the chairman of the Ecclesiastical Committee, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bridge of Harwich. I only say to the noble and learned Lord that I wish that he had given such a clear definition of "expediency" to the Ecclesiastical Committee during its deliberations as he gave today. I think that it might have saved a great deal of discussion.
Nevertheless, when I say that I shall go into the Lobby with the most reverend Primate, I do so with a certain amount of regret. I do not propose to establish my credentials as a lay communicant. They are like those of other noble Lords who have spoken: those of an ordinary member of the Church of England. I want to discuss two points. The first is whether the measure, in introducing changes to the canon law, does not create certain anomalies in place of the anomaly that it is designed to correct. The second point concerns whether this is the message that the Church of England wishes to send out about the nature of the priesthood of the Church. I shall couch this discussion in the form of questions to the most reverend Primate, if I may, because on this occasion I certainly do not wish to be provocative.
We have to remember that we are dealing with a measure for candidates for ordination, not with the general lay position. The Lichfield Commission reported on the Christian doctrine of marriage and the marriage discipline in the Church of England in 1978. The central recommendation was that the Church of England should revise its regulations to permit a divorced person, with the permission of the bishop, to be married in church in the lifetime of a former partner. That was the central recommendation of the Lichfield Commission regarding the laity. This recommendation has not been acted upon. The Church of England has been deliberating on it for over 10 years. The Lichfield Commission also drew attention to such matters as the problem of ordinands which the measure addresses. The measure proposed by synod and proposed by the most reverend Primate today seeks to alleviate that position.
I ask this question of the most reverend Primate. Is it right that the general specific recommendation of the Lichfield Commission with regard to the laity should not be followed through by the Church, but a minor point which was raised by the Lichfield Commission in respect of ordinands should be followed through by the Church? If that is right, does it not raise another curious anomaly: that, if the measure is accepted and achieves Royal Assent, an ordinand may be approved by the bishop for ordination. He may then administer the Sacrament of Holy Communion, for instance, to lay members of the Church of England who themselves, because the matter is somewhat in doubt, are not entitled to the same privilege as the ordinand has received in obtaining approval for his ordination from the bishop. In other words, if one regards ordination, as I do, as a very special sacramental ceremony, the
1048
ordinand—re-married as he may be under the same circumstances as a lay person—can administer sacraments to someone who may be prohibited because of re-marriage, from being re-married in the Church of England. I understand that it is discretionary in the Church. It is a possible contradiction. I should be grateful if the most reverend Primate could comment on that.
There is also the problem of the anomaly which may arise between ordinands who are accepted on the principle of the measure—assuming that it goes into canon law—and existing incumbents of benefices. This matter was discussed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bridge of Harwich, and figured in the discussions of the Lichfield Commission. I join with the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale. It seems odd that there can be come dispensation for ordinands and prospective ordinands in the Church of England, while beneficed clergymen—as opposed to clergymen waiting for institution, as was discussed in the committee—should have to be taken before some ecclesiastical court and convicted of some offence before they can be deprived of their benefice. There is a discretion on the bishop for an ordinand or prospective ordinand. There is no discretion in the case of a bishop for a beneficed clergyman. As I understand it, he has to be convicted of an ecclesiastical offence in order to be deprived of his benefice. The question arises—and I join with the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, in asking this—why is the procedure different? Should not the Church be looking at that problem?
The last anomaly that I should like to raise—and it may not be an anomaly, but a difficulty—is this. There is a clear ecclesiastical offence, as defined in the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure 1963, of any breach of canon law. Canon B.30, paragraph 1, sets out the Church's doctrine of marriage as a permanent and lifelong union. This is a point that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, made. Canon B.30, paragraph 3, requires the minister to explain that doctrine to the intending parties of a marriage in church. Canon C.26 requires a minister,
"to frame and fashion his life according to the doctrine of Christ, and to make himself and them, so far as in him lies, wholesome examples and patterns to the flock of Christ".
I ask the most reverend Primate: is it not the case that any ordained priest or deacon who re-marries while the previous partner is alive must prima facie be regarded as having breached at least two of the canons to which I have referred. Breach of canon law is an ecclesiastical offence and can give rise to deprivation. I ask the most reverend Primate to explain to me, as a layman, how all this will add up in terms of the application of canon law?
