Sitting of 6 July 1989

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

  ASSOCIATED BRITISH PORTS (No. 2) BILL (By Order)
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question—[23 May]—That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  Debate to be resumed on Thursday 13 July

  BRITISH RAILWAYS (PENALTY FARES) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Order for further consideration, as amended, read.
  To be further considered on Thursday 13 July.

  BROMLEY LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL (CRYSTAL PALACE) BILL (By Order)
  Orders for consideration, as amended, read.
  To be considered on Thursday 13 July.

  LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT (No. 2) BILL (By Order)
  Considered; to be read the Third time.

  QUEEN MARY AND WESTFIELD COLLEGE BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Orders for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time on Thursday 13 July.

Oral Answers to Questions
  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Devaluation
    Mr. Denzil Davies: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to resist a devaluation of the pound sterling.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Nigel Lawson): The Government are determined not to allow the firmness of their monetary stance to be undermined by a depreciation of the exchange rate.
    Mr. Davies: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that since he became Chancellor the pound has been devalued by 25 per cent. against the deutschmark? Whatever the Government's policy, is it not now obvious that with the balance of payments deficit likely to be horrendous for some considerable time, with foreigners now depositing £25 billion in very short-term money in the City of London—a figure which exceeds the Government's foreign currency reserves—and with the Government having vetoed entry to the European monetary system, which could have stabilised those reserves, the stage is now set for a major run on the value of sterling? Is the Chancellor aware of that?
    Mr. Lawson: Well, in the first place I would like to thank the right hon. Gentleman who is, of course, a former Treasury Minister, for supporting the policy of the Government when he said last month:
    "Mr. Lawson has got no option to what he is doing. The Labour Party idea that you should have credit controls is rubbish. There is no way you can control credit except by controlling the price of credit, and the price of credit is Bank Rate.
    The Opposition Front Bench, in short, is all over the place."
    He is quite right, so I would like to congratulate him on that.
    As for the question of what has happened to sterling, it is true—[Interruption.] It is not the case that entry to the EMS has been vetoed. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister reaffirmed, at the Madrid European Council, our intention to join the exchange rate mechanism of the EMS. I do not think that it is really very helpful for the right hon. Gentleman to try to talk the pound down. It makes him look particularly silly in a week in which the pound has been rising.
    Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important to ensure that the pound finds its own true value? Does he further agree that, in the end, the most important factor for Britain will be its export potential? Is it not true that with the pound at present levels British industry, at long last, has a chance to compete? If the pound is too high, there is difficulty with imports and exports. My right hon. Friend's policy of allowing the pound to find its own level is right, as long as he stops interfering.
    Mr. Lawson: I have noted, of course, a certain asymmetry in my hon. Friend's views. He is very anxious that the pound should find its own level when he thinks the pound is likely to go down; he is very anxious that

    453
    everything should be done to prevent any movement when he thinks the pound is likely to go up. I have noticed that there are a number of hon. Members on the other side of the House and also some outside this House who take that rather asymmetrical view. [Interruption.] What I do tell my hon. Friend is that he is absolutely right that the present climate is one in which British exporters have every chance of doing very well in world markets, and indeed I am glad to say that they are doing well. Exports are well up, and that was shown particularly in the most recent trade figures.
    Ms. Short: Does the Chancellor agree that the balance of payments problem shows that the pound is over valued? I thought that he believe in market forces. Why does not he stop intervening, allow the pound to drop and then join the EMS? Is not that the answer to our problems?
    Mr. Lawson: I am interested to hear the hon. Lady, who does not normally support her Front-Bench spokesmen, on this occasion supports the inflationary policies that they are putting forward, including a substantial devaluation of the pound. That would not be helpful to the British economy; least of all would it be helpful to the struggle against inflation. The Government have no intention of following that policy.

    Value Added Tax
    Mr. Amess: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received about zero rating of value added tax for hospital radio broadcasting equipment.
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Peter Lilley): My right hon. Friend has received one letter since the reply I gave to my hon. Friend on 6 April this year.
    Mr. Amess: Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating the national associations of hospital broadcasting organisations on their magnificent work throughout Britain in broadcasting to people who are unwell? Will my hon. Friend consider giving them further help by zero-rating VAT on hospital radio broadcasting equipment, treating it in the same way as talking books for the blind?
    Mr. Lilley: I am sure that the House will want to join me in paying tribute to the marvellous work done by hospital broadcasting in many of our constituencies, not least my own, and in paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) for his consistent support for hospital broadcasting. As he knows, under EC law we are constrained in our ability to introduce new zero rates. We got away with extending the zero rates on printed matter to newspapers for the blind because of the analogy between the two, but that would not work in the case of hospital broadcasting equipment, which is not specialised and is not provided for hospitals alone. I hope that the hospital broadcasting movement will benefit from the many other moves that we have made to encourage increased support for charities.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the Minister's response in paying tribute, but bearing in mind that in the scriptures tributes are the same as taxes, will he keep pressing to give them the benefit of that tribute?
    Mr. Lilley: We shall continue our efforts to encourage charities in every way that we can, and we believe that the primary way in which to do that through the fiscal system is to encourage people to give more and to increase support. In that we have been successful, and charitable giving has more than doubled in real terms.
    Mrs. Peacock: I appreciate what my hon. Friend says about the work of hospital broadcasting, but will he recognise the difficulties of many of those stations, particularly when they move to magnificent new hospital premises and have to re-equip completely, as my hospital radio station has had to do? What words of encouragement can he give to enable them to face the massive VAT bills that they will undoubtedly have to pay?
    Mr. Lilley: As I have said, there is no prospect of our altering the VAT treatment of hospital radio equipment, but I hope that the great support that the movement has in the House will be reflected in the support that everybody gives such organisations in our constituencies so as to ensure that they are properly funded to carry on the great work that they do for patients.

    Economic Policy
    Mr. Martyn Jones: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from institutions in the City of London about United Kingdom economic policy.
    Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from institutions in the City of London about United Kingdom economic policy.
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Major): My right hon. Friend often receives advice from the City, most of it unsolicited.
    Mr. Jones: From that reply I take it that the Chancellor may not have seen the Chase Investment bank report which stated that inflation was likely to peak at over 9 per cent. this year and that 18 per cent. interest rates would be needed to bring inflation down to 4 or 5 per cent. by 1992. Bearing in mind that the report was based on the Chancellor's Treasury model, will the Chancellor confirm that his young friends in the City are correct and that he would be prepared to put interest rates up to 18 per cent. by 1992?
    Mr. Major: If my right hon. Friend had seen that report —I am not sure whether he has—he would certainly not hale agreed with it.
    Mr. Griffiths: Has the Minister received any representations from the City about how to deal with the problem of directors' huge pay increases? He may have seen the report that five of the top 100 company directors had increases of 50 per cent. and 91 had on average a 28 per cent. increase in their pay? Bearing in mind the Chancellor's views on pay and inflation, has he proffered them any advice on how to bring those increases down to a reasonable level, or does he believe in allowing wages to go up and keeping interest rates high?
    Mr. Major: I do not support unjustified pay increases from any source, including directors—and neither does my right hon. Friend. While I have no intention of defending them, they are not under our control.
    Mr. John Townend: Does my right hon. Friend agree with the remarks made yesterday by the Governor of the Bank of England, when he commented that aggressive advertising by the banks to persuade people to borrow more so that they can spend more makes him feel uncomfortable?
    While credit controls are neither desirable nor practicable, does my right hon. Friend agree that the clearing banks and big City institutions should act responsibly? Would it be a good idea for the governor to invite the chairmen of the clearing banks to the delightful garden behind his office and—over a long, cool summer drink—tell them that it is in their long-term interests to act in the long-term interests of the country?
    Mr. Major: I share the governor's instincts, but what action he takes is a matter for him. I certainly do not believe that credit controls would be the answer.
    Mr. Charles Wardle: Is it not imperative for the City and for industry alike that my right hon. Friend's chief and abiding priority continues to be controlling inflation—even though, in the short term, that remedy may be painful to borrowers—because inflation threatens competitiveness, erodes savings, and threatens jobs?
    Mr. Major: My hon. Friend is entirely right. That is the central proposition before the Government at present, and my right hon. Friend has put in place the policies to bring down inflation.
    Mr. Beith: Is it not widely recognised in the City that London would be the obvious centre for a central European bank, and that Britain should be in the European monetary union of which that central bank would be a part? From a counter-inflationary point of view, would it not be better if that central bank had more of the independence enjoyed by the Bundesbank, rather than the relationship that the Bank of England has with the Government?
    Mr. Major: These are matters that will have to be addressed in the future, but I am bound to say that others may hold views that differ from the premise of the hon. Gentleman's question.
    Mr. Latham: Before my right hon. Friend throws the unsolicited junk mail that he receives from the City into the wastepaper basket, will he ask some of the teenage scribblers to send him a table showing their predictions of economic outcome in the last five years compared with the actual outturns?
    Mr. Major: I shall be very happy to study those projections and the eventual outcome. It is undoubtedly true that over a run of years, Treasury forecasts have been the most accurate.
    Mr. Gordon Brown: As the Chancellor spent yesterday attacking the railmen, will the Chief Secretary take the opportunity that I am giving him today to condemn the pay increases which have given Sir Jeffrey Sterling a rise of £1 60,000 in one year alone, Lord King of British Airways £100,000 in one year alone, and the head of Warburg
    456
    £350,000—on top of the top-rate tax cuts awarded to them last year? Will the Chief Secretary explicitly comdemn such pay rises—yes or no?
    Mr. Major: Yesterday, my right hon. Friend condemned the strike, not individual railmen. If the hon. Gentleman had listened, he would have heard what I said earlier about unjustifiable pay demands. They are unjustifiable whether they are made by directors or by workers.

    Income Tax
    Mr. Summerson: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the extra yield of income tax if the basic rate were raised to 33 per cent.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Norman Lamont): An 8 per cent. increase in the basic rate of income tax to 33 per cent. would yield about £13·5 billion extra in a full year at 1989–90 income levels, assuming that there were no behavioural effects.
    Mr. Summerson: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is no part of Government policy to increase the burden of income tax, whereas, so far as anyone can tell, that is precisely the policy of the Labour party?
    Mr. Lamont: As my hon. Friend knows very well, we have reduced the burden of taxation and shall continue to do so. Judging by the expenditure plans put forward by the Labour party, if the Opposition ever came to power they would be well on the way to putting tax up to the level it was when they were last in office, which was 33p. Every day we hear of Labour policies such as a pensions increase equal to 1p on income tax, an increase in overseas aid equal to 1p on income tax, increased child benefit, a carer's allowance, renationalisation of the water industry and of British Telecom, and the introduction of a minimum wage. They would all have only one result, which would be to increase the basic rate of income tax to all taxpayers.
    Mr. Frank Field: Why do the Government put so much effort into boosting the nanny welfare state for taxpayers? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that if the Government phased out all tax benefits we could have a standard rate of tax of between 12p and 15p in the pound? Would that not be a radical tax policy and, if so, why do the Government not introduce it?
    Mr. Lamont: As the hon. Gentleman knows, in the Budgets this year and last year the Government blocked a significant number of loopholes. In last year's Budget, some £800 million was raised by the blocking of loopholes. We have taxed the use of company cars and blocked the forestry loophole. I agree that we should get marginal rates down and get average rates up.
    Sir William Clark: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, historically, a reduction in taxation has meant that there has been a greater take for the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Does my right hon. Friend agree that if taxation were increased, revenue to the Exchequer would decrease?
    Mr. Lamont: That, of course, was the point to which I referred when I spoke of behavioural effects. There must be some tax maximising rate. It cannot be true for ever

    457
    that, however much taxes are cut, more revenue will be raised. What we have done, especially at the top end, has increased the tax take.

    European Monetary System
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the latest figure that he has for the rate of inflation in the United Kingdom; and what is the average inflation rate for countries who are full members of the European monetary system.
    Mr. Lawson: Excluding owner-occupier housing costs in order to put the figures on a more comparable basis, United Kingdom inflation currently stands at 6 per cent. compared with an average of 44 per cent. for the countries which are full members of the European monetary system.
    Mr. Hughes: Given that the other inflation figure is 8·3 per cent. and not 6 per cent., when will the Chancellor say that our inflation will be low enough to allow us to join the exchange rate mechanism? What figure does he put on that inflation rate to allow us to join, given the conditions that he laid down before the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee and that the Prime Minister laid down in Madrid?
    Mr. Lawson: On the first point that the hon. Gentleman has made, I have to tell him that he is mistaken. Of the other countries that he mentiooned, only one has mortgage interest payments in its index, and a great many of them—in fact, about a half of them—have nothing at all for owner-occupier housing costs, nothing at all. Therefore, the only way to have a truly comparable figure is to take owner-occupier housing out, which is what I did, and that is a very different comparison between the 6 per cent. and the 4¼ per cent. As for the second question that the hon. Gentleman put to me, the answer is: lower than it is today.
    Mr. Dykes: Does not the impressive experience of the EMS and the ERM show that it makes the vulnerable currencies in the system stronger rather than weaker? Are there not good lessons to be learnt for the pound sterling?
    Mr. Lawson: Certainly, it is true that all those countries that are members of the exchange rate mechanism of the EMS to my knowledge believe that this has been beneficial to them, but it is a mistake to infer from that that all one has to do to run a successful economic policy is to join the exchange rate mechanism of the EMS. That is very much not the case. The same hard choices that have to be taken outside the exchange rate mechanism have to be taken inside it as well.
    Mr. Foot: As it was obviously a major event in the control of our economic policy and inflationary policy, would the right hon. Gentleman care to tell us the exact terms of the apology that he received from the Prime Minister?
    Mr. Lawson: I have no wish to comment at all on private conversations that may or may not have taken place between my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and myself. We are at one on the subject of economic policy.

    Taxation
    Mr. Couchman: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the number of people who would face a higher marginal rate of tax and national insurance if the top rate of income tax were raised to 50 per cent. and the employees' national insurance limit were abolished.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the number of people who would face a higher marginal rate of tax and national insurance if the top rate of income tax were raised to 50 per cent. and the employees' national insurance limit were abolished.
    Mr. Norman Lamont: If the higher rate of income tax were raised to 50 per cent. and the employees' upper earnings limit for national insurance contributions were abolished, about 3·4 million single people and married couples, about 15 per cent. of the total, would face higher marginal rates of income tax or national insurance.
    Mr. Couchman: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that this would raise the marginal rate to 59 per cent. and that such a calamitous rate would encourage another exodus of the skilled and the entrepreneurial? Would it not provide fuel for that pernicious industry of creative personal accounting which was so prevalent when the Labour party was in power?
    Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend is, of course, right. That is not the only way in which the Labour party is proposing to increase taxes. As my hon. Friend said, it would put up the marginal rate for nearly 3½ million people, of whom 2 million are basic rate taxpayers, and another 1 million people, half of them pensioners, would lose as a result of the reintroduction of investment income surcharge. Another 24 million people in 12 million couples would also lose as a result of freezing the married couples' allowance and on top of all that, Labour would introduce a local income tax. That would take us straight back to the policies which destroyed incentives and crippled our economy in the 1970s.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: What advice would my right hon. Friend give to the 2 million people who currently have a marginal tax rate of 25 per cent. and who would, nevertheless, be penalised by an extension of national insurance contribution? Is it not significant that 2 million families would be hit in that way if we had a Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer?
    Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend is right. I am sure that thanks to him and to my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) raising these matters, the warnings will be heeded and people will think carefully before voting Labour.
    Mr. Mullin: To keep the level of hyprocrisy to a minimum, will the Financial Secretary confirm that the percentage of gross domestic product consumed by taxation has increased since his Government came to power?
    Mr. Lamont: The percentage has increased, but the percentage taken by income tax has decreased. What we have done—and what the previous Government should have done—is to replace borrowing by sound finance.
    Mr. Ashton: Surely, it is the people at the top who live in the biggest and poshest houses—[Interruption]—who will also benefit most from the poll tax. Why should they have cuts at both ends of the scale—from the poll tax and income tax?
    Mr. Lamont: I am sorry that I did not hear much of the hon. Gentleman's question, except that I understand from the grin on his face that he is obsessed with people who live in the biggest and poshest houses.
    Mr. Marlow: If the purpose of taxation is to raise revenue rather than to punish people, is it not the case that since the Government have reduced the higher rates of taxation they have raised more revenue?
    Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend is right. As I have observed before, the Conservative Government have found a new way of soaking and clobbering the rich.
    Mr. John Smith: Following the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), can the Financial Secretary confirm that under this Government the proportion of national income paid in taxation has increased from 34·25 per cent. to 37·5 per cent.—a substantial increase? Will he explain what sense of equity there is in imposing on a person on £100,000 a year exactly the same liability in total national insurance as a person on £16,900 a year? In the case of the lower salary, that is 8 per cent. of income whereas in the case of the higher it is 1 per cent. of income. Is that not standing fairness on its head?
    Mr. Lamont: I have already answered the question from the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin). On the upper earnings limit for national insurance contributions, we have always adhered to the principle that it is important that the contributory principle should be recognised. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman wants to put up taxes, let him do so and not call it national insurance.

    Corporation Tax
    Mr. Colvin: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received on the basic rate of corporation tax.
    Mr. Lamont: A number.
    Mr. Colvin: I thank my hon. Friend for that very full reply. Will he confirm that over the past five years, in spite of cutting the rate of corporation tax from 53 per cent. to 35 per cent. for big companies and from 42 per cent. to 25 per cent. for small companies, the revenue actually received by the Exchequer from corporation tax has more than doubled? Although capital allowances have been reduced, investment in manufacturing industry is running at an all-time high. As the patient has responded so well to the treatment, why can we not have a bit more of the same tax-cutting medicine?
    Mr. Lamont: I note my hon. Friend's early Budget representation and I am sure that my right hon. Friend has done so as well. As my hon. Friend says, the United Kingdom has led the world in cutting corporation tax rates. We have reduced those rates by 17 points and, as my hon. Friend has said, the yield has soared. Of couse, that is largely because of the sound economy and the great
    460
    upsurge in profits that we have experienced. We shall certainly keep the matter under review as my hon. Friend suggests. It is also true that investment has in no way suffered. Indeed, investment has boomed since we removed capital allowances and reduced the rate.
    Mr. Foulkes: Can the Minister give a clue about whether the number of representations that he has received is nearer to the real level of inflation or to the fiddled figure that is used by his right hon. Friend the Chancellor, which does not include housing costs?
    Mr. Lamont: It was an extremely small number.

    European Monetary System
    Mr. Squire: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what effect the entry of Spain has had on her Majesty's Government's policy on membership of the European monetary system.
    Mr. Lawson: None, though we will watch Spain's progress with interest.
    Mr. Squire: In our mutual enthusiasm for joining the exchange rate mechanism, does my right hon. Friend agree that Spain has an inflation rate of nearly 7 per cent. at present and will he confirm that those countries that are within the exchange rate mechanism and have not yet abolished capital controls will possibly face major pressures on their interest rates when they finally do so?
    Mr. Lawson: Of course, it is very important that all membr countries of the European Community abolish exchange controls in line with the directive which was agreed last year, and as my hon. Friend will know, most of the countries have to do that by 1 July 1990, including in particular France and Italy. It will be certainly a matter—as I told the Select Committee when I appeared before it on this subject—of very great interest to see how EMS fares after this abolition of exchange controls has taken place. I believe—and the Governor of the Bank of England stated when he gave evidence his belief—that the EMS would successfully survive that. It may be that some modifications will be required, but the EMS will successfully survive the removal of exchange controls by France, Italy and others. We shall have to see. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating.
    Mr. Robert Sheldon: Whatever fears we may justifiably have about the future economic policy of this country in the event of our joining the exchange rate mechanism, is the Chancellor aware that the greatest fear is that we may enter at too high a rate?
    Mr. Lawson: I realise that the Opposition are always in favour of devaluation. I know that they have a policy which is in some way similar to ours, concerning the exchange rate mechanism, but in one particular respect, totally different. They too wish to join the exchange rate mechanism of the EMS and they too believe that there are one or two conditions precedent, but their conditions are to secure the most inflationary environment they can, by devaluation of sterling first, and a change in the arrangements of the EMS to ensure that there is an inflationary climate throughout Europe. That is something which we wholly reject.
    Mr. Butterfill: Does my right hon. Friend agree that to suggest that we should have to have a withholding tax as the price for the abolition of exchange controls displays an extraordinary lack of confidence in the operation of a free market? Will he confirm that he will resist that ridiculous proposal?
    M. Lawson: I can confirm not only that I will resist this proposal, which would be totally harmful, I can confirm that I have been resisting it, and so successfully that there are now a large number of other countries that are resisting it. I am absolutely confident that no such European Community withholding tax will ever come into place.