My second question of the most reverend Primate is this. What signals does the Church of England wish to give to the public at large about the priesthood? I do not want to become involved in what I call the Lauderdale versus Seear argument as to whether we look up to, across at or even down on our clergy. However, there can be no doubt that the clergy of the Church of England have had a rather bad press, I should think since the Reformation. The Bishop of Barchester is par for the course, or the vicar in

1049
the TV sit-corn. We have seen this far too often. Is it not time that the Church of England started to improve its public relations? On a serious note, in doing so, a reversion to the doctrine that the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, was seeking when he made his opening speech of more of a convinced priesthood, more of what my father used to call a priesthood militant, would be more acceptable to what the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, referred to—and I think rightly—as the general lay opinion of the Church of England. That is not simply the laity who are elected to diocesan or General Synod, but those who are not. If the views of people who do not become elected to the diocesan or General Synod are consistent with the doctrine of the Church of England, I wonder why we cannot achieve such aim.
I have a certain sympathy with the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, and others, that while the measure is undoubtedly a modest one, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford, said, it may lead us down a path that the Church does not wish to go. I offer that as my personal comment.
I come back to where I started. We shall support the most reverend Primate if the matter goes to the Division Lobby because we believe that on this occasion that is the right thing to do.
8.38 p.m.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, I apologise to noble Lords for jumping into the gap. I am not speaking for the Government or for the great and the good. I speak only as a very ordinary lay person. I wish to make only one point.
The sanctity of Christian marriage is one of the great bulwarks of our civilisation. Anyone married in church makes a vow before God to stay married until death. None of us is perfect. All marriages have ups and downs. Some of the downs can even sink a marriage although we all try to keep afloat. It seems unfair to any human being whose marriage, for whatever reason, has already collapsed to be asked to preach the sanctity and permanence of Christian marriage to others. It is not a question of he without sin casting the first stone. It is not a question of people in glass houses not throwing stones. It is simply that it is better not to build one's glass house in a stone-throwing area. I beg the most reverend Primate and my noble friend both to withdraw their Motions to give us all breathing space and time.
8.40 p.m.
Viscount Buckmaster: My Lords, I shall be one minute only, but I wish strongly to support my noble kinsman Lord Lauderdale. I feel strongly about this. At the moment one marriage in three ends in divorce. If this measure is accepted it will strengthen the all too widespread feeling in this country that divorce is acceptable. For reasons which have been advanced by many speakers this evening, I feel that we should do all we can to oppose this great landslide of divorce which is disturbing so many people in this country.
8.41 p.m.
The Archbishop of Canterbury: My Lords, I have listened with very great care to what has been said in the debate. I am deeply grateful for the many thoughtful contributions that have been made, for the depth of feeling that has been evident, not least in the last two interventions, and for what I have been glad to find here: a universal desire that we should do all we can to uphold and support the institution of marriage. That is not a question which is at any issue in the minds, in the teaching and in the example of those who bring forward this measure to the House.
I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if I do not comment on every speech that has been made. In the first place, I am an irregular attender here and therefore do not have the dexterity of others on the Front Bench on which I am privileged to sit. I shall try to comment on a few as I go along, not forgetting the noble Lord, Lord Williams, at whose father's feet I once sat in order to learn the elements of moral theology.
I should like first to thank the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, for the generosity with which he spoke in introducing his amendment, particularly for the personal feelings (which I reciprocate) of respect for his own convictions and witness. I, too, believe that the priesthood should be for those of prayer and piety and conviction, that they have a representative role. However, I wish to give space to what the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, spoke about in recognising that blend of humanity and holiness which is the mark of the Pastor Supreme, particularly perhaps an ideal which has been attempted and cultivated and aimed at by our own Church of England, with its attempt to combine personal convictions with the widest possible scope of a teaching and pastoral ministry. I apologise to him and to others if there has been any breakdown in the procedures by which noble Lords might be able to read the directions which I, along with the Archbishop of York, have given to the bishops at the recent House of Bishops. We gave these guidelines on how we should exercise our discretion.
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, and others have spoken about the uncertainty attendant upon the way in which we should exercise that discretion, but I have to remind your Lordships that, when it comes to ordination, it is inherent in the office of a bishop that he has absolute discretion as to whom he will or will not ordain. In many fields of clergy discipline, particularly those relating to clergy already in post, a great deal of discretion lies with the bishop. It was the especial desire of the General Synod that, if there were to be any exceptions, the strictest way to proceed would be by way of a procedure within the diocese that would ultimately go to the archishops for the exercise of their discretion. We have made available very clear guidelines which we would employ and which I reckon would quickly filter out some of the cases that have been mentioned here, where they would fall because they could not possibly justify the kind of exceptions that I. have talked about.