    Value Added Tax
    Mr. Bill Michie: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what proportion of gross earnings a one-earner family on average earnings with two children paid in value-added tax in (a) 1979 and (b) 1989.
    Mr. Lilley: A married man on average male earnings with two children would have paid approximately 2·7 per cent. of his earnings in VAT in 1978–79 and 5 per cent. in 1988–89.
    Mr. Michie: Does the Minister agree that the £5·76 per week that the average family would have had if VAT was still at the same proportion of earnings would be welcome to those families and would help them a little to offset the extra costs that they have to pay in massive mortgage repayments because of the Chancellor's policies?
    Mr. Lilley: The significant fact is that over that period, which coincides with the lifetime of this Government, the average married man has had an increase in his real take-home pay—after taking account of prices and VAT —of more than 30 per cent. I do not think that people would have been prepared to trade that for the fiscal regime left behind by the Labour Government.
    Mr. Boswell: Does my hon. Friend accept that spending and income must be considered together? Will he remind the House by how much the starting figure at which a comparable family pays income tax has increased in the same period?
    Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right and makes a valid point. We have increased the threshold by about a quarter in real terms, thus taking a considerable number of lower paid people out of the income tax regime altogether.
    Dr. Marek: The Economic Secretary will have heard the Financial Secretary say a few moments ago that the burden of taxation as a proportion of gross domestic product has increased under this Government. Will he take the next step and admit that that means that the British people have been taxed more heavily in the past 10 years under this Government than they were taxed under the previous Labour Administration?
    Mr. Lilley: We inherited public finances that were largely financed by borrowing. Initially, we had to finance part of that by increased taxation but more recently the burden of taxation as a proportion of GDP has been coming down. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has made it absolutely clear that if ever a Government were
    462
    elected—which they will not be—with the policies that appeared in the recent Labour policy review, taxes would go up and up and up.

    Interest Rates
    Ms. Quin: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from small businesses on the current level of interest rates.
    Mr. Major: My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations on this subject.
    Ms. Quin: Have the Government studied the recent survey by the Forum of Private Business, which shows that small firms are rapidly becoming the victims of high interest rate policies? Are the Government aware of the CBI's industrial survey showing the weakness of small firms' export orders? What advice are the Government now giving to small firms?
    Mr. Major: I have seen those reports. There is no doubt that interest rates are uncomfortable. But inflation would be more uncomfortable, would last longer and would be far more damaging. Monetary policy is specifically geared to bear down on inflation and so bring it down. That is in the interests of all business, particularly small business.
    Mr. Gow: Is it not the case that excessive monetary growth caused, and diminished monetary growth will cure, the monetary evil of inflation? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he will maintain interest rates at such a level as to persevere in the abatement of inflation until we achieve his declared target of stable prices?
    Mr. Major: I can certainly assure my hon. Friend that we have no intention of relaxing on monetary policy until it begins to bear fruit.
    Mr. Haynes: When the Prime Minister comes in to the Chamber in a moment or two, will Treasury Ministers have a word with her and tell her to get rid of the Chancellor and farm him off back to the beautiful green fields of Blaby, because he has been a complete failure? He promised that the Government would help small businesses because that was where the jobs would come from and said that that would sort out the problems of the economy.
    Mr. Major: I disagree with what I could hear of what the hon. Gentleman said. We cherish the Chancellor and hope to keep him for a long time.
    Mr. Bellingham: Is the Chief Secretary aware that in west Norfolk unemployment has come down from a peak of 18 per cent. to less than 6 per cent.? The main reason for that is the success of the small firms sector, which has prospered under the Chancellor's policies. However, is my right hon. Friend aware that that sector is worried about the increase in inflation and supports policies that will bring inflation down?
    Mr. Major: I entirely agree. Unemployment has fallen in each and every region of the United Kingdom—without exception—and that has been happening for a considerable period of time. That is a direct result of the policies that my right hon. Friend has been following.
    Mr. Chris Smith: Is the Chief Secretary aware that bankruptcies among self-employed sole traders in London

    463
    and the south-east have risen by 28 per cent. in the past year, as a direct result of the Government's high interest rate policy? Does he show no concern for the small businesses throughout the country that are being forced to abandon re-equipping and investment decisions and, in many cases, being forced to lay off staff? Has he heard the verdict of the small business man in Gosport, who said that high interest rates were squeezing his business to choking point? Why does he not change his policy before it is too late?
    Mr. Major: The hon. Gentleman can rattle his chains all he likes, but the creation of new businesses is now running at an unprecedented rate of 1,300 new businesses every week. The hon. Gentleman can never tell us when that happened under any Labour Government.
    Mr. Oppenheim: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the effect of high interest rates on business is substantially mitigated because long-term rates are several points below the level of short-term rates? In addition, does he agree that the long-term interests of all business, the economy and the people of Britain are best served by having high interest rates now, rather than allowing problems to build up for the future, as other Governments would have allowed?
    Mr. Major: That is right. It is also pertinent that the profitability of small businesses is at the highest level for 20 years. That means that firms are much less reliant on borrowing and therefore much less sensitive to short-term interest rate changes.

    Economic Advisers
    Mr. Wall: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list his economic advisers at the Treasury.
    Mr. Gareth Wardell: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list his economic advisers at the Treasury.
    Mr. Major: I shall arrange for a list of the numbers in each grade to he published in the Official Report.
    Mr. Wall: Have the Chancellor's economic advisers concluded whether Sir Alan Walters, the Prime Minister's economic adviser, is correct in saying that the current high and rising rate of inflation is due to the Chancellor's decision to peg the pound to the deutschmark?
    Mr. Major: I understand why the hon. Gentleman is seeking to cause trouble, but I have no intention of accommodating him.
    Mr. Wardell: Have the Chancellor's advisers yet reached the conclusion that his over-reliance on the rate of interest as an instrument of economic policy is the key to understanding his current mismanagement of the British economy?
    Mr. Major: The Chancellor's advice from his advisers is for him. The decisions that are taken are for the Chancellor. I have no intention of referring to the advice that is received.
    Mr. Robert Banks: Will the Minister accept advice from me, that the current interest rates are biting quite well enough and that the Government's policy must be given
    464
    time before we take any other action that may or may not be necessary? It is essential that the economy is given proper time in which to respond to current levels.
    Mr. Major: As I said earlier, my right hon. Friend will certainly use monetary policy to bear down on inflation. I give my hon. Friend that categorical assurance.
    Mr. Batiste: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a sensible person should take advice from as many sources as possible, and that he will be judged not by the noises that come from his advisers but by the quality of the judgments that he makes based upon that advice?
    Mr. Major: My hon Friend makes an extremely good point. It is not that long ago that we had some advice from 364 distinguished economists who were entirely wrong. I can certainly offer my hon. Friend the assurance that none of them work for the Treasury.
    Mr. John Smith: Is it not clear that the Chancellor is in need of some good advice, in particular not to make foolish interventions in rail disputes and not to threaten even further cuts in investment in our railway system, which is already inadequate because of years of underinvestment by the Government?
    Mr. Major: Even by the standards of the Opposition Front Bench, that is a remarkably misguided statement. The growth in investment in British Rail has been 75 per cent., and we now have the largest investment programme in British Rail since the advent of steam. That is a reality that the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his hon. Friends might do well to understand.
    The following is the information:

    1 Chief Economic Adviser at Grade 1A

    1 Deputy Chief Economic Adviser at Grade 2

    4 Grade 3 (Under Secretary) Economists

    12 Grade 5 (Senior Economic Advisers)

    31 Grade 7 (Economic Advisers)

    27 Economic/Senior Economic Assistants

    Earnings
    Mr. Curry: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the percentage increase in the real take-home pay of a married man on male average earnings with two children between 1978–79 and 1989–90
    Mr. Norman Lamont: Take-home pay for a married man with two children on average male earnings is 32 per cent. higher in real terms in 1989–90 than in 1978–79.
    Mr. Curry: Is it not clear that the ordinary working family has benefited most from a policy of high economic growth and a reduction in taxation? Therefore, are not the Government acting in the interests of the ordinary working family in making their counter-inflation strategy the centrepiece of their economic policy, even when it involves difficult decisions such as keeping down pay in the public sector?
    Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend is right. The increase in earnings in real terms, after prices and after VAT, to the average person is worth about £53 a week more at today's prices than in 1978–79. The same is true also for the person on half average earnings. His real earnings are now about 25 per cent. higher. That is an increase in the past seven

    465
    years of 3·2 per cent. per annum, which compares with a total increase of about 4 per cent. during the period when the Labour party was in office.

    European Monetary System
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on what deutschmark/sterling exchange rate he would treat as appropriate to join the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system and as to what other considerations would affect his decision.
    Mr. Lawson: I refer the hon. Member to the statement by the Prime Minister to the House on 29 June on the outcome of last week's European Council in Madrid.
    Mr. Bruce: That statement showed that the Prime Minister took the view that we should not join the exchange rate mechanism until the completion of the single market, which is likely to be well after 1992. Does that mean that business and industry must wait another 10 years before the time is right?
    Mr. Lawson: The hon. Gentleman will have to wait and see. My right hon. Friend reaffirmed our commitment to join the exchange rate mechanism of the EMS but said that first inflation would have to come down and that there would have to be satisfactory progress on other measures involved in stage one of the Delors programme, including in particular the abolition of exchange controls. We in this country have been working for that for a long time, and got an agreed directive last year.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Bill Walker: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 6 July.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Walker: Has my right hon. Friend read the report in the Scottish Sunday Express about the crisis of confidence throughout Scottish business— [HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] and the risk of job losses and a reduction of investment in Scotland—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."]—which is the direct result of the Opposition and the Scottish media supporting the—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."]—flawed, fraudulent and unworkable proposals for an assembly or parliament in Scotland, leading to—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."]—increased risk of separation of the kind that we expect from the Socialists —[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must make his question brief.
    Mr. Walker: Has my right hon. Friend realised that the benefits of the best financial climate that Scotland has enjoyed since 1945, due to her policies and leadership, is now at risk? What can she do to help the Scots?
    The Prime Minister: I saw the report to which my hon. Friend refers, which said that half the Scottish companies interviewed would either cut local investment or move their headquarters south if devolution or independence came to pass. Scotland has done well on inward investment and during the period of Conservative Government, more jobs have been created and it has the second highest rate of earnings in the whole of the United Kingdom. I hope that Scotland will see fit to keep this prosperity and good prospects for the future.
    Mr. Kinnock: Will the Prime Minister update the House on all the constructive efforts she has made since Tuesday to resolve the rail dispute?
    The Prime Minister: As I told the right hon. Gentleman, the rail dispute is a matter between the board of British Rail—[Interruption.]—and the unions. As he knows, the national tribunal is meeting today to hear and consider the matter referred to it by the Transport Salaried Staffs Association. Alas, it is not also considering the NUR and ASLEF issues because they have not referred their matter to that arbitration panel.
    Mr. Kinnock: I think that the words the Prime Minister was searching for when answering my question were, "None, Sir." If the Prime Minister ever used the railways or the tubes, she would know that travellers constantly suffer dirt, delays and discomfort because of under-investment. How does she think that yesterday's threat to cut investment will help to resolve the current dispute or help to improve services for those travellers?
    The Prime Minister: Has not the right hon. Gentleman forgotten one fundamental thing, which is that the unions are driving the customers away—[Interruption.]—because they are not operating the railways? The right hon. Gentleman will have heard the Chief Secretary in Treasury questions pointing out that investment in British Rail has increased under Conservative rule, particularly in the electrification of lines—the investment of the last two years is the biggest programme we have ever had and the prospects for the next four years are good. It is the unions which are driving their customers away, both passengers and freight. It is a tragedy that railway men will lose their jobs if they go on like this.
    Mr. Kinnock: There was not a single word of truth in the Prime Minister's answer. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Kinnock: Will the Prime Minister confirm, for the sake of honesty, that under her Government investment in railways has been 25 per cent. lower in real terms than under the last Labour Government, that the best level of investment ever achieved by her Government was lower than the worst level of investment ever achieved in real terms under a Labour Government, and that the claims made yesterday by the Chancellor of a 50 per cent. increase is an increase from the lowest level of investment in railways in post-war history?
    The Prime Minister: I do not know how the right hon. Gentleman can believe that people or freight can travel on railways—[Interruption.]—when the railways are on strike. Of course they cannot. Railway men are depriving themselves of jobs.

    467
    On the question of investment, the Government have spent in real terms half as much again each year on rail electrification as the Labour Government. With regard to overall investment, in terms of 1989–90 prices, the greatest years for investment in British Rail were 1987–88 at £594 million, 1988–89 at £629 million, and 1989–90 at £781 million.
    Mr. Barry Field: Does my right hon. Friend agree that even the average reader of "Thomas the Tank Engine" understands that it is not possible, on the one hand, to call on the Government to defeat inflation and, on the other to call on the Government to give in to the rail strikers' pay demands without stoking up inflation? Will my right hon. Friend recommend a serious economic policy to the Leader of the Opposition or send Mr. Controller to have a word with him?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that the Labour party will complain about the level of inflation and then support every strike to get increased wages.
    Mr. Kirkwood: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 6 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Has the Prime Minister yet had time to study the findings of the British Medical Association-commissioned Gallup poll on the National Health Service which shows that the vast majority of the British public, including many members of the Conservative party, are opposed to and will not accept the far-reaching structural changes to the NHS that the Prime Minister is suggesting in "Working for Patients" and in the new general practitioners' contract? Would it not be wiser to stand back and abandon the big bang approach to changing the NHS in favour of a much more considered evolutionary process which seeks to build on the very many strengths of the existing National Health Service?
    The Prime Minister: No. I never know whether we are being accused of not running a good enough Health Service so that it needs reform or whether we are being accused of running such a good Health Service that no reform is needed. Hon. Members ask for one course of action one day and ask a different question on another. We are running a very good Health Service—the best that we have ever had. We are hoping to improve it still further. Many of the improvements that we have introduced have been opposed at the time, but they have resulted in releasing increased resources for the patient and better patient care. This reform will be no exception. It will result in great improvements for the patient.
    Mrs. Peacock: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 6 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mrs. Peacock: Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity today to read the report in The Daily Telegraph which says that the Governor of the Bank of England feels very uncomfortable with the aggressive advertising techniques of the financial institutions? Does she agree that the use of aggressive advertising to persuade people to borrow money to spend is of grave concern?
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I tend to share the governor's concern and I dislike seeing so many temptations for people to spend more than they can really afford. I hope that they will resist such temptations. It is not wise to spend more than one can really afford.
    Mr. Foot: Can the right hon. Lady give us any explanation—maybe it must be a psychoanalytical one —of why she should always be at her most dogmatic or strident on subjects such as the railways, football or the National Health Service about which she knows least?
    The Prime Minister: Having been opposite the right hon. Gentleman for many years I would not say that he was the person who knew mostest about anything.
    Mr. French: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 6 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. French: Will my right hon. Friend find time to consider the merits of the rents into mortgages scheme recently propounded by the Scottish Minister responsible for housing? Does she agree that such a scheme would find a welcome in other parts of the United Kingdom, including the south-west?
    The Prime Minister: Yes. I greatly welcome the rents into mortgages trial scheme that is being run in Scotland because there are a number of houses there where the Government are the landlord and we thought that it was a good way in which to try out such a scheme. I hope that many people will take advantage of it to purchase their houses and that the percentage of owner-occupation in that country will go up. Credit on housing is a very good investment indeed.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Is the Prime Minister aware of the growing concern in Fermanagh about the recent decision to open the Lackie bridge, which has been closed for some time to protect the citizens there? At a time of growing bombing in the Province, will she provide the security that the people need?
    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows, there was a decision some time ago to close certain checkpoints because we thought that the soldiers involved at those checkpoints could be better deployed in the area to give greater protection to the people. That decision has now been implemented because we believe that it represents a better use of the armed forces for the protection of the people.
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 6 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the recent accord between the MPLA and UNITA in Angola is a most welcome step towards peace in that country after a civil war that has lasted 14 years? Will she assure the House of the Government's persisting aim to achieve stability and prosperity in that region, not least by holding the next South African President to his pledge to hold to sensible progress towards democracy in his country?
    The Prime Minister: I join with my hon. Friend in hoping very much that the recent accord in Angola will be implemented and that it will lead to free elections. That will be the crucial test of whether it is working. If it is, that, together with independence for Namibia, will augur very well for the future of southern Africa. We have yet to see if that particular accord will result in free elections.
    Mr. Gareth Wardell: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 6 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Wardell: What advice could the Prime Minister give to my constituents and hon. Members about elderly people who, without asessment of any kind, enter private nursing homes and then find that their families cannot afford to pick up the bill for the difference between what the DSS pays for keeping that person in the home and the price charged by the home?
    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, under the income support scheme, there is provision for people to enter private nursing homes. A maximum amount is payable and homes are available which fall within that amount so that people may enjoy those facilities. Of course, people should inquire about the price before they go in, and it is impossible for the DSS to pick up every single bill for every residential home, no matter
    470
    how expensive. That could not be done under any Government. There are more people in residential homes now than there have been for a long time. Therefore, more people are enjoying a standard of comfort which was previously not available to them.
    Mr. Thorne: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 6 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Thorne: Will my right hon. Friend find time to consider the remarks made by Mr. Russell Hopkins, the general manager of University hospital of Wales, Cardiff when speaking at the BMA conference at Swansea? He accused the BMA of spreading fear, apprehension and uncertainty among the chronically sick, elderly and infirm through its disgraceful publicity campaign. Will my right hon. Friend denounce such behaviour?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I am glad that some doctors and managers have the courage to speak out against the scare tactics which are frighening a number of patients totally unnecessarily. This year the Government have spent three times the amount of money that was spent 10 years ago. In our 10 years in power we have also increased the number of nurses and doctors. The reforms are intended to bring about even better patient care. When we put them into operation, they will do just that.