Where I found that the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, did not pursue the terms of his

1051
amendment was in dealing with how we should correct the injustice, which I believe we all recognise, by going the other way; that is, making it harder for clergy whose marital status is irregular, rather than easier for ordinands. That is the amendment proposed and, frankly, I have not heard many arguments in favour of that as correcting the injustice that already exists.
It has been argued in general terms that this measure constitutes a further surrender to the times, a further lowering of Church discipline. That was put before us in a characteristically robust contribution from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, whose presence in the House I so much welcome. It is his first appearance since his 90th birthday.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
The Archbishop of Canterbury: My Lords, I am sorry we are not in wholehearted agreement on this issue because I should like to assure him that I, too, am a lover of the Book of Common Prayer and intend that it shall not die within our nation. I, too, can subscribe to every article of the Creed and assure your Lordships that it is not in danger in the teaching of our Church. I, too, believe in the sanctity of marriage, but I do not believe that we need any alteration to the ordinal or the Book of Common Prayer in the passage of this measure. That has been explained to us particularly by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bridge, and by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham.
On the general question which worries people, the truth is that the reason for easier divorce is not the failure of the Church to teach the Christian doctrine of marriage. There are many and very complex reasons. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, was particularly helpful in talking to us from his great experience about the secularisation of marriage which has taken place in the laws of our country. It means that the kind of argument which depends upon the Church as a sacrament cannot be sustained. The doctrine of indissolubility is one that is held and based upon the idea of marriage as a sacrament. If you are going to deal with exceptions to rules which depend upon that then you must have a complex apparatus of nullity procedures. That is what the Roman Catholic Church has and I respect what it has done and is doing in that area. However, it is not the Anglican way.
The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, talked about Matthew, Chapter 19. That is only one in a complex of quotations from the scriptures which make it clear that, as I said earlier, our Lord was providing insight—marriage is for ever—and challenge. He was not legislating for an institution.
I do not believe that this measure is a challenge to fundamental doctrine. It is a response to failure in moral achievement. This is serious but our ordinal is realistic. Candidates for the priesthood are asked to make themselves and their families, as much as in them lieth, wholesome examples and patterns to the flock of Christ.
The measure has attracted wide publicity. I fear that instead of it being a measure concerned simply with the discipline of the clergy it has often been
1052
elevated into an issue which concerns whether one believes in divorce or that divorce is always impossible. But to be fair I believe that the Lord Himself was misrepresented for so-called "laxity":
"The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath."
"Neither do I condemn you … go and sin no more".
We recognise that the Church of England does not have a tradition of regulating dispensations by canonical procedures. But we have a good record of attempting to witness to fundamental principles within a broad pastoral outreach. We believe that ordinands and clergy deserve pastoral support. A pastoral approach calls for fairness and trust. That is why we hope that Parliament will give us the support for this carefully considered measure. It is being brought forward in the conviction that the present rigid rule is unjustified in principle, is likely to work unfairly in individual cases and does a disservice to the Church as a whole because it unnecessarily turns away some who would serve the Church well. I plea that the support for this measure—which comes from the bishops and principals of theological college and parish priests as well as lay people—comes mainly from those who are in touch with the pastoral realities and with individual cases. I think that that is an important influence on me: the extent to which it is the background of those people who are speaking in favour of the measure because it comes from areas of experience.
I turn to deal with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Williams. He talked of the inconsistency between refusing to legislate for the remarriage of divorced persons in church and yet carrying forward this measure. In my opening speech I tried to make the point that the two questions, although related, are distinct. It has been more difficult to win acceptance for remarriage in church because the marriage service is a witness to the Christian belief in marriage. That would be undermined by using the same service twice. On the other hand, the ordination service is not one of witness to marriage precisely but is particularly a witness to the ability of God to call sinful, fragile, forgiven human beings to his service.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, spoke of the difficulties about the guidelines and about the injustice which may exist in the treatment of those in post, because they are subject to the ecclesiastical jurisdiction measure, and those who are putting themselves forward for ordination. I believe that in some measure that has been tidied up by the benefices measure which came into force on 1st January this year. It gives to the bishop a discretion over his institution of a clergyman to a living. I do not say that all matters have been cleared up but I say that that is a point in favour of the measure. It will move us into greater consistency between the treatment of clergy in post and those who are putting themselves forward for ordination.
Finally, I depend very much on the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bridge, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, for what they say about the significance of the measure in dealing with the relationship between Church and State. It seems to me that the scope of the law is designed to ensure

1053
that Parliament safeguards the constitutional rights of the subject and ensures that there is no conflict with the general law. I am glad that they have been able to clarify that for us and I hope that we shall feel able to follow them.