Business of the House
3.31 pm
Mr. Frank Dobson: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY to JULY—Estimates day (3rd allotted day). There will be debates on Department of Energy administration and on civil aviation services. Details of the Estimates concerned and the relevant Select Committee reports will be given in the Official Report.
At Ten o'clock the Question will be put on all outstanding Estimates.
TUESDAY II JULY and WEDNESDAY I2 JULY Remaining stages of the Finance Bill.
At the end on Tuesday: motion on the Rate Support Grant (Scotland) Order, motion on the Redundant Mineworkers and Concessionary Coal (Payment Schemes) (Amendment) Order. At the end on Wednesday: motion to take note of EC document on irradiation of foodstuffs. Details will be given in the Official Report.
THURSDAY I3 JULY—There will be a debate on Hong Kong and China on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY I4 JULY—There will be a debate on foreign affairs on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
MONDAY I7 JULY—Opposition day. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject for debate to be announced.
[Monday 10 July
Estimate: Class VI, Vote 3 (Department of Energy: Administration)
Relevant Select Committee Report:
Energy Committee's Fourth Report Session 1988–89 (HC 435) on the Department of Energy's Spending Plans 1989–90
Estimate: Class VIII, Vote 2 (Department of Transport: Administration and Transport Services), so far as it relates to Civil Aviation Services.
Relevant Select Committee Reports:
Transport Committee's First Report Session 1988–89 (HC 198) on Air Traffic Control Safety
Transport Committee's Third Special Report Session 1988–89 ( HC 407), the Government Observations on the First Report of the Committee, Session 1988–89 Wednesday 12 July
Relevant European Community Document
10377/88 Irradiation of foodstuffs
Relevant Reports of European Legislation Committee
HC 15-viii (1988–89), para 5, HC 15-xvii (1988–89), para 5 and HC 15-xxi (1988–89), para 6.]
Mr. Dobson: I thank the Leader of the House for his statement and, on behalf of hon. Members from both sides of the House, I thank him for responding so promptly and arranging a debate on Hong Kong and China and a separate one on foreign affairs.
Can the right hon. Gentleman be equally prompt in securing a debate on the impact of the National Health Service review on Wales? The debate could be conducted
472
in the House or he could persuade his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales to agree to a debate in the Welsh Grand Committee.
Has the right hon. Gentleman got any further in the discussions that he said he was having about the possibility of establishing a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, or some alternative arrangements? It is some time since he told us that he was having those discussions and we should like to know the outcome.
When are we likely to receive the long-promised statement on the Government's response to the Griffiths report on community care? Will we receive it next week?
Finally, when will we get the long-promised debate on the Government's proposal to substitute student loans for student grants?
Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman asked me five questions about the business for next week. I am grateful for what he said about the two days that I have managed to find for the important debates on Hong Kong and China and on foreign affairs. I hope that it is for the convenience of the House to hold separate debates on those two subjects next week.
I recognise that we have had a number of debates on the Health Service; it is a subject to which we shall return from time to time, but I cannot promise a debate on the Health Service with particular reference to Wales. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would welcome a debate on the subject in the Welsh Grand Committee, but its timing should be left to the usual channels.
I have nothing to add to what I told the hon. Gentleman some time ago about the Scottish Affairs Select Committee. I explained that I have been considering the points that some of his hon. Friends raised with me in the course of a useful discussion. I have to confirm that I do not see an easy solution, but I am still looking into the matter.
With regard to the Griffiths report, we are now finalising our proposals on community care and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health very much hopes to be able to make a statement announcing our conclusions next week. As I have said before, there will be a debate in Government time at a suitable point thereafter.
As I said last week, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science and I have made it clear that we would welcome a debate on top-up loans. Again, its timing is best left for discussion through the usual channels.
Mr. Tim Yeo: During Treasury questions today a Labour Front Bench spokesman expressed concern about an alleged increase in the burden of taxation during the past 10 years. Would my right hon. Friend consider it possible to provide enough time during the remaining stages of the Finance Bill next week for the Labour party to clarify its position on this issue? If its anxiety is genuine, it will presumably welcome further tax cuts introduced by the Government and abandon all the proposals contained in its recent policy document.
Mr. Wakeham: I have never felt that lack of time was the principal cause of the Opposition's not making their position clear. There will certainly be time for them to advance any arguments which they think relevant and in order in the debates that we have arranged for next week.
Mr. A. J. Beith: Why has a major Government review of tourism, which has been a year in preparation, been slipped out this afternoon by way of a written answer instead of in a statement to the House, after which hon. Members representing affected constituencies could question the Minister concerned, as was possible on the last occasion when the Government announced such a review? Are we to have an early debate on this? Why has this deplorable procedure been used in a case which arouses a great deal of interest throughout England?
Mr. Wakeham: I do not accept for a minute what the hon. Gentleman says. A written answer is a perfectly proper way of making an announcement. Of course, whether to make such an announcement by written answer or by oral statement is a matter of judgment that must take into account all the other pressures on the time of the House. My right hon. Friend gave the matter proper consideration, but I shall see to it that the hon. Gentleman's views are conveyed to him.
Mr. Robert McCrindle: Will there be time before the summer recess to debate the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on the supply of beer? Although a number of my hon. Friends and I are opposed to the Commission's recommendations, we are not wholly in favour of the status quo. As there seems to be some doubt about the direction that Government policy is likely to take in response to the report, would it not be a good idea if my right hon. Friend sought the opinion of hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber?
Mr. Wakeham: At this stage, this is a matter for my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to consider. He is studying the report and considering the views expressed by hon. Members and others. It is right for him first to come to his conclusion, and for that conclusion to be announced; then we shall consider how best to proceed.
Mr. Jack Ashley: Is the Leader of the House aware that we should discuss the proposals of the Department of Transport for changing the orange badge parking scheme for disabled people? It should include thalidomide victims who have no arms and who have great difficulty carrying shopping. Other deserving groups should also be included. Abuse of the scheme must be ended because it damages the scheme, but is the right hon. Gentleman aware that more than 250,000 disabled people will lose their orange badges when the Minister's scheme is implemented? Hon. Members on both sides of the House will have thousands of complaints in the next year or two. Could we have a debate, please?
Mr. Wakeham: I am not sure that the right hon. Gentleman should be too alarmist about this matter. As he knows, the orange badge scheme was designed to help those with severe mobility problems. We are working to improve the scheme and to cut abuse for the sake of those who depend upon it for freedom of movement.
Mr. Ashley: I am not being alarmist.
Mr. Wakeham: It seems that the right hon. Gentleman, with his ingenuity, should be able to raise some of these issues in the debate that will take place tomorrow.
Sir Hal Miller: Knowing my right hon. Friend's personal and professional interest in our workings and in our working conditions, may I ask him whether he has received a copy of the parliamentary Labour party's proposals on this score? Will he consider providing an early opportunity for those of us who would like to join in the debate on the proposals, which include a three-day week—shades of 1974—provision for statutory instruments to be considered in Committee and various other measures that are apparently designed to secure not greater examination of the Executive but greater participation in our "pluralist political culture"?
Mr. Wakeham: I have not received a copy of the PLP's report, but I shall be interested to receive a copy. If it is as my hon. Friend has suggested, I am not sure that it will help us get up for the summer recess too quickly.
Mr. Alfred Morris: The Leader of the House will be aware of my interest, having legislated for the scheme, in the orange badge parking concessions for severely disabled people. Would it not be more satisfactory for there to be an oral statement next week about the very special predicaments of people with no arms, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) said, including many thalidomide victims?
Secondly, can I ask the Leader of the House if he can say any more about the timing of the forthcoming debate on parliamentary pensions?
Mr. Wakeham: The Minister who is responsible for the orange badge scheme and the question of thalidomide victims is consulting medical opinion on the circumstances of certain people with these unfortunate disabilities. Any statement or announcement to the House will be better made after conclusions have been arrived at.
The right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) knows that I have been trying to find a time convenient to everyone for a debate on parliamentary pensions. I am most anxious that the debate should take place. As soon as I can make an announcement, I shall do so.
Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: Is my right hon. Friend aware that an industrial dispute which concerns and harms the interests of employers or employees only is one thing but that an industrial dispute that results in misery and suffering for thousands of members of the general public, who are unconnected with the merits of the dispute, is another? Can we have a debate on how we might alter the law to protect the public against irresponsibility by either side in an industrial dispute?
Mr. Wakeham: I fully recognise my hon. Friend's concern, the concern of his constituents and the concern of many of us who have constituents faced with circumstances similar to those that he describes. The public sector unions, especially in a monopoly or near-monopoly industry, should recognise their special responsibilities to the general public. Current strikes in public services are a disgraceful example of unions letting down the public, whom they are there to serve.
Mr. Bob Cryer: As the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department has published and circulated a statement on blasphemy, would it not be a good idea to have a debate

475
on the Law Commission's 1985 report, which recommended abolition of this antique, out-dated and wholly useless legislation, so that we could come to some conclusions about it? At the same time we could express strongly our opposition to and condemnation of the bombing of book-shops, one of which occurred recently where "The Satanic Verses" was on sale, albeit in a muted sort of way without any big campaign. The bombing of bookshops and attempts to suppress literature is redolent of Germany in the 1930s.
Mr. Wakeham: I agree that there would be considerable value in such a debate, as the House could express its grave concern and disquiet about some of the activities. As the hon. Gentleman well knows, the blasphemy laws have not been of much value or use in our system, so it certainly is not a sensible idea to extend them. The question whether they should be abolished is not for me, but they will not provide much of a solution to the current difficulties.
Mr. Michael Latham: Is my right hon. Friend aware that when the clergy ordination Measure comes before the House in the next two or three weeks, following an excellent debate in the House of Lords, many hon. Members will wish to take part in the debate? Will he ensure that the debate takes place at a reasonable time and is not shunted off to 4 o'clock in the morning?
Mr. Wakeham: There was a good debate in another place, and I hope that this House will live up to my hon. Friend's expectations. I shall try, as I always try, to bring important matters before the House at a convenient time. However, I am sure that my hon. Friend recognises that, especially at this time of year, I have some difficulty in achieving that objective.
Mr. Ray Powell: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) about a Welsh Grand Committee debate on the National Health Service? Does he recall that during business questions on 22 June he promised my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South arid Penarth (Mr. Michael) that he would arrange a debate on that matter before the recess? There are only three weeks to go and this matter is very important. It is essential that Welsh Members discuss the NHS as it affects Wales and also the proposals for Wales.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the British Medical Association met in Swansea this week? We want to discuss with the Secretary of State the BMA's declaration against the Government's policy. It is not true to say that the matter can be negotiated through the usual channels because the usual channels are blocked. The right hon. Gentleman usually keeps his promises. Will he keep this promise and arrange a Welsh Grand Committee meeting so that we can fully discuss the problems with the Secretary of State?
Mr. Wakeham: I am not sure that my recollection of business questions on 22 June is the same as that of the hon. Gentleman. I am happy for the matter to be discussed through the usual channels. I have more confidence in that system than the hon. Gentleman appears to have at present.
Mr. Alistair Burt: In view of Britain's success in creating jobs during the past three years, does
476
my right hon. Friend agree that rather than the European Community giving us a social charter, there is an argument for Britain giving it a jobs charter? Will he find time, as soon as possible, for a debate on the employment aspects of the social charter proposed by the European Commission, so that the attitudes of the two sides of the House towards job creation can be examined, especially in respect of the damage done to employment by strikes in the public sector?
Mr. Wakeham: I agree that the Government's record on creating jobs is something to which all other countries in Europe could look with a degree of envy. It would make a suitable subject for debate, but I cannot promise one in the immediate future.
Mr. Bill Michie: I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to early-day motion 1018, relating to the dispute at Ever-Sure Textiles Limited, Sheffield.
[That this House deplores the action of management at Ever-Sure Textiles Limited, Sheffield, in refusing to accept recognition of the Transport and General Workers Union, even though 160 out of the 180 members of the workforce voted by ballot for trade union recognition and 87 per cent. of the workers voted in favour of industrial action following management's decision; condemns the dismissal of about 28 warehouse staff for taking part in the industrial action; is shocked to learn that the honourable Member for Sheffield, Hallam lists in the registry of Members' Interests that he is a director of this company where some of the women machinists have a basic wage of £61 per week; and calls upon him to put pressure on his fellow directors to allow the rights of workers for official trade union representation, which was confirmed in a democratic ballot.]
It has attracted 61 signatures to date.
Although it may appear to be just a local problem, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the workers involved have gone through the democratic rules laid down by the Government to obtain trade union recognition, but have been ignored by the reactionary management of that company? As I was not successful in obtaining an Adjournment debate, will the right hon. Gentleman consider arranging a short debate so that we can express our concern and gain some information about the Government's stance on this matter?
Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman will know that at this time of the year there are a number of occasions on which he can raise that matter on the Floor of the House without my having to find time for a debate, which I am sure he will recognise is difficult as we approach the summer recess. It is for companies to decide on their bargaining systems, including which union, if any, they wish to negotiate with in collective bargaining.
Mr. Michael Jack: My right hon. Friend will have heard the exchanges during Prime Minister's Question Time on the subject of railway investment, when the Leader of the Opposition seemed to doubt the validity of some of the answers that he was given. The Government have a proud record on railway investment and I am continually being lobbied by my constituents and other bodies urging that the Government should do more on that subject. Our investment has been linked to the performance of British Rail and its staff but now that performance is sadly lacking. Will my right hon. Friend

477
consider having a debate on railway investment so that we can put straight our record on that matter and learn exactly what are the Opposition's criteria? Perhaps they would invest with no performance at all.
Mr. Wakeham: That would make a good subject for a debate. At Prime Minister's Question Time, the Leader of the Opposition, as is his right, asked questions and my right hon. Friend gave him answers. I hope that he is a wiser man as a result. However, I cannot promise an early debate on the matter raised by my hon. Friend.
Mr. Paul Boateng: Will the Leader of the House find time next week for the Home Secretary to come to the House and make a statement on the Home Office report published this week on the future of section 11 funding of local authorities and the Home Office's continued failure to make up its mind on whether to give relief to my hard-pressed ratepayers by paying out the money due to the borough of Brent under section II, as recommended by Sir David Lane?
Mr. Wakeham: If my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary wants to make a statement to the House I shall certainly find time, but the hon. Gentleman can find a way of raising that matter in the House without my assistance. However, I shall refer to my right hon. Friend the point that he has made.
Mr. Bowen Wells: Will my right hon. Friend make it clear that despite Thursday's debate being on a motion for the Adjournment of the House, the subject will be Hong Kong and China, not other foreign affairs matters, and that any other foreign affairs matters that hon. Members wish to raise will be debated on Friday?
Secondly, when does my right hon. Friend expect to respond to the recommendation of the Select Committee on European Legislation and the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service that the House should debate the Delors report?
Mr. Wakeham: I do not have anything further to say on the latter point, but we shall bear it in mind. The Delors report is an appropriate subject for debate and no doubt there will be an opportunity to debate it in the House.
On the foreign affairs debate and the debate on Hong Kong and China, my hon. Friend is correct. I announced Thursday's debate on Hong Kong and China, and Friday's debate is a more general foreign affairs debate. What is or is not in order in those debates is not a matter for me.
Mr. Dennis Canavan: In view of the Government's continuing failure to set up a Scottish parliament or even a Scottish Select Committee, will the Leader of the House consider going up to Inverness tomorrow to observe the work of the Scottish Constitutional Convention, which he will see at first hand is much more representative of Scottish opinion than the House, which continues to ignore the democratic wishes of the majority of the Scottish people?
Mr. Wakeham: Unfortunately, my duties in the House will detain me here tomorrow, but if I had an opportunity
478
to go to Inverness which, from time to time, I enjoy very much, I am not sure that going to the convention would be the most profitable thing to do.
Mr. Kenneth Hind: Will my right hon. Friend find time in next week's parliamentary agenda to debate industrial relations in the light of the strikes on trains and buses, and the prospect of a strike in the docks, so that the Labour party can explain to the public through the means of the House how it would end those strikes, particularly bearing in mind that during yesterday's debate on training, the Opposition Front Bench spokesmen said not one word on their policy on that subject either.
Mr. Wakeham: As my hon. Friend will have noted, I have announced an Opposition day debate for Monday 17 July, which is as far in advance as I can manage, to give the Opposition as much time as possible to get a policy together. If the Opposition want to debate that policy, I am sure that the House will be interested to listen.
Mr. Max Madden: What will the Leader of the House do to enable right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House to answer the growing list of questions from constituents about the implementation of the poll tax? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the latest estimate by Bradford city council officials is that the poll tax will be £343 per person—which represents a massive increase under that Conservative-controlled authority? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many people who have been designated as the "responsible person" have no income and are desperately worried about how they will pay? Is he aware that the parents of children aged over 18 in secondary education, with no income of their own, will be liable for their children's poll tax, and that people absent from the United Kingdom for up to one year will also be liable? When will right hon. and hon. Members have an opportunity to put questions to the Secretary of State for the Environment, in the hope that he will give some sensible replies?
Mr. Wakeham: If the hon. Gentleman continues asking questions of such an alarmist nature, it is no wonder that some people in Bradford will be misled as to the true position. I am unaware of any major problems that remain unresolved, but if the hon. Gentleman will write to me, I shall do my best to answer him.
Mr. Harry Greenway: I support the call of my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) for a statement or early debate on the British Rail and London Underground strikes. They are causing desperate inconvenience and suffering to my constituents and those of other right hon. and hon. Members—including pensioners from Northolt, who seek to take their holidays from Wednesday to Wednesday to save money. Such a debate could also consider the suggestion that many pensioners have made to me, which is that the men and women who work on the railways are losing nothing from their pay packets by striking on Wednesdays, because they make up their income by working overtime on the Tuesdays before and the Thursdays after the strikes —so they make no real effort or sacrifice.
Mr. Wakeham: I fully understand my hon. Friend's concern about the grave inconvenience caused to many of his constituents and about the strike generally. The strike is for British Rail and the unions to resolve, and I hope

479
that they will do so quickly in the interests of all commuters. The Government have done what they can to assist commuters to get to work. The extra measures that we announced last week were generally a success. Emergency parking in central London was well used, without creating significant extra congestion, and we are considering the use of further park-and-ride sites.
We urge the public to use car-sharing more and to stagger their journeys, so that more people may get to work. By far the most satisfactory way out will be for the union to recognise its responsibilities and to reach agreement with the employers.
Mr. Frank Cook: I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motions 1080 and 1081, in the name of the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt).
[That this House congratulates the BBC's staff for their courageous action in striking.
That this House notes that there is no intention on the part of the BBC strikers to improve productivity or efficiency and that the action taken has hit hardest at the elderly, house bound, lonely and low paid who struggle to pay the present exorbitant licence fee.]
Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for a debate—short or otherwise—on both early-day motions, which may allow the hon. Member for Langbaurgh to explain his somewhat contradictory views, which clearly must have been tendered in the spirit of mockery? Such a debate would allow right hon. and hon. Members to express their undistorted views about the opinions of BBC staff, as opposed to those of BBC management. It would also provide an opportunity to pass comment on the summer of discontent that the Government have undoubtedly provoked in a desperate quest to regain some form of electoral advantage.
Mr. Wakeham: That is not a particularly helpful comment. Industrial relations between the BBC and its employees on various subjects, including pay and conditions, is a matter for the BBC. It is for the BBC to decide how best to use the resources available to it, within the constraints of the index-linked licence fee. The Government's concern is to take measures to bear down on inflation, which is the major problem that we must overcome.
Mr. Spencer Batiste: My right hon. Friend will recall that I have asked several times whether he will find time for a debate on the Lord Chancellor's proposals for the reform of the legal profession before the Government's response to the many recommendations that they have received has crystallised. Can my right hon. Friend say when a White Paper on this important subject is likely to be published and whether he will find time for a debate before that happens?
Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend has been very patient and has asked me a number of times to find time for a debate. I regret that I have not been able to do so. Ministers hope to take decisions before the summer recess. I am sure that we will return to these matters at an appropriate time.
Mr. Greville Janner: I add my plea to that of the hon. Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste). Surely it is wrong that proposals of this magnitude, affecting people's rights in law, are debated throughout the country
480
and decisions are made, but there is no debate in the House. Is not the position even worse, because in the meantime, people's rights to justice deteriorate as the legal aid system provides less support. A person who needs justice must be either very rich or have little money—otherwise, too often, the courts are not available. Surely we must have a debate on legal reform and legal aid before the recess. Can the right hon. Gentleman promise at least that?
Mr. Wakeham: I regret that I cannot. The hon. and learned Gentleman is a fair man and he would be the first to agree that record amounts of money are being spent by the Government on legal aid. Of course, these are matters for debate, but that point should not be overlooked.
The Government have issued a Green Paper for discussion of the procedures. A final decision has not been made. When the Government decide what to do, there will be ample time to discuss the matter. If it involves legislative proposals, the House will have a full opportunity to discuss, debate and decide the issues.
Mr. Barry Field: My right hon. Friend was not able to announce a subject for the Opposition day debate on Monday week. Given the comments of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie) on the dispute at Ever-Sure and given the unwarranted and unprovoked attacks on the integrity of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick), will my right hon. Friend confirm that, if the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) requests an Opposition day debate on the dispute, he will agree to it? Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the Opposition do not request that debate, it will mean that they are simply indulging in petty political point scoring?
Mr. Wakeham: It is for the Opposition to decide the subject for debate on that day. If they want to debate that issue, they are entitled to do so. I recognise the force of my hon. Friend's comments. We can draw our own conclusions from the Opposition's actions.
Mr. Martyn Jones: I refer the Leader of the House to the Official Report of 22 June, when he promised my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) that he would do his best to have a Welsh Grand Committee before the end of the Session. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we gave two weeks' and three weeks' notice respectively through the usual channels and neither date was acceptable to the Secretary of State for Wales? I suspect that if the Secretary of State were as keen to discuss the Health Service as he claims, he would have found time to debate that matter in the House. I suggest that that notice is sufficient. I ask the Leader of the House to do better than his best and to prevail on the Secretary of State for Wales to overcome his natural fear to discuss a subject such as the Health Service in Wales and have a debate before the end of the Session.
Mr. Wakeham: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for confirming that what I said in that debate was not as his hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) suggested. I said that I would do my best. I will have discussions though the usual channels and I never do less than my best in these matters.
Mr. Alan W. Williams: I add my comments to those of my hon. Friends the Members for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones) and for Ogmore (Mr. Powell). There is serious concern all over Wales about the future of the Health Service and the Government's review proposals. The subject has produced a large mail bag for me and all other Welsh Members. I was heavily involved in the by-elections earlier this year in Pontypridd and Vale of Glamorgan and I know that the Health Service is the main issue in politics today for thousands of people. We should have an opportunity in the Welsh Grand Committee to discuss the effect of the proposals on Wales. We normally have four Committee sittings a year, but this year we have had only three. Why do the Secretary of State for Wales and the Government not allow us the opportunity to discuss the Health Service in the Welsh Grand Committee?
Mr. Wakeham: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman has reminded the House of his activities in the by-elections. I thought that he would hope that we would forget all about them. I recognise that he has added his voice to those of his hon. Friends wanting a debate on the Health Service in Wales. The Government's record on Wales and the Health Service would make a suitable subject for debate, but such matters must be negotiated through the usual channels, as I have said that I will seek to do. I cannot make a firm promise.
Mr. Frank Haynes: Will the Leader of the House do me a favour? Will he grab hold of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy, in between his flying in and out of Heathrow—which he does too often— and have a word with him on coming to the House and making a statement about a pit closure in my constituency? Everything has been agreed, so there is no problem about that. However, British Coal wants to use the land for housing development, whereas the people of the area want jobs. There is nothing else. I do not want the Leader of the House to tell me that he will have a word with his right hon. Friend because I have already done
482
that. Let us have the Secretary of State here and let me have the opportunity to question him to see what help he will give my constituents on this problem.
Mr. Wakeham: If the hon. Gentleman has tried his persuasive best, I do not think that there is much more I can do to assist. I know my limitations.
Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry to raise this point of order, but the matter is most important. You called during business questions the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) who, for reasons best known to himself, referred to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) and to the comments made earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie). I am sure that you will recollect that my hon. Friend the Member for Heeley made no comment about the hon. Member for Hallam. I am sure that you will also confirm that the early-day motion concerning Ever-Sure Textiles Limited and the dispute of members of the Transport and General Workers Union seeking union recognition refers to the hon. Member for Hallam. However, it must have been entirely in order for those references to be made as they have been accepted by the Table Office and, indirectly, yourself. I hope, therefore, that you will make it clear that the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Heeley and the early-day motion did not constitute an unprovoked attack on the integrity of the hon. Member for Hallam, which was what the hon. Member for Isle of Wight claimed. I hope that you will be able to clarify the record.
Mr. Speaker: If the comments of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie) had been out of order, I would have stopped him. However, they were not and I cannot say more than that.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
Ordered,
That the draft Passenger and Goods Vehicles (Recording Equipment) Regulations 1989 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Dorrell]

ESTIMATES DAY
ESTIMATES 1989–90
  Class XI, Vote 3
  [Relevant documents: First Report from the Home Affairs Committee of Session 1988–89 on the Forensic Science Service (House of Commons Paper No. 26), the Government Reply thereto (Cm. 699), the Third Report of Session 1988–89 on Higher Police Training and the Police Staff College ( House of Commons Paper No. 110) and the Fourth Report of Session 1988–89 on Home Office Expenditure (House of Commons Paper No. 314), so far as it relates to common police services.]—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]
  Class XI, Vote 3

Common Police Services
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a further sum, not exceeding £259,162,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1990 for expenditure by the Home Office on court services, other services related to crime, probation and after-care, police, fire, civil defence, control of immigration and nationality, issue of passports, etc., other protective and community services, certain broadcasting services, data protection and other miscellaneous services including grants in aid and international subscriptions; and on administration (excluding prisons).
4.9 pm
Mr. John Wheeler: I welcome this opportunity to introduce a debate on common police services and, in so doing, to discuss three of the reports of my Select Committee on Home Affairs this Session. My Committee has reported on the forensic science service and the police staff college, both of which are paid for from the common police services fund and has devoted part of our report on Home Office expenditure to common police services.
The common police services fund is used as a means of paying for those centrally organised police activities which individual forces could not finance on their own. These services so funded have been described as the infrastructure of the police service. Under the provisions of the Police Act 1964, the Secretary of State is empowered to contribute to these services as a means of promoting the efficiency of the police. Although small in monetary terms and in relation to overall expenditure on the police, common police services currently include a variety of activities essential to the effectiveness of the police service as a whole.
Because the police service is based upon a tripartite structure dating from Victorian times, it is difficult, if not impossible, for the Government to introduce new techniques in policing or to achieve standard practice across all 43 police forces in England and Wales. It has been a feature of all three of our Committee reports that we have proposed ways of creating greater unity of purpose and common approaches to policing, without which the present police structure might fail to meet the needs of the 1990s.
484
Our first report, made in February of this year, was on the forensic science service. The Committee discovered that the service has been under-funded. Its resources had not increased in line with the increasing volume of recorded crime and the enhanced capacity of the laboratories for forensic analysis. The shortfall in funding had led to the demoralisation of staff and general dissatisfaction with the services provided by forensic science laboratories to individual police forces.
The under-funding was the more serious, in the view of the Committee, because we had evidence that in particular cases the use of forensic science could lead to great savings in police resources by quickly confirming the guilt or establishing the innocence of a subject. Forensic science analysis can have a direct bearing on the use of expensive police resources by enabling them to be better directed. Moreover, we also had evidence that, in some cases giving rise to major public anxiety, forensic analysis has contributed to a speedy solution of the crime and the allaying of much disquiet.
The usefulness of forensic science is nowhere more clearly demonstrated than in the development of the DNA profiling test, which will match the DNA structure of a person to any blood, hair or other body fluids left at the scene of a crime. Because of the unique structure of each individual's DNA and the increasingly sophisticated and accurate results obtained from such tests, we made a special recommendation that pending the establishment of a register of DNA profiles or "fingerprints", for which the technology is not yet available, records of all those convicted of appropriate offences should be retained for future reference.
To overcome the problem of under-funding, we proposed that the laboratories should institute a system of charging police forces for work done. The evident value of forensic analysis to police inquiries in our view would ensure adequate funding. In any event, we proposed additional safeguards to ensure that the service should not be run down for short-sighted and short-term budgetary reasons.
The Home Office has reacted positively to our report. Under the new director general, it is proposed that the forensic science service will expand to meet the currently unmet demand for forensic science. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to inform the House that the essential short-term increases in staffing have now been agreed by the Treasury. Our proposal that individual forces should take direct financial responsibility for the work done by the forensic science service has also been accepted in principle and a detailed study is to be made into the feasibility of establishing the service as an executive agency. We welcome these steps, but wish to be reassured that the implementation of the practice of charging is not being held up by the failure to obtain the agreement of the Association of Chief Police Officers.
Our third report of this Session was on higher police training and the police staff college. Following our earlier inquiries, we were convinced that a key factor in making the fragmented police structure work was an efficient and coherent system of higher police training. Given the enormous cost of the police service in England and Wales —£3·7 billion in the current year, with 122,000 police officers and 40,000 civilian staff and a variety of other expensive resources—it is vital that senior officers are trained to maximise the use of those resources and manage them effectively to the benefit of the whole police service.

485
We were most impressed by the police staff college at Bramshill. Under the leadership of the present commandant, Mr. Bunyard, it has improved its command courses in terms of quality and content so as to equip those in command at all levels to fulfil their responsibilities. Because we recognise the importance of the skills and qualities available at the police staff college, we propose that its resouces should be used more widely in police management consultancy, in the research enterprise and as a venue for seminars and conferences.
From our visits to the college and the evidence we received, it became clear that the location of the college at Bramshill was an essential ingredient of its success. Bramshill house has become a symbol throughout the world of all that is best in the British police tradition. Sadly, Bramshill house is in a poor state of repair and will need urgent expenditure if it is to be preserved, but I believe that the investment that has already been made in the current site makes it inconceivable that the college should move. I would ask my hon. Friend the Minister if he is yet in a position to commit the Home Office to the future of Bramshill house as the venue of the police staff college and to the investment which this will require.
If the excellent training provided at Bramshill is to contribute fully towards a more effectively managed police service, it must be accompanied by appropriate arrangements for recruitment, career development and appointment to senior police posts. Sadly, at present, such arrangements appear to be lacking. We found that the special course, which provides an avenue for accelerated promotion for the most able young officers, has been seriously under-subscribed.
We do not believe that this under-subscription derives from the current method for selection of candidates for the special course and the senior command course by extended interview procedure, which we strongly support. Rather, it appears to follow from difficulties in the recruitment process and in the career development process within forces. It was suggested by Mr. Roger Birch, chief constable of Sussex and director of police extended interviews, that some smaller forces lacked the capacity to select the future leaders of the service.
As a solution to this perceived difficulty, we recommend that the Home Office should investigate the establishment of a professional method of nationally directed and regionally organised recruitment into the police service of England and Wales. To ensure that the most able young officers are motivated to attend the special course, we further recommend that the special course should include a greater element of assessment so that it becomes the principal means for identifying the future leaders and senior officers of the service.
Similar difficulties were also apparent in the case of the senior command course. The Committee was deeply disturbed to learn of the number of officers at ACPO rank who had not attended the senior command course, including 47 per cent. of all assistant chief constables. In addition, a considerable number of those who, after vigorous selection procedures, undertake the senior command course, fail to go on to achieve assistant chief constable rank. This represents an appalling waste of training on the one hand, and a lack of professional training for those in post on the other. The Committee
486
recommends the adoption of a policy whereby, from 1993 onwards, attendance on the senior command course should be a compulsory requirement for all officers applying for posts at the ranks of chief constable and deputy chief constable and Metropolitan and City of London police equivalent rank.
We were also greatly concerned about the wider matter of career development at ACPO rank—in other words, how the leaders of the police service are chosen. The current system of appointment was described by Mr. Birch as an "unprofessional lottery". There is little or no scope for career planning in these grades, and there is a positive disincentive to secondment to undertake essential central service jobs. This must be changed if senior officers are to be given similar opportunities to civil servants to broaden their experience and to deepen their professional knowledge.
The Committee came to the conclusion that the current method of appointment to and within ACPO rank is haphazard and amateurish in the extreme. To overcome the problem for this small career group, which comprises 249 posts, of which 63 are in the Metropolitan police, our report recommends that the ACPO ranks of the police service should be established as a central service grade within the Home Office as a cadre of professional officers holding the historic rank of constable, but available for appointment to the developing tasks of a modern police service both in central services posts and in existing constabularies.
In addition to the nine ACPO rank central service posts, there are currently 600 officers on central service duties within the police service—a number almost equivalent to a smaller police force. The growing importance of such posts is evident from the passage of the Police Officers (Central Services) Act 1989, which received Royal Assent only this week, and which granted to officers on such duties the historic office of constable.
A common thread in our reports on the forensic science service and higher police training is that the Home Office has found it difficult to determine the amount of resources to be devoted to services funded initially by the Home Office, partially paid for by local authorities and used by forces directed by chief constables.
We have therefore proposed in our report on Home Office expenditure that the Home Office should take full financial charge of those services necessarily provided centrally and recommend that, from the financial year 1991–92, the Home Office should pay the full cost of these services and that an appropriate adjustment should be made in the police or rate support grant to leave central and local government contributions to police expenditure in the same proportion as in the current financial year. Such a change would give those responsible for the services a direct incentive to maximise their efficiency and proper use.
In our report on Home Office expenditure, we review three other areas of police activity falling on common police services. For example, we examine the proposal that the secretariat of the Association of Chief Police Officers, should be strengthened. ACPO is increasingly looked to by the Home Office for advice and, in the case of the mutual aid co-ordination centre, it undertakes a quasi-executive role.
We therefore support the enhancement of ACPO's secretariat, provided that it is accompanied by a fundamental examination of the association's statutory

487
responsibility and accountability. Until the questions concerning the current organisation of the police are resolved, it appears that ACPO is to be the unifying factor in the present fragmented police structure. It is important, therefore, that this is acknowledged and its accountability established.
Our Committee has also been concerned at the limited expenditure on police recruitment, in view of the looming demographic problem which will occur as the pool of young people diminishes in the 1990s. We have therefore proposed that the Home Office and the Police Advisory Board give urgent consideration to an advertising campaign to market the police service as an attractive career to the ablest young people in the future. We re-emphasise the importance of a recommendation in our report on higher police training that there should be national direction of recruitment policy and procedures. These should be directly funded by the Home Office.
The Committee welcomed the appointment by the Home Office of a professional procurement adviser to assist police forces to secure the benefits of bulk purchase of vehicles, while maintaining the freedom of individual forces to procure vehicles best suited to their operational needs and budgetary considerations. We conclude that the Home Office should play an active role in ensuring that all forces achieve the most efficient standards in the purchase and management of vehicle fleets. Our recommendation fits in well with a recent report of the Audit Commission which clearly demonstrated the scope for financial savings. I hope that the Minister will say what progress has been made in this sphere.
I conclude with a few words about the essential provision of central services for the police. My views on the inadequacy of a system with 43 independent police forces in England and Wales are well known. Indeed, there are eight more forces in Scotland and a considerable number of departmental police forces, such as the British Transport police force, the Royal Parks constabulary, the Ministry of Defence police and so on. One means of making this system work is to ensure that services which are vital to successful police work, but which are beyond the scope of individual forces to provide, should be provided centrally.
The current method of provision is through common police services. This arrangement fudges responsibility and obscures accountability between Government, local authorities and chief constables. We have proposed that the Home Office should be free to take decisions on such matters without requiring to justify them in financial terms to local authorities, many of which have varied and possibly conflicting priorities.
No example of a matter in which a speedy decision is required is more important than that relating to the greater co-ordination of the regional crime squads for the whole of England and Wales, which has been suggested in our current inquiry into drug trafficking. If Government are to take decisive action in the provision of a vital national service such as this, they must be able to ensure that it is provided on a scale and at a speed which meets the urgency of the problem. This, above all, is the justification for the change we have proposed in the funding of the common police services.
This is an important debate, in which I hope other members of the Committee and hon. Members will find the opportunity to contribute. I very much look forward to the reply of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to my
488
comments on the work of the Select Committee and the proposals that we make for the improvement of the police system in England and Wales.
4.30 pm
Mr. Tony Worthington: I am pleased to speak immediately after the hon. Member for Westminster, North (Mr. Wheeler), under whose chairmanship the Select Committee on Home Affairs has put together a series of valuable reports, which I hope will guide the work of the Home Office.
I shall restrict my comments to the forensic science report, although I am sure that other hon. Members will cover the wide range of other reports. It is especially important to put the spotlight on the forensic science service, because we produced a report which was highly critical of the way in which forensic science has been administered in recent years. Although the Government's response to the forensic science report seems to accept many of our points, I hope that the Minister will be able to flesh out that response to show us that the Government genuinely recognise that there have been some wrong turnings in recent years and that we need to make it clear, not just with words but with deeds, that the forensic science service is now esteemed and is moving forward.
When we examined the service, we found a disturbing scene. Our reports are written in very modest and moderate terms, but in this report we said that the service had fallen on hard times and that morale was at rock bottom. Those are harsh words, but I believe that it was the unanimous view of the Committee that they were justified, and that radical improvement was needed.
Basically, we thought that the fault lay with the failure of the Home Office and its Ministers to understand the function of the forensic science service. It might be that the forensic science service failed to persuade the Treasury that it had problems, but the fault must remain with the Home Office having inadequate persuasive powers. In recent years there has not been any lack of concern in terms of the number of investigations of the forensic science service, but the situation has been one of paralysis by analysis. No sooner had one group come along to examine the forensic science service than another one came along. We were fearful that we would be yet another burden on that service, in that we might also be the cause of some delay.
We found it disturbing that the reviews, such as the Chepstow review, seemed fundamentally to misunderstand what the forensic science service involved. While Lord Rayner might be highly effective within Marks and Spencer, his impact on the forensic science service has been nothing short of disastrous. It is necessary to understand the contribution of the forensic scientist in other than accounting and administration terms. It takes many years to produce a good forensic scientist. Not only is there a prolonged stage of initial training, involving a first and usually a second degree in the person's own specialism, but there is then a long period of work to develop the skills needed to be fully valuable to the forensic science service.
The competent forensic scientist undergoes a unique test when the most adept and agile legal brains of the country subject every aspect of his work to intense investigation. Not many people face such a test.
In recent years there has been a lack of effective leadership in the forensic science service, but more

489
particularly a lack of leadership from the Home Office. We found that morale was low within the service, and that that had been exacerbated by its pay and conditions.
One of the things that most disturbed me was the way in which vacancies are filled. That is done by the Civil Service Commission and I believe that if one wants to lower morale in any service one need only bring in that commission. Someone may apply for a job and hear only many months later that he has got it. What is also disturbing is the lack of involvement of regional directors in appointments. When there are vacancies in a forensic science laboratory a person turns up at the door many moons after the need for an appointment was realised. Such practice is not the way to build up the balance and the quality of service available within a forensic science laboratory.
In the report we urge that the regional laboratories should be involved in choosing those to be appointed as forensic scientists. I hope that that recommendation is accepted. We also urge that vacant posts should be filled more rapidly.
Discontent about appointments is also linked to discontent about pay and conditions within the forensic science service. In the south-east the service has been unable to compete effectively for scarce resources. Forensic scientists have not only seen their salaries fall in comparison to those earned by scientists in the outside world, but they are extremely mortified when they discover that they are paid less than the police constable working on the same case. That must be put right. Following the Rayner review, cuts were imposed which resulted in the worst of all worlds—numbers in the service were reduced at the same time as those remaining in the service realised that others in the law and order business were valued higher than they.
We are faced with a strange situation. We have a law and order Government who have put great stock on the need to bring crime under control. They have recognised that the number of police should be increased, but they have not recognised that the forensic science service, which is a valuable tool for the police, should also have its numbers increased. It has, instead, been subject to cuts. In recent years the forensic science service has not expanded as it should and, therefore, morale has collapsed. Such a collapse is not inevitable. In our valuable visits we also saw the Metropolitan police and the Strathclyde police forensic science laboratories and neither of those places offers the same chronicle of collapsing morale and lack of contact with the management.
It is worth pointing out that the reductions in the forensic science service, run by the Home Office, have occurred alongside two other important events. The first is the massive expansion in the crime rate since the Government came to office. If the service is not expanded, inevitably there will be a diminution in the contribution that the forensic science service can make to the cause. It also emerged that more and more sophisticated techniques, developed by the forensic science service and others, could be applied to crime. Those techniques tend to be expensive in terms of labour and equipment. There was a consciousness of what could be done in relation to forensic science and a realisation that not all that could be done was being done. The most dramatic and
490
sophisticated of those techniques is the development of the DNA service. However, that is merely the most glamorous of the developments that have occurred in forensic science.
What issues face the forensic science service at present? I disagree with the rest of the Committee on the issue of charging. At present, as the hon. Member for Westminster, North said, the forensic science service is funded from the common police services budget. The majority of the Committee suggested that in future, the forensic science service should, at least in part, be supplied to individual forces on a piece rate basis. If forces asked for a particular job to be done, they would be charged for it on a piece rate basis.
I disagree with that suggestion because it seems that the central reason for embracing that method of funding is that those involved will do anything to escape the Home Office clutches. It was interesting that the Metropolitan police and the Strathclyde forensic science laboratories made no request for a charging service. Somewhat surprisingly, the trade unionists were in favour of charging, and when I asked them whether that was because the system would enable them to elude the Home Office's clutches, they as good as admitted that that was a factor.
Mr. Wheeler: It is very good of the hon. Gentleman to give way. He has fairly described the Committee's debate on charging, but I think that he will allow that the Committee was able to observe that the Strathclyde and the Metropolitan police forensic science services were both peculiar and the creatures of the two constabulary services. Therefore, they faced quite different problems from those which exist for the 42 police forces of England and Wales, which have to dip in to the Home Office forensic science service. The smaller forces certainly, and perhaps all the forces, would be unable to establish their own service in the way that the much larger Metropolitan and Strathclyde forces have, of course, been able to do.
Mr. Worthington: I accept that there is a closer relationship between a single force and its laboratory than between regional laboratories and a multiplicity of forces. It is interesting that this simple idea of charging for services on a piece rate basis had not been proposed in the past, but was the product of several years of decline within the forensic science service.
The problem with charging is that it assumes that chief constables make rational decisions. It may seem extraordinary for me to challenge the rationality of chief constables, but at present with a free service—the contribution has been decided according to the common police services budget—they do not make rational decisions. The report referred to one force that referred 6.7 cases per 1,000 crimes and another that referred 1·5 cases per 1,000 crimes. At the moment, there is no price, yet the forces seem to make highly varied decisions. If rationality is to be applied within the charging system, we would have expected that rationality already to exist under the present system, which does not seem to be the case.
We know very little about whether our police forces are efficient or rational, because we have chosen to exclude them from scrutiny for far too long. We make assumptions about their efficiency which we cannot back up because public expenditure on police forces is an under-explored subject. That problem has been partly due to the system of local police forces, in which the operational control is