What we desire and ask is an opportunity for those who believe that they have a vocation to Holy Orders, but are at present canonically debarred, to have their circumstances considered and to have at least the possibility of an archbishop's dispensation. I believe that to pass the amendment would accentuate the injustice, would be unacceptable to the majority of Church people and would never possibly win the support of the synod.
If one wanted to create something divisive, this is the way to go. To go our way would be to confirm what the majority of the synod has been saying for a good number of years. Anybody interested in the debate could have tuned into it years ago. We believe that this is the way, not only of mercy but of justice; a way which would accord with the gospel and serve the wellbeing of the Church.
9 p.m.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, I am sure that all noble Lords are grateful to the most reverend Primate and also the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford for their exposition of this matter, which has certainly been constructive and, if I may say so as a layman, done with great pastoral gentleness for those of us who are rather stupid and slow in the uptake.
There is no doubt that the establishment, whether as the Church or of the usual channels of this House, was taken by surprise at the amount of interest which was generated in this debate, lifting it from a mere dinner hour affair to be disposed of on the nod with half a dozen or a dozen noble Lords present. I hope that I shall get credit from the most reverend Primate and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford for at least having gathered them a congregation. The best part of 100 Peers have listened to the debate. There are about 70 Peers in the Chamber at this moment, and this at nine o'clock at night for what was expected to go through on the nod in the dinner hour. That is a considerable achievement and I hope that I shall at least get credit for that.
Throughout the debate there have been certain underlying trends. When we read of unemployment
1054
figures we are always told what unemployment was and what was the underlying trend. One trend is clear: that everyone in all quarters of the House recoils from the spectre of a clash between Church and state at any time, particularly on a measure of this scope.
On the other hand, attention has been drawn to contradictions between civil and canon law which are causing anxiety in many quarters. Several noble Lords have pleaded for delay or for patience. It is not for me to comment on that matter, but there is an underlying anxiety. My noble friend Lord Halsbury referred to a credibility gap between the pew and the synod. I am reminded, although I cannot think in what connection, that since the end of the last war there have been occasions when governments have been in power for quite a long time with quite a large majority and have been accused of getting out of touch with the electors. That is commonly said—no names, no pack drill—about governments of both persuasions. I wonder whether there is a certain analogy between the synod and the pew. The members of the synod, splendid godly people as they are, give time and trouble to working at the nitty-gritty of Church government. Inevitably they focus attention on those matters and may well become somewhat distanced, at any rate psychologically, from the ordinary people, of whom a number have spoken today.
There has arisen from this debate a certain note—I will not be so presumptuous as to say a note of warning—but a plea to the episcopate: please, please, please, listen to the inarticulate, stupid, slow-on-the-uptake Back-Bench pew men who sometimes have an anxiety which is not always as quickly recognised in the synod as they would wish. One again thinks of electors who complain at not being properly listened to in Parliament. This analogy of a distance between Parliament and people is purely imaginary. I have no particular case in mind. Having drawn that analogy and drawn attention to what I suspect are real anxieties at large, I hope that tonight's debate will be thought to have been constructive and godly. In that sense, and in that spirit, I beg your Lordships' leave to withdraw my Motion.
Amendment to the Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at six minutes past nine o'clock.

  REGENT'S PARK: LONDON ZOO EXPANSION
  REGENT'S PARK: LONDON ZOO EXPANSION
  LOW-COST HOUSING IN LONDON
  LOW-COST HOUSING IN LONDON
  TENANTS' CHOICE: MODEL CONTRACT
  TENANTS' CHOICE: MODEL CONTRACT
  ABELL HOUSE, JOHN ISLIP STREET: CLEANING
  ABELL HOUSE, JOHN ISLIP STREET: CLEANING
  BANKNOTES: PRODUCTION COSTS
  BANKNOTES: PRODUCTION COSTS
  COINAGE: PRODUCTION COSTS
  COINAGE: PRODUCTION COSTS
  DISCONTINUED DENOMINATIONAL VOLUNTARY SCHOOLS: USE OF ENDOWMENTS
  DISCONTINUED DENOMINATIONAL VOLUNTARY SCHOOLS: USE OF ENDOWMENTS
  ISVA AND RICS: PROPOSED MERGER
  ISVA AND RICS: PROPOSED MERGER
  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL: EUROPEAN CO-ORDINATION
  AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL: EUROPEAN CO-ORDINATION