491
given solely to the chief constable. Therefore, it has been extremely difficult for local police authorities to judge how expenditure is incurred.
While I agree to some extent with the Chairman of the Select Committee about the excessive number of police forces in England and Wales, I would be dubious about remote police forces which would exacerbate our present lack of knowledge about police operations. Our system of local accountability is undeveloped and under-resourced. We have not developed an adequate means of assessing the efficiency of police forces.
One of the points in the forensic science report about which we were most critical was that, after 50 years of the forensic science service, we are still no closer to knowing whether the level of that service is adequate. Precious little research has been done about whether we use our forensic science services in a cost-effective way. Some work, including the Ramsey report, was done in about 1986, but it did not take us any further. Touche Ross, an outside consultant, was commissioned to produce a report that would enable us to judge whether we were receiving an adequate level of service. However, Touche Ross flunked that task and simply produced a recommendation about charging, believing that the market mechanism would settle the proper standard of forensic science services. The report showed that police forces were far too little aware of the resources which could be given by the forensic science service, and that communication from the service to the police was inadequate.
I have an important question to ask the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, and if he can stop resting his eyes, he may be able to answer it. Has anything specific been done by the Home Office to commission research that would enable us to tell whether the funding of the forensic science service was adequate? We constantly heard from people about how many hundreds of man hours were saved by the timely introduction of the forensic science service.
One often felt that the staff of the forensic science service talked about their most glamorous cases—about their contribution to the Yorkshire Ripper case, for example. But we need to know what forensic science can contribute to the humdrum cases. People whose houses are burgled are frequently very upset about the perfunctory work done by the police service when following through what has been an extremely significant event in their lives. The police would say that they cannot devote much time to investigating those crimes because of their lack of resources. Given the techniques available to forensic science, it is a great pity that adequate research into whether it would be cost-effective for more forensic scientists to work in police investigative teams has not been done. We were also made aware of the extent to which evidence is destroyed or insufficiently dealt with if no forensic scientist is present.
I ask the Under-Secretary to go beyond the Home Office's response, which is once again that the matter is being looked into. Has a decision been made to conduct the—admittedly extremely sophisticated—research to enable us to judge on cost-effective grounds whether we are properly staffing our forensic science service? At the moment it is just guesswork: we deserve something better.
Mr. Robert Maclennan: I ask the hon. Gentleman in a spirit of inquiry whether during his and the Committee's considerations they
492
became aware of any great difference in the attitude of the various client police forces to the effectiveness and value of the forensic services. Would such a difference show up under the proposed methods of financing?
Mr. Worthington: I am grateful for that intervention, I referred earlier to how forces vary in their use of forensic science service, and there are many reasons for that. For example, the Kent force told us that it has to use the Aldermaston service. Travelling from Maidstone to Aldermaston constitutes a formidable disincentive to using the service, given that it involves travelling past the Metropolitan police forensic science laboratory. I suspect that individual officers' knowledge is often a reason for variations in use, too.
Mr. Barry Sheerman: My hon. Friend has put his finger on something. Deficiencies in the training of our police forces, and hence in their knowledge of forensic services and how to use them, are deeply embedded in their education procedures at every stage, particularly in the training procedures for officers who go on to criminal detection.
Mr. Worthington: That is right. That is why I am asking for more research. Remote regional laboratories may not be the most effective way of building up links with the police forces. Earlier, I mentioned the necessity of involving forensic scientists more routinely at the scenes of crime. That would go against the trend of recent years, when scientists seem to have been more and more laboratory-bound. They have waited for the work to come in rather than going to the scene of the crime.
Mr. David Ashby: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a better management of resources might be the key, and that that takes us straight into higher police training? Could not the best use he made of forensic science in that way?
Mr Worthington: The general thrust of our report was that we did not believe that there had been coherent management of the service. The first step is to try to find a way to assess the appropriate forensic service for the differing case loads of the police forces. Such research is immensely difficult, but it has not been attempted. Our report seems to suggest allowing it to be done by charging—if a force wants the service, it will pay for it, so we will know whether the service is adequate.
That response is not good enough, given the imperfect nature of the market, which depends on people's knowledge of what forensic science can do. It also depends on geographical factors. If we are ever to use charging, the time to introduce it is after scientific research has established the proper level of a forensic science service in the first place; otherwise, we shall try charging for a few years and then people will ask how we know it is working. We cannot assume that it works. The only way to check is to commission research into whether the service provided is appropriate for the case load of the police.
Mr. Sheerman: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way again. I share his misgivings. The Select Committee report will help to get the forensic service right, but to begin charging now might lead an investigating officer, under pressure from above, to ask how much a forensic

493
investigation would cost and to reject it in order to cut costs. His chief constable may be looking over his shoulder.
Mr. Worthington: That is right. A chief constable is under pressure from many directions. He is concerned not only with forensic science and the detection of crime; he is under pressure to spend more from what is available—his force may be demanding overtime, he has to deal with traffic matters and with whatever worries his neighbourhood. An invisible and distant regional laboratory will tend to be forgotten. Forensic science offers no certain pay-off. A chief constable may invest in it as a way of finally nailing an offender with a missing piece of proof, but he may not invest in the speculative forensic science work which may be necessary at the early stages of an inquiry but may not seem to offer a certain return at that stage.
I look forward to the Under-Secretary's response to the report. It is a critical report, and the response has assured us that our criticisms have been taken seriously into account, although it has come across in rather a bland way. I hope that the Minister will be able to assure us that the forensic science service will have a much happier time during the next 10 years than it has had during the past 10 years.
5 pm
Dame Janet Fookes: I suggest to the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) that he has missed the main point which the majority of the members of the Committee felt important in relation to charging for the forensic science service. Surely the important consideration is that chief constables and those below them should have as much freedom as possible to dispose of resources as they believe right. In some instances, the careful use of forensic science techniques can save overtime and all manner of other uses of the police so that they can get to the point with the aid of forensic science. With proper management by chief constables and those immediately under them, it will be possible to make that choice. It is not as though the services of the forensic science laboratories are now available ad lib. We are aware that the laboratories are able to take on only a certain amount of work. In these circumstances, the arrangements that we are suggesting would be far more practical.
It has been valuable for the Select Committee on Home Affairs, of which I am a member, to have examined closely various features of the police service in the past few months. I say that for two reasons. We are well aware that our constituents, the public generally and the media are preoccupied with and concerned about ever-increasing levels of crime. Members of the public are especially concerned about crime that can affect them, such as attacks on them by others and the possibility of burglary and robbery.
We are aware also that crime in its more sophisticated sense is reaching out in a way that is terrifying. This is not the occasion to deal with the Committee's current inquiry into drug trafficking, but it is clear that the trafficking goes beyond the remit of regional arrangements. It is international in scale, and on such a scale that it almost beggars belief. In the circumstances, we are surely right to
494
concentrate on our first line of defence—the police—to ensure that it is as well geared as possible to deal with the immense problems facing it now and in future.
The police service is costing an immense amount each year, and that is particularly relevant when we are considering Estimates. It is costing about £3·5 billion a year now, and the cost is likely to rise in the next year or two to well over £4 billion. We have a duty as hon. Members to ensure that that colossal sum each year is spent wisely. That brings me to my concern about higher police training and the staff college. Given the scale of crime and the scale of the resources that we devote to the police service, it is essential that the training of those who are the leaders of the police, in the jargon of the ranks of the Association of Chief Police Officers, is as good as possible. That must apply to what might be called their professional expertise and to the management of their resources, whether that is in terms of manpower or the various expertise that is available to them.
The Committee was fortunate in seeing not only the staff college at Bramshill but the training college in Scotland. Some members of the Committee were also fortunate enough to see the FBI academy at Quantico, Virginia, from which some of us returned only a short while ago. It has been possible for us to make some comparisons with our own training college. I was delighted on overseas visits to learn how well regarded the Bramshill college is and what a role it has to play in the international sphere as well as in providing training for our police force in England and Wales.
There is a particular difficulty, however, which I was staggered to find. The Chairman of the Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Mr. Wheeler), has already spoken of it, but it is one which needs to be stressed. It is possible to reach the ACPO ranks without ever attending the staff college at Bramshill. The figures are alarming. No fewer than three chief constables, 11 deputy chief constables and 67 assistant chief constables have managed to dodge, as it were, senior command courses. Some of those who have taken the trouble to participate in the courses have not received a reward commensurate with their expectations. I gather that 33 officers have attended the courses and have not received preferment.
I warmly endorse the recommendation that by 1993 it should be compulsory for all officers in the higher ranks to have completed a senior command course. I hope that by the end of the century that principle will have been extended by younger members of the police force taking the special course for high flyers first. I suppose that I am now looking ahead to the next century. The present under-subscription is disturbing and it is something that needs to be remedied.
I shall devote a little attention now to the problems that the members of the Bramshill staff encounter. One might have assumed and hoped that any officer who takes time out of his normal career to go to the Bramshill college to make his expertise available would find subsequently that his career prospects are enhanced. The exact opposite appears to be, and is, the case. Officers forfeit opportunities by going to the college. It is hardly surprising that it is difficult to attract individuals of the right calibre. I believe that I am right in saying that the post of assistant commandant was vacant from January to

495
about April. It appears that no one had even nibbled at the post, let alone there being a group of applicants from which to choose.
In these circumstances, we have as a nation been singularly fortunate in having so outstanding a commandant as Mr. Bunyard, who I think impressed all members of the Committee by the immense initiative that he has taken to bring all the courses up to date and to give them real vitality in the face of the changing problems in crime and policing. Shall we be so lucky again unless urgent steps are taken to ensure that no one suffers in his or her individual career pattern'? I do not know why I said "her", as there seems to be a marked absence of women at that level in the police force. I shall not pursue that hobby horse now.
It is clear that some changes must be made. My hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North has already touched upon one of the difficulties under the present system, which is the absolute right of police authorities to choose whom they will for entry into the higher ranks. There is no particular slot available for those who have done their stint at Bramshill. I warmly welcome the Committee's suggestion that they should become part of the special cadre at Home Office level, from which the various police authorities must choose to fill their appointments. That is vital if the staff college is to occupy the central place, as it should, in the education of the higher police service.
It was interesting to note that the overseas course run by the staff college is highly popular with people from many Commonwealth and other countries. During our recent trip to the United States, we met one or two people who had attended the staff college and they spoke highly of it. The course should be extended because, apart from spreading good practice to other countries, it is of immense value in forging intimate links, which are not otherwise available, with countries that send their police officers to Bramshill. It is paralleled with the higher education that we give to young students from Commonwealth and, in particular, Third-world countries. It is one of the most valuable ways in which we can help the Third world. I very much hope that my hon. Friend, when he replies, will encourage our hope that the overseas course might be allowed to expand.
It is clear that more money is needed to keep open the staff college. For example, the library is housed in bits and pieces all over the place. it is an excellent library and an important resource, but it is difficult for students to use it effectively. I urge my hon. Friend to ensure the provision of new accommodation. Indeed, there should be new accommodation for the students. We must remember that many of them are highly placed police officers who do not want to occupy third-rate 1950s and 1960s-type accommodation, which was never very good in its heyday and is now well past it. We were allowed to see a sample of the accommodation, and it was not worthy of the position that the staff college holds.
While there is some doubt about the staff college remaining on the Bramshill site, I can understand the case for being cautious about improvements, because they would be extremely expensive. I hope that my hon. Friend will take on board the Committee's recommendation that a decision should be made soon on whether the site should continue to be used, as we hope it will. The house provides a fascinating centrepiece that attracts all who go into it. We must never under-estimate the effect of symbols. It is
496
rather like the military bands attached to the armed forces; they have an importance and a value far beyond just providing music or an attractive aesthetic environment.
We are aware that the Home Office is considering whether any of the money confiscated under the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 should be used for the police service. We are also aware that that is not likely to be attractive to the Treasury, which always holds the firm policy of taking in any money, spare or otherwise, to dispose of as it wishes.
Mr. Wheeler: Searching the streets for pennies.
Dame Janet Fookes: My hon. Friend makes an interesting intervention.
It is not likely to be popular if we suggest that money should be diverted from the greedy clutches of the Treasury. It does not matter which Government are in office because the Treasury attitude remains the same. There is a case for allowing the police service to retain some, if not all, of the money confiscated under the Act. In what better way could we spend some of that money than on the upkeep and an increase in the work of the staff college? Indeed, the report recommends that, and I hope that it will be taken seriously. It has the merit of not picking out one police force as against another; it is common to all. It is especially appropriate that the money should be used in that way.
I wish to discuss one or two of the wider issues arising from our inquiries. They have been touched on in the remarks about the forensic science service, and they apply equally to the training of the police. There are grave weaknesses in the way in which our police service is organised and split between the 43 police forces of England and Wales, coupled with the separate police service in Scotland. At a time when there is an increasing need to pool resources and to act not only nationally but internationally, there must be some doubt about whether the current tripartite system should be allowed to continue. That point does not arise out of the report's recommendations; I make it simply as a personal view.
The more we study the police service, the more we find weaknesses arising from that pattern of arrangements. I shall not he so bold as to say how I think it should be organised, and in any case, it is probably beyond the scope of the debate. I simply state that urgent questions should be asked, not only by our Committee but by Home Office Ministers. The problems of crime are likely to increase, as will the costs of dealing with them. In the 1990s there will be difficulties in recruiting sufficient police because of the downturn in the birth rate.
In all those circumstances, I believe that the Home Office should take a hard look at the problems, and not take too long about doing so, because we must ensure that the police service is geared for the turn of the century and beyond.
5.18 pm
Mr. John Greenway: My association with the police service over many years is well known. I had the privilege of serving as a policeman in London for five years during the 1960s. More recently, I served as vice-chairman of the North Yorkshire police authority. I am now greatly enjoying a third bite at the cherry of police activity by

497
working with the Home Affairs Select Committee under the very able chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Mr. Wheeler).
Some important facts have already come out of tonight's debate. There is a great deal of agreement among hon. Members on both sides of the House about the problems that face our police service in society's fight against crime. We are not looking to answer those problems with ideological solutions. Nevertheless, there are one or two different remedies, which the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) has mentioned.
It is important to say at the outset that there has been an unprecedented increase in crime, not just under this Government, but over the past two or three decades. There is grave public anxiety about how we should tackle the crime rate and how we should best respond to society's anxieties. The main purpose of the Select Committee's inquiries into police matters is to make the policing of Britain more effective so that the public will feel more reassured and, in particular, have their confidence in the police restored. It is a great tragedy that, for a variety of reasons, that confidence has been eroded in recent years.
I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) is not in his place, but I understand that he hopes to take part in the debate. However, it is important whenever possible to pay tribute to the dedication of our police service. The comments that have been made tonight and in the Select Committee's report are a reflection not on the dedication of our policemen but on the archaic structures that are increasingly coming under strain and stress.
There has been a notable recurrence of several common themes in our recent inquiries into police activity. They include the problems of funding and whether we are funding our police services adequately, despite the record resources that the Government have made available to the police service and to increasing manpower. There is the need for more central direction and co-ordination of police services, to which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary referred recently in a major speech about policing Britain.
There is the potential benefit to the community of consistency in policing policy and performance. Working with the North Yorkshire police authority, I found that crime is no longer the province of local villains. It is a mobile problem. In north Yorkshire, many burglaries are committed by gangs who can be 50 or 60 miles away within half an hour using fast motor cars. That emphasises the need for more consistency and greater co-operation and co-ordination.
There is the problem of the under-utilisation of specialist support services, particularly in training and in the forensic science service, which was dealt with in two of our reports. Finally, there are the strains and stresses of the existing structure, to which I have already referred.
In our reports, we have offered markedly different solutions to the problems of various aspects of the police service as we felt was appropriate. For example, on funding and direction—matters that have already been outlined—we looked for greater direct responsibility in police forces in the use of the forensic science service and perhaps even greater responsibility in carousel training
498
courses on particularly topical isues at the police college at Bramshill. They could be accommodated at force level, but we look for more central funding and co-ordination, higher police training, police recruitment, the installation of telecommunications equipment and—without preempting the report that we shall lay before the House later this year on drug trafficking—national co-ordination and effort in the war against the scourge of drug abuse.
The procedures for funding common police services are protracted and cumbersome given the amount of money involved in relation to the overall costs of policing and local government expenditure. The Home Office acknowledged that during our inquiry, suggesting in its memorandum that local authorities may be faced with a bill for services on which they have not been fully consulted, although both parties have sought to make the system work as well as it can. But the Home Office memorandum discussed only the cost arrangements and did not deal in detail with the discussions between the Home Office, police authorities and local government agencies—the Association of County Councils and the Association of Metropolitan Authorities.
I do not want to dwell on that matter at length, but I refer my hon. Friend to an interesting exchange of views which took place during the evidence given by the head of the finance and technology group at the Home Office, when the conflict that that creates was clearly admitted. In his final comments, the head of the finance and technology group said:
"I would not want to have a Common Police Services Committee made up of the members of every one of the subsidiary services. That would be unmanageable. What the local authorities therefore have is a group of representatives who are, after all, empowered by the local authority associations to take decisions which commit members to spend money. This really is where the buck ends, because at that stage they are talking about a figure, they have to agree a figure, or the Home Secretary in the end has to decide on a figure on the basis of their evidence, which ratepayers will have to meet. So there is bound to be a conflict of interest between those who want more training or more forensic science and those who have got to meet the bill."
It was the strains and stresses of that conflict which caused the Select Committee to suggest in its recent report that the common police services budget should be a centrally funded item in the way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North has already outlined. That conflict creates difficulties for chief constables, police committees, police authorities and local authorities. It also raises questions of accountability.
Chief constables have difficulty in exercising judgments about how a chief constable should best police his force. There are difficulties for local authorities in balancing the need to maintain and develop an effective police service without which other more substantial expenditure on manpower, to which they have gladly committed themselves, may not be put to best use. At the same time, there is a need to control expenditure for ratepayers.
Those local authority representatives who assist in controlling the common police services expenditure are seldom in a position to decide on policing priorities. In addition, chief constables are already facing detailed local negotiations with their council treasurers or leaders or chairmen of policy resources committees over the cost to the local authorities of the chief constable's own plans at force level, which may also involve detailed representations to the Home Office for approval. Matters of equipment, police house repairs or the standard of police

499
stations and accommodation are discussed for many hours by local police chiefs and their police committees, but a discussion of what is in the common police services budget seldom, if ever, takes place. That is one reason why we considered direct charging for forensic science as a way forward.
Our report recommends that the ACPO secretariat should be strengthened in order to improve the central co-ordinating force within the police service. That seemed to be the only sensible way forward within the present structure.
However, chief constables have only a limited accountability to their police authorities. They are not accountable for operational matters. No one should seek to change that essential absence of political interference in police operations. Nevertheless, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary looks to ACPO to provide more central co-ordination and to assume additional functions on a national basis. It is not clear what line of accountability such arrangements would create for my right hon. Friend and for the House, particularly given that the only line of accountability for chief constables is to the 43 police authorities—and even that is limited.
That all suggests a need for change. The Committee's report recommends that the ACPO ranks become a centrally directed force. That would be one way of achieving better accountability and co-ordination, but I wonder whether we should consider a further opportunity. When members of the Committee visited the police college in Holland and spoke to officials of the Dutch criminal justice department, it became clear that that country has a completely different arrangement for chief police officer representation. Holland has a separate body to deal with the requirements of chief police officers' professional associations, and another for central co-ordination of police services.
The structural stresses and strains in our police service require serious consideration of that arrangement, and I should like to see formed a new, central support committee, drawing on only a small number of police constables but involving also inspectors of constabulary, a handful of representative police authority chairmen, and Home Office officials—all under the formal chairmanship of the Home Secretary, and thereby accountable to this House.
In that way, the role of ACPO as a professional association could be kept separate, and would avoid the difficulty of securing agreement from 43 chief constables, let alone that of all the deputy chief constables and assistant chief constables—who together constitute the 249 members of ACPO. Getting them all to agree on policy is far from easy. We must break through that barrier and instead get heads together to arrive at solutions to improving the effectiveness of our police service and making better use of the substantial resources we commit to it.
The objectives are only too clear. We must continue to improve the professional standard of policing, for only in that way can confidence be restored. We must ensure that police have access to the finest training, and that those who provide it are of the highest calibre and have up-to-date practical experience. They should include, as my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Dame J. Fookes) pointed out, officers who will subsequently achieve higher rank in the service, so that the time they
500
spend at Bramshill as training officers will be part of their career development, rather than an avenue at the end of a distinguished police career.
We must ensure that resources are used to best effect. It is not just a matter of ensuring value for money from forensic science or police overtime but of reordering priorities. It is about ensuring not only that the value and benefit of forensic science, for example, is better appreciated but that that service is given every opportunity and encouragement to achieve its potential.
Structures are under pressure not only because of financial constraints, though it would be wrong to under-estimate the difficulties that such constraints create. Structures are under pressure because centrally provided facilities have been unable to develop their full potential and to provide the quality of service needed to convince chief constables, seniour police officers and police authorities of the benefits that such professional help can bring to the fight against crime. There is no doubting that chief constables are fully aware of the value of forensic science, but given the inadequate facilities to be found at some laboratories, it is difficult to see how chief constables would be encouraged to refer cases to a forensic science laboratory, when they want a much quicker solution to a particular criminal investigation.
There is much anecdotal evidence of the savings in police resources through more skilful use of forensic science, and the Committee recommended that there be more investigation of that aspect. Even so, an expanded forensic service along the lines suggested by the Committee would make a major contribution, if implemented over the three years that the report suggests. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department can give the Committee and the House information about the progress of discussions and negotiations with the Treasury.
The question has already been asked whether direct funding of forensic science would provide a suitable solution. In my view, it would. Direct funding would highlight for police authorities the value of forensic science. Most police authority members are unaware of the behind-the-scenes arguments, but would become aware of activities within the forensic science service if it was an item in the budget, to be considered in the same way as other heads of expenditure.
The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie asked how one would know that direct charging was working. The answer is that we must give it a try. How do we know that committing hundreds of thousands of pounds—or, in larger forces, millions of pounds—to police overtime works?
As to the structure of 43 police forces, I know that there are differences among the members of the Committee, and I take the point made by the chief constable of north Wales, and chairman of the association's crime committee, who clearly drew the Committee's attention to the undesirability of wholesale changes of structure because it would divert and erode police effort. Nevertheless, if we believe in a local management system that does not interfere in operational matters but which would give a chief constable and his force the financial and managerial support that they require, I see no reason why we should not trust the police authorities to deal sensibly and properly with forensic science services on a direct charging basis. It would be an insult to the forces' integrity and professionalism to suggest that they would do otherwise.

501
The Committee suggested that the Home Office and the inspectors of constabulary should issue guidance on the use of forensic science, and recommended—as did Touche Ross—that more scientific support managers should be appointed to help police forces make greater use of it. Central co-ordination and funding of DNA profiling will be essential if this major opportunity to improve detection of offenders and to eliminate suspects—DNA profiling will be particularly relevant—is to be realised.
My hon. Friend the Member for Drake spoke at some length about Bramshill college, so I shall refer to it only briefly. I strongly support the comments that have been made about the method of selection and appointment of senior police officers. It is haphazard and amateurish. The chief constable of Sussex police, Mr. Roger Birch, described it as an unprofessional lottery.
Chief superintendents do not have a sufficient incentive to take the next step up in the ACPO ranks. Many factors dissuade and discourage them from taking that step, quite apart from the major domestic upheaval that is caused because people have settled into particular areas. There are changed pension arrangements and little additional remuneration for a chief superintendent who becomes an assistant chief constable. It is astonishing that 47 per cent. of assisted chief constables have not attended a senior command course, but that must be balanced with the more damning evidence that many police officers who have been on senior command courses have not taken the step beyond chief superintendent rank into the ranks for which they were selected and trained.
As the Home Affairs Committee recommended, funding of the common police services should become a centrally directed arrangement. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Drake and the recommendation in our report that it would be no bad thing if drug profit confiscations were committed to a trust, with the police college as a major beneficiary. My hon. Friend referred to a good band and to images. The reputation throughout the world of Bramshill college is based upon its skill in training senior police officers. It is not a reflection of the quality of accommodation available for them.
Higher professionalism is the key to retaining and restoring confidence in the police. Such professionalism demands up-to-date practice and high-quality training. Great strides have been made, but much more could be done if priorities were reassessed and reordered. I am sure that the Committee will look forward to hearing the Minister's response.
5.43 pm
Mr. Harry Barnes: In discussing common police services, I want to refer to the problems associated with disaster planning. I am interested in that issue because of my constituency concerns.
The police are involved in two aspects of disaster planning. First, problems can arise in designated works, such as Staveley Chemicals in my constituency. If a disaster occurred, the population nearby would be seriously affected. Obviously, the emergency services must have plans to handle a disaster, and the police are at the forefront in triggering action. It is essential that the latest
502
technology is available and that police methods are correct, and that involves the police training college and other back-ups.
Secondly, there are general disasters for which there is no specific contingency plan but only a general plan. That general plan must be adapted to handle railway emergencies, air disasters—such as the east midlands disaster, in which Derbyshire county police provided assistance—toxic and hazardous waste problems and the nuclear transhipments that travel up the M1 and clip the end of my constituency at Heath. Any such disaster could hit anywhere and must be handled carefully.
The police engage in periodic exercises to handle potential disasters such as air crashes. The backing that they are given is essential. They often suffer from inadequate training and have difficulty in releasing manpower to provide common services and appropriate training. The Home Office has wide powers. Paragraph 12 of the fourth report of the Home Affairs Committee states that, under
"the Police Act 1964, the Secretary of State 'may provide and maintain or may contribute towards the provision or maintenance of a police college, district police training centres, forensic science laboratories, wireless depots and such other organisations and services as he considers necessary or expedient for promoting the efficiency of the police'."
The Home Office bears 51 per cent. of the costs. This presents great difficulties when local authorities are involved with the police authorities. There have been a number of years of Government cuts in financial assistance and now local government funding is to be transformed with the introduction of the poll tax.
More funding should come centrally to develop effective disaster planning. The difficulty is in deciding who controls what happens—central police forces or local police forces. It is essential for the police to have adequate resources. They are expected to show the right susceptibilities in handling problems. Considerable training and provision are required in respect of not only disasters but general policing matters. Police officers may not be aware of what to do in an accident involving hazardous or toxic waste. The most that even a senior policeman is given is a short course, when he merely examines a video for an afternoon, and he is then expected to act. The answer is to provide considerable resources to enable the police to release the appropriate training manpower.
The fourth report also deals with the role of the secretariat of the Association of Chief Police Officers. I have just come down from the Committee on the Football Spectators Bill. My connection with ACPO is its statistics on arrests in or around football grounds. The Minister for Sport gave those statistics to the House and they became known, incorrectly, as the "League of Shame". My investigations into the figures show that there were errors in the statistics and that ACPO was unable to supply details to explain which arrests were inside the grounds and which were outside, the reasons for the arrests and the categories of offence involved. Were the arrests for the carrying of a klaxon horn, for example, which occurred at one club, or for theft? How many arrests were of street traders outside football grounds?
The secretariat clearly needs some organisation so that it can present adequate information in matters in which the police are involved, especially in matters that relate back to the Hillsborough disaster. It seems that police forces throughout the country collect information which

503
varies according to local experience. That information is then stuck together by the central organisation which clearly lacks the expertise and time to put information together effectively and in a way that would allow the House to judge properly an issue which is of concern and which could have a considerable impact on the work of the police.
That issue also has an effect on the way in which disasters are dealt with. I understand from a parliamentary question that the Home Office is concerned about disaster legislation. America, France, Australia and several other countries have contingency planning and centralised co-ordination to handle disasters. That is not dealt with adequately in this country. We should ensure that there are proper centralised services to assist the police, because they are at the forefront of co-ordinating and organising the different authorities, such as the fire service, that have to be brought together to pick up the pieces when a disaster occurs. Some of that could be achieved by careful planning. There must be greater understanding and education so that people can adapt and make adjustments according to the circumstances.
When the east midlands air disaster occurred, for example, the mountain rescue organisation was of great value. That organisation automatically dug steps into the embankment, which meant that rescue arrangements could he handled easily. Such information could be spread by a central organisation, but that does not happen automatically at present. We must ensure that the correct groups of personnel are involved in dealing with disasters and are able to respond effectively.
Mr. Ashby: As the hon. Gentleman knows, Kegworth, where the air disaster occurred, is in my constituency. One fact that emerged crystal clear from the disaster was that all the many years of training for just such a disaster fell into place perfectly. The co-ordination required was there because the planning was there. The rescue services had thought long and hard about every eventuality. One cannot pay anything but the highest tribute to the rescue services in Leicestershire on that day.
Mr. Barnes: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. My own local knowledge of the services operating in Derbyshire which assisted at that disaster tells me that the hon. Gentleman is correct. However, it is important that, as well as having trained and dedicated people to help, we should ensure that they have the right materials and understanding to handle disasters. A common-sense approach needs to be developed. When dealing with hazardous and toxic waste, for example, what is needed is not only the ability to turn to the relevant information, but for the police to have a good pair of binoculars so that they can pick out the information at a distance, rather than placing themselves in great difficulties. The spread of training, the sharing of training exercises and the building up of national policies for handling disasters will lead to applied common sense and dedication being able to work effectively.
5.57 pm
Mr. Michael Shersby: I must first delcare an interest as the parliamentary adviser to the Police Federation. I must also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Mr. Wheeler) on the great clarity with which he presented the recommendations
504
of his Committee. It was especially interesting to listen to my hon. Friend explaining exactly what was proposed and how the Committee had arrived at its conclusions.
I want to deal with the future of the forensic science service. Paragraph 93 of the report recommends that the Home Office should plan to transfer direct financial responsibility for the regional forensic laboratories from central support services to individual police forces. That proposal is of major importance and of legitimate interest to the Police Federation. The Touche Ross report made the point that one does not appreciate a service unless one pays for it, but I am told that, due to a shortage of staff, the forensic service has not always been able to respond as fully as it would like to police requirements. Staffing is obviously of vital importance.
The Police Federation believes that many of the report's conclusions and recommendations are based fairly on the evidence given to the Committee, but there are several matters of concern about the proposed change in funding arrangements, which I will highlight. The Police Federation believes that such a change could have a serious effect on the investigation of serious offences, especially by smaller forces. Following the Brighton bomb murders, for example, 1,200 dustbins of rubble and material were sent for forensic examination. One cannot help wondering whether a force would be prepared to meet such costs, especially if the victim were a vagrant or someone of lesser public importance than those who were unhappily involved in that tragedy.
There is also the question whether a smaller force would be able to finance a large-scale DNA screening exercise, espcially if the people to be screened were from the area of an adjoining large force. Those costs would be the smaller force's responsibility, simply because the murder victim was found within its force area. I shall give the House a hypothetical example. Let us take the case of a serious murder which must be investigated by the local force. If a Londoner were found murdered in, say, Bedfordshire—which has a comparatively small force—Bedfordshire would have to assume responsibility for the forensic costs involved in that investigation. That point is causing the federation some concern and, like me, it will be interested to hear what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department has to say about that aspect when he replies to the debate.
Another aspect of the forensic service which is of great importance is the quality of the service. It is widely agreed both in the House and outside that it is vital to maintain that quality, because so much depends on it in the detection of crime.
The Select Committee on Home Affairs recognises that the service should seek to appoint and train about 40 new staff per year for each of the next three years. Allowing for natural wastage, the Committee states that that would leave the service 10 per cent. larger than is currently planned. In its reply to the Committee's recommendations, the Home Office has stated that it is actively considering the case for further increases in staff for the forensic service. It then points out that in the light of the Select Committee's recommendations and other information, it is already committed to bringing the service up to complement. At present it is 23 members of staff below complement. The additional staff proposed by the Select Committee exclude those staff.
Therefore, on the assumption that wastage will continue at about 20 per cent. per year, the Home Office

505
pointed out that the Committee's proposals amount to a net increase of 60 posts by the end of March 1992, roughly 10 per cent. over and above the 51 posts already planned.
The Government's reply then contains a sentence which I view with concern:
"The implications of this, and the costs and benefits of the additional staff, will be covered in the assessment the Home Office is making."
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North and his colleagues will wish to see that matter pursued and to be certain that the additional staff that they recommend are provided. Having said that, one recognises the Home Office's difficulties in funding such an operation.
Mr. Wheeler: It is good of my hon. Friend to allow this brief intervention and I assure him that the important point that he has raised will be pursued. It may be helpful for my hon. Friend and the House to know more generally that it is the practice of the Select Committee on Home Affairs to review its reports regularly, to look back to the recommendations that it has made and to assess the progress that has been made with them. Therefore, there is the opportunity to measure those points once again—that is, apart from the value of the comments made by my hon. Friend in this debate.
Mr. Shersby: It is reassuring to know that my hon. Friend's Committee follows up its recommendations. Indeed, one would expect nothing less from a Committee of such excellence.
I turn now to the issue whether the work of the service should be entrusted in the future to a body with executive agency status. That is an important aspect of the report. One must consider how the executive agencies which have already been set up are working. So far the experiment—or rather, the change—has been a good one, and positive results are already flowing from the change of status. I hope that the Home Office will follow that up and that the change to executive agency status will be carried out in the not-too-distant future.
I welcome especially the comments in the report on relations with the police. I should like to put on record how much the federation welcomes those paragraphs in the Committee's report and in the Government's response to it.
DNA profiles are a move of the utmost importance in the detection of crime. The costs involved in carrying out that type of research are probably not yet fully appreciated. They may well increase considerably in the years ahead, and clearly that factor will have to be taken into account in a change in funding levels.
In conclusion, paragraph 20 of the Government's response, which deals with forensic pathology, states:
"The final meeting of the Working Party on Forensic Pathology took place in April 1989 and their report is now being submitted to the Home Secretary."
I understand that that working party has been in existence for four years. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary would say something about when the working party's report will be published, because it is a matter of considerable interest to all those who are interested in forensic pathology, and not least to the members of the Police Federation.
506
I am grateful for the opportunity to have made these brief comments on these serious, interesting and excellent reports, and I look forward to hearing my hon. Friend's reply.
6.6 pm
Mr. Gareth Wardell: I shall refer briefly to the forensic science service. The work of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Westminster, North (Mr. Wheeler), was a great public service to the people of this country.
The test of how well the Government have responded to the Select Committee's report will depend to a great degree on whether they take on board the point that the chief constable of Kent made in his evidence to the Select Committee, when questioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington).
It is vital that the House remembers the critical comments of paragraph 108, which state:
"Following the Rayner Review, 'Selectivity' was the expression which came along and cases were extremely carefully sorted out before they were sent off to the laboratory. They were not sorted out necessarily so that you were going to get the best result from the laboratory, full stop, but because the investigating officers knew that the manpower resources available at the laboratory were not such as to do more than a fraction of what investigating officers wanted them to do. As a result, a lot of stuff that you would have expected to have been forensically examined was not and still is not. It is not right, but that is the truth of the matter. The spinoff from that, of course, is that there is less confidence by officers who do not necessarily understand the problem but understand the result in the Forensic Science Service, and that will go on to people not being as careful or as enthusiastic at the scene of the crime as they should be, because they do not anticipate that they are going to send anything to the laboratory in any event."
That will be one of the crucial tests that the Home Office and the Government will have to pass. They will have to justify themselves and tell the people of this country that justice does not come cheap and that it is vital that resources are made available. The pay must be good enough to attract people into the laboratories. It is nonsense that police officers cannot send exhibits that they find at the scene of the crime to the laboratory. That is a terrible indictment of the present situation, and people are no longer prepared to accept it. I hope that the Government will come up with the goods.
The chief constable of Kent did an excellent service by sending the Committee a letter—it is printed on pages 61 to 63 of the report—continuing examples of the excellent work that the forensic science service does. I shall not list all those examples now but let me give the House one of them. It concerns a murder in Shifnal in 1984. The forensic science laboratory was able to identify a single imprint of a shoe outside a particular property as the imprint of one of only 90 pairs of shoes imported into the United Kingdom from an Italian manufacturer. All the people who had purchased the shoes were traced, and a conviction was made. It is critical, not only in serious cases such as that but in far less serious cases, that the facilities are available to police officers to enable them to send all the scientific exhibits that they wish to send to be properly examined and to receive the necessary treatment.
Mr. Sheerman: Is not one aspect of the Select Committee's deliberations rather worrying? I refer to the evidence from senior people in the police force and,

507
indeed, chief police officers, who said that charging for the service might mean that the investigating officer would consider the cost to his force first and only then whether the evidence might be useful in apprehending a criminal somewhere down the line.
Mr. Wardell: I share my hon. Friend's concern. If cash limits in the police force are such that an officer cannot submit exhibits to the forensic service because of cost considerations, that will have serious implications for justice.
My second point concerns the availability of forensic pathologists. I shall rely heavily in my remarks on the comments of the president of the Forensic Science Society, who is professor of forensic pathology at the university of Wales college of medicine in Cardiff. In evidence to the Select Committee, which appears on page 159, in paragraph 421, Professor Bernard Knight says:
"The basic problem is that the core of forensic pathology, which is university based, has declined so much that it is now ineffective in really training sufficient future pathologists and also training those from the hospital service who are newly appointed and who actually numerically now markedly outnumbers us in the Home Office appointed list. This central core is shrinking rapidly and one wonders what is going to happen when it reaches vanishing point, which is not very far away. That is the basic problem: the contraction of what you might call the full-time professionals who not only provide a service themselves but are responsible for teaching, research and the training of more peripheral part-time pathologists who are currently in the majority. I have to say that I think the standards are beginning to decline because of this general wind-down."
We must address that problem. If we do not have high-quality, highly trained forensic pathologists, the quality of the service available to the police will be much reduced.
Finally let me deal with the whole question of what Professor Knight calls "waiting for Wasserman". In paragraph 427, Professor Knight says:
"It has got to the point where I would not say it is funny but "Waiting for Wasserman' is like 'Waiting for Godot', it has become a phrase in our sub-culture."
Mr. Wasserman is the chairman of a Home Office committee which, according to Professor Knight, had already been considering the matter for four and a half years when he gave his evidence on 4 December 1988. It is a little worrying when Governments use terms such as "shortly", "in the near future", "soon" and "this year." They use the worst possible excuses for the inadequacy of their response. An eminent professor of forensic pathology has pointed a finger at the chairman of the committee on which he serves. Surely, when that happens, it is high time that the Government looked into the matter.
The Government's response to the comment about the Committee chaired by Mr. Wasserman was wonderful.
The recommendation was clear:
"We recommend that the Working Party on Forensic Pathology should set a deadline for the production of its report to resolve without delay the short-term difficulties of the forensic pathology service".
That was a kind response to four and a half years of delay.
The rest of the Committee's response makes wonderful reading:
"The final meeting of the Working Party on Forensic Pathology took place in April 1989 and their report is now being submitted to the Home Secretary."
"Is being" is a wonderful phrase. The Home Office does not say "It has been submitted" or "It will be submitted", but "It is being submitted." That implies an endless chain of events and it is impossible to know what stage the
508
process has reached. It is high time that we knew. I know that the Minister knows, and I am sure that he will tell us, when the report will be published. It is to be hoped that it will be before the end of this year—before the five and a half years have elapsed.
We are talking about an extremely important aspect of the ability of the police to ensure that the public have confidence in their ability to identify causes and find those responsible for crime. Without proper staffing, training and funding, the service will never be able to do the job that we so desperately need doing.
6.19 pm
Mr. David Ashby: It was a delight to be on the Select Committee that examined forensic science services. Its report was virtually unanimous, apart from one point about charging for services. Tht showed the great philosophical divide between Conservative and Opposition Members. Conservative Members believe that cost controls and cost management are essential tools of management. Everyone in management understands that point. If there are two companies in similar areas, both producing similar goods, but one producing them at a greater cost, in management terms it is right to be able to inquire into the reasons for it. Charging for forensic science services would help to do that.
Charging for the service, and applying cost controls and cost management, do not mean cutting the service. That applies to the National Health Service and various other services. Opposition Members believe in providing services without management finding out what services cost and how they can be more efficient. That is the great divide between us. The Committee's recommendations should be followed.
One cannot help thinking that the police force, which was founded in the 19th century, is still in the 19th century in management terms. It should be looking towards the 21st century. Our investigations revealed that we should have a unified police force or, perhaps, a force divided on the basis of no more than four regions. The chief constable of Leicestershire, my own chief constable, has said that he thinks there should be no more than 10 regions.
Why are we playing the numbers game? Mr. Birch, the chief constable of Sussex, suggested larger regions. Why 10? Why four? We are looking for a unified force. With the 43 local police authorities, we have seen a dissipation of resources, problems with promotion, resources, management teams, and a lack of co-ordination. When we point that out, we hear the reply, "We have a committee." It is wonderful to have committees, but they are not a substitute for a properly co-ordinated national police force.
Our report on higher police training at the police staff college at Bramshill highlighted a lack of clear direction about what we should do in the 21st century, in terms not only of a unified police force but of management. There seems to be no real direction for providing proper management in the police force. Management requires a high degree of expertise. Every organisation, both major and minor, trains its managers from an early age. The police force trains people in the best use of available resources, and how to make proper management decisions about priorities not only in their own service but in other aspects such as investigation. People are trained in the use

509
of the forensic science service and in the necessary financial priorities. Why should the police force lack proper financial management in the forensic science service and other services? It is a proper tool of management.
When the Committee investigated the management structure of the police, it was surprised to find how deficient it was. We went to the Netherlands and saw that the future leaders of the police service were trained at an early age and in a positive manner. They are being taken on at about 21 years old, and even younger, and they are doing a four or five-year training course. I met a police officer who had been in the force for about 10 years. He was aged 29. I asked him what he felt about going to the special training course and training in management skills. He said, "I am too old. I am set in my ways. Yes, I will benefit and I will be able to achieve certain things, but I know that I am too old. I should have done this at a younger age."
One cannot help but think that we are doing too little too late in training police officers. We have police on a special course at Bramshill. That course is designed to identify those who have the potential to achieve the rank of chief inspector and to accelerate their promotions. It is a sandwich course over two or three periods with seven months' training at the college. That college training is also divided into two periods. The course focuses on the foundations of management skills, but it does not carry them through. An interesting point about the course is to be found at paragraph 75 to 78 of the report. Mr. Birch, who was also the director of the police extended interviews, identifies those who should go on the course. He said that there was misunderstanding and suspicion about the course and a failure adequately to promote it within the police service. It is vastly under-subscribed. Last year, of 3,196 provincial officers qualified to apply for the special course, only 463 chose to do so.
The problem is that there is a little of the "us and them" approach to the course. There is perhaps a sneering approach—"He has been on a special course," or, "He is very uppity. He is going on that special course." There is a failure to recognise that special courses provide rapid acceleration for someone who is capable of management skills and of making full use of his potential thereafter. Much of the problem is caused simply because we have 43 police authorities. Possibly, some authorities have individual approaches to the people who have been on such courses. Some do not appreciate the nature of those courses and the valuable contribution that people who have been on them are able to make.
Mr. Birch considered that recruiting officers sometimes failed to identify those officers with the potential to move to the senior ranks in the service. He said that there were variations in policies between forces and that that led to bewilderment amongst potential recruits and to a perception of the police service as unprofessional. That highlights the problems that result from having a number of different police forces, a problem which perhaps a uniform police service could take on board.
Mr. Birch also suggested that there was a need to examine ways of ensuring the selection of a sufficient proportion of recruits of higher than average calibre to provide a pool of talent for rapid promotion. He went on to suggest that the solution to the problem was the
510
creation of regional police assessment centres from which chief constables would meet their recruiting needs. I do not know why he wants regional police assessment centres when he could have a central one which would do the job properly and better than centres in individual regions or areas.
Other hon. Members have pointed out that in Britain we have chief constables who are supposed to be in charge of large forces and that they require great management skills. Yet many chief constables have not attended senior command courses, some have not been on other courses and I dread to think that some might not even have been on a special course. Indeed, that is probably the case because of the special course timetable and the time at which it started.
A worrying aspect of our policing is that we have such an enormous organisation, taking the police as a whole, and that none of those top men have been on a course on which any large body would insist. Nobody in Shell or ICI would be at the top of such an organisation without having been on a type of Harvard school of management course.
But the police, who are in management—they are managing huge resources and large numbers of people in an organisation of great importance to the nation—do not go on any substantial management course designed to give their forces the managerial skill that is required. In that sense we are still in the 19th century.
We were impressed when we went to the Netherlands and saw them coping with this problem. We saw them training their managers at an early age for the great duties in their police forces that they would have to undertake. We saw that they realised the importance of that training. We must have a radical rethink of our police force if we are to bring it into the 21st century and make it the great force that we want and need.
6.33 pm
Mr. Barry Sheerman: At the start of a debate such as this, as one listens to the excellent contributions that are made, one is not sure what major themes will emerge at later stages and, indeed, whether there will be a thematic balance to the deliberations. Taken with the debate on policing in London that we had last week, it is clear that some common themes have been emerging.
It has been refreshing to hear the comments on those themes because if one can describe this Chamber as a state of the art debating chamber—perhaps we will become that in November—we have today witnessed the state of the art pointed towards certain themes. We on the Opposition Benches warmly welcome many of the proposals that the Select Committee have made. The Committee did an excellent job in pinpointing some of the problems that prevent us achieving the police force that the nation needs and deserves.
Having said that, it will come as no surprise to Conservative Members to learn that I shall make some comments of a somewhat more partisan nature. I promise that they will not be too partisan. Many comments have been made on topics that are familiar to us—about efficiency, effectiveness and management—and the hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) made some good points about the training of managers in the police force and the need for good management.

511
Comments have been made about the need for greater centralisation. That theme is touted a great deal when we talk of police matters. Although it is important to speak of efficiency and effectiveness—rather in the way people speak of motherhood and apple pie—when talking of efficiency and good management, I am not sure about the need for centralisation. Indeed, my hon. Friends and I prefer to dwell on some of the underlying themes, such as accountability and the tripartism that we believe has worked to a considerable degree in our police forces over many years. That healthy tripartism has brought the police authorities—that democratic element with an important role to play in keeping the police in touch with their grassroots—to focus on local opinion.
While my hon. Friends and I are pragmatic about having a degree of centralisation and about considering whether we should have this or that number of police forces, we are greatly against having a national police force, and we would not go down such a road with the hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West.
Part of our review process has included the structure of regional government. It would be foolish not to consider the structure of police forces in relation to changing the nature of regional government. Accordingly, we would wish to consider the number of police forces at the same time as examining the regional structure. But no road that we went down would leave out the notion of strong democratic accountability about which we talked in the debate last week. Tripartism has served our police forces well, and we should not ignore that fact.
I have a mild criticism of the work of the Select Committee. As I read its report, there seems to be some neglect of the local authority point of view. Local authorities have a firm view and one would have expected the Committee to say more about local accountability and full participation. In other words, more notice should have been taken of evidence from the local authority angle. If that is not done, we can be out of balance in the evidence to which we listen, and our conclusions can, of course, be swayed by the evidence. That is a mild criticism, and I do not want to get it out of proportion.
One must bring the Home Office into the discussion when considering the common services of the police. One is in the position, as it were, of picking up a large stone in the garden and finding common police services beneath it. When one heard members of the Committee giving eloquent testimony to the appalling state of the higher police training centres and the police staff colleges, one was tempted to intervene and ask if they were still slopping out in those establishments.
Mr. Wheeler: Not quite.
Mr. Sheerman: The hon. Gentleman says, "Not quite," but it sounded as if the Home Office was responsible for rather genteel slums where it expected senior policemen to spend much time. If those establishments are not up to standard, it is the Home Office's responsibility. It should get its act together and provide centres of which the police can be proud and which give the right impression to the public. I believe that people react in a positive way to the right environment. It is possible that we behave in such a ritualistic way in the Chamber because, basically, we work in a museum. If we worked within a nice modern atmosphere, perhaps we would behave like civilised human beings most of the time.
512
The forensic science service is another stone that I must congratulate the Select Committee on turning up. It has said that the forensic science service is pretty awful in terms of the morale of its staff and its expenditure keeping abreast of other expenditure in the police service. Many hon. Members will have learnt today that the forensic science service does not suffuse the whole of the police system. I am one of those people old enough to remember Marius Goring. I cannot remember the title of the show, but he played a forensic scientist who solved every case that came into his laboratory. I believe we still live in the days when we think that someone like Marius Goring will sort everything out. The Select Committee has shown that that is an out-of-date image. The fact is that the forensic dimension is not included in every stage of the training and retraining of our police force. Like many members of the Select Committee, I believe that forensic science must be built into police training.
My hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) said that he believed that the forensic science service should be at the sharp end of police investigations. Forensic scientists should be working at the scene of the crime with the police and not waiting in their laboratories for samples and evidence to be sent to them.
I believe that we have done the great service of reminding the Home Office that it is in an indefensible position in that it has presided over a forensic science service with a lack of morale and expenditure—a disastrous combination. Some evidence has suggested that the police service and criminal detection are only as good as the forensic service. If that is the case, we have a great deal of ground to make up. I hope that the Minister will put on record his determination to make this top priority for expenditure. I hope that he will fight his corner with the Treasury and ensure that the expenditure comes through. After all, we are talking about £77 million for the whole of the common services, which is a tiny amount when the overall expenditure on the police is £3·5 billion.
The other aspect that I want to highlight is that common police services are and must be accountable. I was impressed by the Select Committee's report, especially on the ACOP secretariat, which is something about which the Opposition have been concerned. To some extent there has been a misrepresentation of what we disliked at the time of the miners' strike. I am perhaps striking a discordant note, but it is one that must be struck.
What the Opposition did not like about the ACPO secretariat—it was then called the national reporting centre, and is now called the mutual aid co-ordination centre—during the miners' strike was that there was no accountability. It was obvious to everyone that it was a national police effort—a national police force—that in many senses dealt with the miners' strike. If there had been accountability, the position would have been different. However, there was no accountability. The House could not ask questions of the Home Secretary because he was not responsible.
I know that I cannot have my cake and eat it, but I do not want a police system which is too centralised. Implicit in that is the building up of the ACPO role, but I want to build up that role with an accountability dimension, for which the Select Committee has come out strongly. I hope that the Minister will respond positively to that, because it goes to the heart of the good things proposed by the Select Committee.

513
I do not agree with everything that has been suggested by the Select Committee. One or two of the proposals have some dangers. There are certainly dangers in setting up the new agency under which services can be charged—for example, telecommunications and forensic science services. I have said in my two interventions that I believe that there will be real problems if a charging mechanism is established before we have the forensic science service functioning correctly. After all, the Home Office has a very powerful research arm.
I have the greatest respect for the Home Office research unit. Select Committees are generators of ideas, good practice and recommendations, but they do not have all the answers. Select Committees, like any other committees, are subject to fashion and fad. However, it is the job of the Select Committee to make recommendations. It is then the job of the Home Office to take on board those recommendations and have them monitored. We must be pragmatic, but we must get the forensic science service in place and monitor how good it is before we think about ways of changing the structure and perhaps having a new kind of agency. The next task—the bread and butter task—of taking the forensic science service much more seriously, funding it properly and suffusing it with police services is a priority.
The move to strengthening ACPO must be made by improving its effectiveness. It may be that strengthening ACPO is not the right answer and that the common services must be strengthened in some other way. However, I support the move to try to strengthen ACPO first.
I welcome the Select Committee reports. They are a little bland in places, but by and large they are not bad. However, I urge the Government to recognise that they have turned over a couple of rather large stones in the garden with some nasty things underneath which need to be sorted out.
I urge the Minister to be cautious in taking any steps towards centralisation, a national police force or too small a number of police forces.
We believe that accountability is absolutely essential. As I said in last week's debate on the Metropolitan police, we want a police force that is efficient, effective and incorrupt. In a modern democracy, however, the police force must be accountable. If we could combine such efficiency with accountability and retain some form of tripartism, we would be much happier than we are now.
6.49 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hogg): I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Mr. Wheeler) would like, with the leave of the House, to make some concluding remarks, and for that reason I propose to confine my remarks to approximately 15 minutes. That means that I will be unable to take an overview of what has been said; I hope that the House will forgive me for that. I shall seek to reply to a number of specific points that have been raised by hon. Members, but I hope that hon. Members will forgive me if I fail to reply to them all; certainly no discourtesy is intended.
I echo what has been said by the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman). The House is grateful for
514
the reports before us, for the careful work that the Select Committee has put into its inquiries and for the careful way in which its recommendations and comments have been marshalled. Most certainly valuable work has been done and valuable recommendations have been brought forward. The attention of the House and of the Home Office have been focused on issues to which, perhaps, we have not always given sufficient attention in the past.
I want to refer to a number of specific questions about the police college at Bramshill, the status of ACPO and related matters. I agree with the view expressed by the Select Committee that the police college should remain at Bramshill. The House may remember that, some time ago, I had departmental responsibility for the police service. I no longer have that responsibility, but when I did I visited Bramshill on several occasions and I was greatly impressed by the fabric of the building and by the work done. It would be a pity for the police college to move from Bramshill. I can reassure the Select Committee about its location.
Two issues flow from our discussion of Bramshill, one of which is accommodation. It is true that, in some respects, the accommodation is deficient, and clearly we need to contemplate a programme for upgrading the accommodation for staff and for students.
My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Dame J. Fookes) asked whether it would be possible to enhance the provision made at Bramshill for overseas students. That suggestion will be considered, but it is important to remember that, the college is primarily for this country's police service. Any increase in the provision for overseas students should not be at the expense of the provision made for our country's police service.
A further point that has been raised in a number of different contexts is whether it would be sensible or possible to use proceeds from the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 to finance any of the police service, in particular Bramshill. My hon. Friends the Members for Drake and for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) also raised that point. I have responsibility for drugs policy in the Home Office and that question is raised more directly in the context of that policy. We have not yet come to a concluded view upon this matter.
The House may recall that about three weeks ago we had a debate on drugs. I then raised the possibility of setting up a central fund, not financed directly from the proceeds of drug trafficking, which could be used by individual police forces in certain circumstances. We have not come to a final conclusion, but that fund is an aspect of the debate about this matter. There is a reluctance, I think rightly, to use the proceeds of a specific source of income for specific purposes. Historically, that has been the attitude of the Treasury and it is one with which I have some sympathy. The Government and the Home Office are, however, considering whether any part of police expenses could be met, at least in part, from the proceeds of the 1986 Act. We have come to no conclusion, but in the context of our consideration I shall take into account the comments that have been made today and the recommendations of the Select Committee.
Some interesting comments have been made on the status of Bramshill in the context of a police career and on the status of ACPO. It is undoubtedly true that a number of senior officers of ACPO rank have reached that position

515
without having gone through the senior command course. As a general proposition, I believe that that is a pity, as all officers would benefit from participation in that course.
My hon. Friends the Members for Drake, for Westminster, North and for Ryedale suggested that participation in the senior command course should be a condition precedent of appointment to ACPO rank. We do not have a concluded view on that matter and we would certainly wish to undertake discussions. We are, however, giving it consideration and we shall consider it further against the background of what has been said today and against the recommendations of the Select Committee.
My hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North, among others, suggested that the ACPO secretariat should be strengthened. The Government have accepted that Select Committee proposal in principle and we are now considering the financial questions that flow from such a decision. My hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North also suggested that ACPO ranks should be a Home Office central grade—that suggestion was supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale. It is an interesting proposal, which would represent a major change of policy.
Mr. Wheeler: Quite so.
Mr. Hogg: I gather from that that there is not only support for a major change of policy, but a recognition that it would involve a major change of policy—both things must he kept in mind. We have not yet come to a concluded view on that particular recommendation.
Mr. Sheerman: Why not?
Mr. Hogg: Because it requires careful consideration and discussion. We shall, however, consider that proposal against the background of today's debate.
The Select Committee recommended two things regarding the status of ACPO and in particular of its committees: first, that it should be given formal status, and secondly, that it should be made accountable. Such accountability would be different from the existing accountability to which the officers are subject. The component officers of ACPO are already accountable, although they are accountable not to some central agency but to the individual forces from which they come and the police authorities that preside——
Mr. Worthington indicated dissent.
Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but those officers are accountable to their forces.
Mr. Worthington: I find it difficult to see how they are accountable, when each chief constable is a law unto himself and is responsible for the operational policing of his area. In that respect, there is no accountability.
Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman takes too narrow a view. ACPO contains not only chief constables, but deputy chief constables and assistant chief constables, and those lesser ACPO ranks—if I may so describe them in shorthand—are accountable to the chief constable. In a broad sense, the chief constable is accountable to the police authority. He is not accountable in a detailed, operational sense, but in a broad sense he is, because the authority—subject to certain provisions, checks and balances of which the hon. Gentleman knows—has the power to dismiss him.
516
Officers in ACPO are accountable to a variety of different authorities, and the question is whether that accountability is adequate. That question must be considered and that was recommended by the Select Committee. However, the proposed change—that we should recognise what is now a staff association as a formal body, and make its component parts responsible and accountable to a central agency—is a dramatic one, upon which we have not yet come to a concluded view.
When I was involved in the police service in the Home Office, I was troubled by the fact that participation in Bramshill did not always advance a police officer's career. I sometimes felt that there was a reluctance on the part of officers within forces to come to Bramshill, either to participate in courses or as instructors, because they feared that doing so would not receive sufficient recognition from their sponsoring force, and particularly from their sponsoring chief constable. We must come to terms with this matter, and police authorities, particularly chief constables, must recognise that the experience of Bramshill plays an important part in a police officer's career development. I attach a high importance to Bramshill.
The forensic service, quite rightly, figured largely in the debate. Charging has been the subject of much debate. The Committee recommended that the funding of the forensic service should be switched from common police services to a charge on individual police forces, based partly on capitation and partly on direct charging. The arguments for that were eloquently put by my hon. Friend the Member for Drake. I recognise that the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) does not wholly subscribe to them, but, on the whole, I find them persuasive.
Charging is a better way of determining the allocation of resources, both financial resources and the forensic facilities available. In addition, a chief constable who, under the revised system, would have to fund the process of charging, should have that discipline imposed upon him when he has to decide how best to conduct an inquiry. However, I also realise that there are a range of problems involved; accordingly, work is now in hand to discover to what extent, and how, we may carry the plan forward. We intend that any new funding arrangement should be in place within the next three years, if possible by April 1991.
Manpower is a subject which has been much debated this evening. As the House will know, we are already committed to bringing the service up to complement. It is now about 23 under complement, and over the next two years we shall recruit an additional 28 officers. The Committee took the view that a greater expansion in manpower was required. We shall certainly consider that recommendation. We need to come to an assessment based on cost benefit and the financial implications.
On the subject of agency status, the House will know—
Mr. Worthington rose——
Mr. Hogg: I am anxious to complete my speech, as I would like to let the Chairman of the Committee make some final remarks.
The House will know that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has announced that the service is a suitable candidate for agency status.
I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) raised the issue of the working part) report

517
on pathology. I am pleased to say that it will be produced later this month—I think that phraseology will be acceptable to the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell).
I am conscious that I have not answered all the questions raised, and apologise for that. However, it was not possible to do so because I, and I am sure the House, would like to let the final word rest with the Chairman of the Committee, who has presided over such a valuable series of reports.
7.7 pm
Mr. Wheeler: With the leave of the House, I would like to bring this important debate to a conclusion. May I say on behalf of the Home Affairs Committee that this has been a valuable three hours which has enabled us to explore in greater detail on the Floor of the House some important issues and to discover the consensus which exists in the Chamber as a whole.
The Committee fully understands that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State was unable to be definitive in his reply to some of the points raised in this debate and to many of the recommendations that the Committee has presented to the House and the Home Secretary. We fully appreciate that some of those recommendations are substantial—even controversial—.and require careful consideration. But we are grateful to the Home Secretary and to the Home Office for the work which they are doing in analysing our recommendations and the evidence which supports them.
In this debate this afternoon, no fewer than five Committee members have had the opportunity to present their own points of view and to discuss the Committee's reports. Three other hon. Members, whom I might describe as outsiders to the work of the Committee, have been able to make a very worthwhile contribution, for which the Committee as a whole is most grateful.
In the one or two moments which I have left, I shall simply touch upon some of the key points. I imagine that for us all, the central theme of this afternoon's debate has been effectiveness, efficiency and accountability. It is common to both sides of the House that we wish to see those three cardinal principles in our police system in the United Kingdom and, particularly in England and Wales. Therefore, I share many of the views of the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) who spoke for the official Opposition. We found that there is much in common, although there are differences—perhaps about the nature of the structure of the police service in England
518
and Wales. As is well known, I tend to favour central services through the common police services which are accountable and well organised, and I see the development of a regionalised police system in England and Wales. There may be differences here, but there are also common strands.
I thought that the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington), who is such a fine ornament upon the Committee, made a splendid comment when he suggested that research was essential to analysing the value of the forensic science service, which is a point that the Committee has made.
My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Dame. J. Fookes) made an admirable contribution about charging for the forensic science service and put that case in a nutshell, for which I was most grateful to her. She also emphasised the value of Bramshill to overseas students. This is of particular importance in our fight against international drug trafficking, because we are able to bring people from other police services into our police college to understand our philosophy and the advantages that go with it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) made a memorable contribution when he analysed the role of ACPO and its work. He raised the interesting proposition of a central support committee—something to which I am sure we would wish to give further consideration.
The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) raised the issue of disaster planning for emergency services. It is possible that the Committee may want to give further thought to that, too.
On the whole, this has been a valuable debate and the House has greatly profited from it.
It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER interrupted the proceedings.
The Question necessary to dispose of the proceedings was deferred, pursuant to paragraph (4) of Standing Order No. 52 (Consideration of Estimates).

ROYAL ASSENT
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): 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:

1. Control of Pollution (Amendment) Act 1989.

2. Water Act 1989.

3. Wesleyan Assurance Society Act 1989.

ESTIMATES DAY
  Class V, Vote 2

    Information Technology
    [Relevant documents: First Report from the Trade and Industry Committee of Session 1988–89 on Information Technology (House of Commons Paper No. 25), the Government's White Paper on Information Technology (Cm. 646) and the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Committee on 26th April 1989 ( House of Commons Paper No. 338-i).]
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    That a further sum, not exceeding £322,022,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1990, for expenditure by the Department of Trade and Industry at its research establishments (including the National Measurement Accreditation Service) and on the running costs of certain of its headquarters divisions, in its radiocommunications division and the Patent Office, support for industry (including industrial research and development, education, training, design, quality, marketing, management best practice and standards, business development and aircraft and aeroengine research and development), space technology programmes, protection of innovation, international trade (including export promotion, trade co-operation and international exhibitions), enterprise and job creation (the inner cities initiative and city action teams), miscellaneous support services, grants in aid, international subscriptions, provision of land and buildings, loans, grants, and other payments.— [Mr. Forth.]
    7.11 pm
    Mr. Kenneth Warren: I declare an interest in the subject for debate, having been associated with the information technology industry since before entering Parliament.
    Our reason for selecting this subject stems from a decision in December 1987 to inquire into information technology. It was in particular the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle), who apologises for not being able to be with us, who conceived the idea of the debate, based on the growing worry about this country's trade deficit in information technology goods. It was big then, it is bigger now and it is growing remorselessly larger.
    The subsequent hearings that we held throughout last year culminated in a report published in December; three months later we received a White Paper from the Government.
    The White Paper was eagerly awaited. Unfortunately, when it arrived it was somewhat misleading. I am sure that my hon. Friends who served on the Committee will enlarge on the problems that we encountered.
    We were aware that the DTI had misunderstood the report's axes of argument, and its acceptance rate for our 52 recommendations was only 28, which is not as high as we are usually awarded when we place a report before Parliament to which the DTI then responds. Perhaps the Department would have preferred us to consider petrol prices at the pumps—we considered that as a subject for
    520
    debate—or shipbuilding: the Government seem to give aid to private shipyards which is not available to the nationalised yards. Or we might have called for a popular debate on beer and the tied houses, but we stuck to information technology because I had called for a debate on it in Government time, but unfortunately the Leader of the House could not see his way to giving us one.
    It is interesting to read in The Independent today that its technology correspondent, Mary Fagan, draws attention to a document which came from inside the DTI which states:
    "Internal briefing papers told DTI officials to resist a Commons debate"
    on information technology.
    We have this debate in our time now and we look forward to exploiting the two hours and 48 minutes that are left——
    Mr. Michael Marshall: I fully understand my hon. Friend's point about the importance of the debate. On behalf of the parliamentary information technology committee I may say that we greatly value the thorough work that went into this report, and I assure my hon. Friend that we shall continue to help him in any way we can to further the debate in the coming weeks.
    Mr. Warren: I am most grateful for that support from the chairman of the parliamentary information technology committee which does so much useful work on behalf of the House and the industry.
    We have had tussles with the DTI before on tin and on Westland, when we held inquiries, but in general it may surprise the House to know that we reached broad agreement on the proposals that we made on British Steel, on the Rover Group and on trade with China, eastern Europe and so on. Unfortunately, the information technology problem remains, and our unanimous proposals have been misinterpreted.
    These proposals were arrived at after a year—long presentation of the most skilful evidence from across the industry, collected by the Committee in Europe, Japan and the United States.
    I could not resist bringing to the attention of the House a quotation by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs, who waited until the Select Committee was safely over the border in Scotland to look at financial services for 1992 before saying:
    "This old-fashioned idea of the gargantuan dinosaur of Government, directing the sector by procurement policies, is … typical of Select Committee members but not modern Government policy."—[Official Report, 19 April 1989; Vol. 151, c. 385.]
    It is a pity that my hon. Friend said that, because I am sure that he has since had a chance to read the report—clearly he had not read it at the time. No doubt he will be pleased to know that the Select Committee is eagerly looking forward to the chance of welcoming him with its usual courtesy, as soon as it can.
    We also welcome my hon. Friend's self-announced appointment to his post. Our right hon. and noble Friend in another place said that there would be no Minister of information technology but at a recent press conference, our hon. Friend the Minister told us:
    "I am your friendly Minister of IT".

    521
    We did not ask for a Minister of information technology, and the noble Lord did not expect one to be appointed. We hope that this self-appointment will survive any future shuffle.
    I have always regarded my hon. Friend in good heart as a man who can be relied upon to pour oil on troubled waters. I note that he is not wearing his usual admirable watch chain, perhaps knowing that it has a dry tinder box attached to it. Nevertheless, I could not let the moment pass without-telling my hon. Friend that the Committee was not happy with his view, which I am sure he will want to amend if he catches your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker.
    The report contains two main themes. No one knows better that my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General, whom I welcome to the debate, that Government as a business operation need information technology on a scale that they do not yet appreciate. Secondly, the United Kingdom trade deficit is the cause of growing national concern and it cannot be wished away by selective statistics.
    The business of Government is labour-intensive—it is probably the most labour-intensive business in the country. Two of the tables in the report show the number of civil servants with computer workstations, and how many will have them in 1993. Table 12 shows that the major Departments of State have about 0.3 workstations per civil servant. By 1993, that will have risen to an average of 0·5.
    The best current practice is between 0·5 and, in the most advanced offices in private enterprise, 1 per person. The Government need to bring in a lot more technology because they face a major problem that they have not yet dealt with. Between now and 1993 the total number of people in the 18 to 24 age group, which is 6 million now, will drop to 4·8 million—a fall of 20 per cent. in potential recruits. Although I trust that the Conservative Government will continue to prosper through those years, I fear that they will not find themselves the most attractive employers for young people who will be the subject of intense competition in efforts to drag them away into highly paid jobs in other industries which can afford to pay more than the Government.
    The only solution, with which the Government must come to grips, given the labour-intensive nature—
    Miss Emma Nicholson: Why is my hon. Friend concentrating so hard on the under-24-year-olds? Information technology is eminently suited to the recruitment of middle-aged people, particularly women who work from home or part time. Government are part-time employers of notable success, and they offer job sharing and good working practices. It would be easy to train those over 24 in modern IT, which is so user-friendly, so why does my hon. Friend concentrate so heavily on the younger age group?
    I am concerned that the percentages to which my hon. Friend has referred may be slightly misleading. I refer especially to computerisation within Government and workstations. My hon. Friend will recall the central head office technology system which is being introduced to the Ministry of Defence, which is commonly known as CHOPS. With its introduction there will be 75,000 terminals. There will be a terminal on each senior manager's desk. My hon. Friend will——
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. The hon. Lady is making a long intervention. I am sure that she will catch the eye of the Chair in due course.
    Mr. Warren: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her intervention, and especially for the information about the Ministry of Defence. When the Committee asked it how many computer workstations it had, its first response was to tell us that it did not know. Secondly, the Minister told us that it could not give us the information because it was secret. I was inclined to think——
    Miss Nicholson: Will my hon. Friend give way?
    Mr. Warren: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I shall proceed with my speech. I am sure that she will be able to catch the eye of the Chair later in the debate. As I have said, I am delighted to have the information about the Ministry of Defence to which she drew our attention. I still feel, however, that it did not know how many computer workstations it had.
    I accept my hon. Friend's argument about the age group that I have selected, but I want to illustrate a problem that must be regarded as inevitable. There will not be enough people entering the labour market in the next five years to take up the job opportunities that will be available. I accept, of course, that there are job opportunities that involve the use of information technology throughout the age ranges. I wish that I could stand with my hon. Friend and believe that IT is all user-friendly. My experience is that it is usually antagonistic when I am using it. That is probably the result of bad luck over the years.
    I draw the attention of the House—I hesitate to do this after my hon. Friend's intervention—to yet one more table in the report. It will be the last table with which I shall burden the House. It sets out the number of personal computers that are available in the home. It shows that Britain has much greater experience of the use of personal computers, whether they be for home use, for a hobby, for business or for scientific work, than America, Spain, France, West Germany, Italy and Sweden, for example.
    That takes me again to the 18 to 24-year-olds and the problem that the Government will have in recruiting young people to fill the job opportunities that they will have. The people in that age group will expect information technology to be commonplace. They will be used to playing around with keyboards and screens and they will expect to be well equipped with information technology when they take up employment. I believe that the Government will have an even more difficult recruiting task than perhaps they have appreciated and identified so far.
    It is true that we do not work at home, and I do not suggest that any Member of this place, let alone my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, would wish to do so. I ask the Government, however, to examine more closely and severely the communications systems that are available in the market place and to bear in mind those that will be coming forward. The Macdonald committee, the members of which were not in business or in industry, advised the Government on communications. It even stated in its report that it did not choose to discuss the matter with those who are in industry or in communications.
    That is disappointing. It is communication systems in which the greatest use of information technology must be found and developed over the next 10 to 20 years. I have

    523
    a personal desire to see a wide band communication system developed that can take voice and data so that the country can be as competitive as it needs to be in developments that go beyond 1992 for use in the financial services sector, for example.
    Miss Emma Nicholson: Will my hon. Friend give way?
    Mr. Warren: I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I choose to continue with my speech. I am sure that she will catch the eye of the Chair in due course.
    Miss Nicholson rose——
    Mr. Warren: I give way to my hon. Friend.
    Miss Nicholson: I remind my hon. Friend of Britain's enormous success in using the Packet switching system to such effect through the introduction of Mercury, which has brought competition to British Telecom. We now have one of the largest customer databases and international data transmissions in the world. We have been enormously successful with British Telecom and Mercury in the use of the Packet switching system, and this has brought exactly the result that my hon. Friend is seeking.
    Mr. Warren: With respect, it has not. It does not allow for the sort of communication systems that will be required in the next decade in Britain and throughout the rest of Europe and the western world. The fact is that it is not a wide band system. I shall be more than delighted to give my hon. Friend a private lecture on the subject on another occasion. I hope that she will accept for the moment that the problem is that we do not have communication systems that are adequate to meet the expectations of those who want to compete—whether they be in Scotland or Ireland—with the rest of the European community.
    In today's edition of The Times there is a fine article that draws attention once again—this has been repeated over and over again in the national and technical press—to the number of skilled employees that will be required. The National Computing Centre Ltd. believes that the present shortage of 19,000 staff will rise to over 35,000 within a year. We are talking about those who are well skilled and well trained in the art of information technology. It must be recognised that it is an art and not only a science, especially when the proverbial bugs are running around inside the equipment.
    We have a trade deficit problem and it is not confined to information technology goods. It is an enormous problem that stretches across manufacturing industry. The deficit is running at £17,000 million a year. I worked out late last night—I hope that I got the zeros right—that it amounted to about £50 million a day, or £33,000 every minute around the clock. To offset that, we shall have to export and sell six more Metros a minute.
    The two major components of the trade deficit are, surprisingly enough, German motor cars, which account for about £5 billion-worth of imports a year, and information technology, the imports of which amount to about £2·5 billion a year. In third place is the importation of material that is required by the paper industry. We have a major problem and the Committee sought to adress it. It is one that cannot be wished away by selective statistics. It is an enormous problem and it does not matter what other countries are doing. It can be mastered, however, by the talents and resources that are to be found within the
    524
    United Kingdom. That could be done if I could only persuade the Government to be drawn into collaborating, co-operating and seeking to close the gap.
    I ask the Government to examine their track record. When the Committee tried to identify the Government's work in this area, it was disappointed to find that reports such as that produced by the Bide committee in 1986 received no response. One of the recommendations was that work should be undertaken on a fail-safe system for British Rail. If that recommendation had been adopted in 1986, some of the recent rail crashes—I do not like to speculate—might have been avoided. That applies as well to some that might yet come. To reject the work of so many over such a long time is not conducive to persuading more people to come forward to collaborate with the Government on inquiries which they may wish to initiate.
    The reaction to the Committee's report has perhaps been better than the reviews which the Government were prepared to give us. I shall refer to some of them. The Cranfield Technology Institute stated:
    "We support each of the 52 recommendations."
    There was a response from IBM, which read:
    "I … congratulate you on the accuracy with which you have pinpointed the most critical issues."
    The Electronic Engineering Association commented on an
    "able, interesting and well-written document on the current state of the IT industry in the United Kingdom."
    The professor of computing at the university of Kent reported:
    "I was pleased to read that the Committee was trying to shake up the system."
    We are still trying to do that.
    The Hoskyns Group said:
    "Excellent … the task now is to ensure that the report is not buried alongside Bide and Coopers."
    The British Computer Society said that the report
    "gives Government a real opportunity to simultaneously improve the effectiveness of its own operation and the performance of United Kingdom industry."
    The comment that I really like, Madam Deputy Speaker—and I am sure that it will appeal to you—comes from the female managing director of a computer company which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister visited. She said:
    "I don't know if she will go back and give the DTI a handbagging about the report … but I feel she should."
    When my hon. Friend the Minister replies, we shall find out whether he is suffering from the slings and arrows of outrageous handbags.
    The Government's track record is not a happy one. The National Computing Centre was asked by my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State if the report would give him some idea of skills requirements for several years hence. The industry had invested £100,000 of its own money in the report, which was started in January 1986, but no reply has been received. The DTI may well run into some difficulty with those who are anxious for a partnership to develop with Government if nothing happens after all their efforts. We had high hopes that the report and the White Paper would guide us towards a partnership that needs both the help and the interest of Government and that looks upon Government as a major customer.
    The Committee's work was not to pick winners or losers. Nevertheless, the PA Consulting Group—which is used extensively by the Government—said in a report entitled "Winners or Losers":

    525
    "No one seems to know what to do as far as IT is concerned".
    An article in "The Management Edge" by David Harvey stated:
    "Corporate systems in two thirds of UK companies will not withstand the competitive strains imposed by the single European market. The warning comes as the countdown to 1992 reduces the room for any serious preparation to be carried out."
    Because of the downturn in engineering orders this year, the Government—who are a major market-maker—must tell us what they propose to do. They say that they will not intervene, but I could list several Government interventions by the DTI, beginning on 8 February. For a Department that does not want to intervene, it is a remarkable somersault. Its most amazing intervention—of which I happen to approve—occurred on 19 June when it launched the open systems technology transfer programme at a cost of £12 million. In doing so, it must have picked a winner. It could have picked another one, but it did not. Of course, I cannot refer to the winner because that would be unfair to the loser. To my regret, during the past few years in information technology there has been a remarkable propensity, especially by the Ministry of Defence, to pick losers—to the tune of £1 billion in a recent project.
    The Government cannot claim that they are not in the business of picking winners when not only do they pick a winner but they spend £1·8 billion of taxpayers' money each year to sustain their IT requirements. The black knight of intervention has stealthily come among us. That is evident in the recommendations of the report that have not been accepted. Time and again we can enumerate and cross-check interventions against the report's recommendations, although those recommendations have not been accepted in the White Paper. I feel that there has been, perhaps, a slightly sinister change of policy.
    A report in the Financial Times on 26 June by Mr. Alan Cane stated:
    "Concern that British computing services companies are not yet geared to competing successfully against foreign companies for large contracts has prompted a Government `initiative' that comes close to contravening the spirit, if not the letter, of international directives on open competition."
    Companies are being invited to receive quiet, informal advice from the DTI. One of the bidders is quoted as saying that the DTI
    "is saying that they will put extra votes your way for an all-British consortium."
    Neither my hon. Friend nor I is an interventionist, but that is something of a volte-face by a Government who, apparently, do not believe in intervention but who, in fact, are surreptitiously encouraging it. Companies are being encouraged to discuss their bids with the DTI and the CCTA, which in turn will give information to help them win contracts. That is a change of policy. I am not saying that that is wrong, but the Government's policy on intervention should be publicly stated.
    I know that many other hon. Members wish to speak in the debate, Madam Deputy Speaker [Interruption.] I have known you for a long time, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I really did not expect to see you clad in such a manner. You will no doubt understand my problems in Committee when hon. Members laugh at me—although it is normal to laugh at the Chairman.
    526
    The task of developing IT understanding is colossal, but it is something from which the Government cannot escape. I welcome collaboration provided that it is creative and promotes Government understanding that they cannot avoid being a player in the market place. It may sound like Powellite philosophy, but the Government say that they will not intervene in the buying decisions for £1·8 billion equipment, yet they are buying between 10 per cent. and 20 per cent. of total output for their own civil and military uses.
    The Government and the DTI do not have to set themselves up as judges on the merits of the people and the products in the IT marketplace. However, they must understand that their process of choice is antiquated and expensive. Indeed, major suppliers say that it costs them three times as much and takes them three times as long to bid to Government as it does to comparable outside enterprises. Because the Government are the largest single buyer, spending billions of pounds each year, their choice affects the operation of the market place.
    I have a rather worrying personal concern that in a country built on talent and surrounded by opportunity the Government do not recognise their unique duty of leadership by constantly seeking to open new areas of prosperity for our nation. That is the inherent challenge of the Committee's IT report and the reason that we have selected it for debate tonight. We want the Government to accept their duty and to act. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will respond with understanding.
    7.38 pm
    Mr. Stan Crowther: I am happy to follow the Committee's distinguished chairman, the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Warren). He has not left a great deal for other Committee members to say. I appreciate the splendid way in which he advanced the Committee's views.
    Because of the short time available for this debate, I shall be brief—although I intend to concentrate on a matter of crucial importance to British industry. I felt that the hon. Gentleman was displaying his customary generosity when he suggested that the Government had misunderstood the Committee's report. The alternative is that they understood it perfectly well, but reacted in an extraordinarily stupid way. It may be that they have misunderstood it. Perhaps I should be as kind as the hon. Gentleman.
    The Select Committee spent a vast amount of time on the inquiry. There were 15 sittings in the House and we took many thousands of words of written evidence as well. We travelled around the world talking to people in Japan and all the way across the United States. We then produced a report containing 52 recommendations which was warmly welcomed by the industry. The hon. Member for Hastings and Rye has quoted a few of the comments that we have received from the industry, but they are merely a few out of a vast number of comments that we have received, all extremely complimentary to the report. Unfortunately, the report was dismissed peremptorily by the Secretary of State. It is sad that he should have reacted in such a way.
    I emphasise that the report was unanimous. Every member of the Committee agreed with every recommendation in it. I do not intend to deal with its technical

    527
    aspects—other hon. Members are much more qualified than I am to do that—but I want to make one or two comments on the political aspects of this matter.
    This is not a matter of party division. Again, I emphasise that the report was unanimous. The argument between the Select Committee and the Secretary of State on this matter goes to the heart of the ideological divide in British politics today. It is entirely a question whether a British Government have a duty to make decisions and to implement policies which are positively in the interests of British industries and British companies.
    This is the only Government in the industrial world who make a virtue of neutrality in that matter. They are certainly the first Government in British history who have taken the view that it does not matter whether British industries sink or swim and that it is nothing to do with them. I know of no previous Government of any party who have taken that view, but that seems to be the well-established policy of successive Secretaries of State for Trade and Industry, of whom we have had a large number in the past 10 years—about eight.
    Those Ministers have all claimed a great attachment to what they call market forces. I am not against market forces, but we need to remember that market forces do not come down from heaven. They are not created by some extra-terrestrial body. They are very much created and conditioned by Government policies—for example on energy costs, interest rates, exchange rates and, in the particular context of the matter that we are discussing, public procurement.
    Let me refer briefly to the Government's response to our report on that matter of public procurement. They said:
    "The Government do not consider that public procurement should be used as a policy instrument to pull through technology."
    We never suggested that it should be an instrument to pull through technology. All that we were suggesting was that in their public procurement policy it would not be a bad thing for a British Government to pay some attention to British industry. That may have been a misunderstanding, but if it was it was a serious one.
    Government policies on matters such as education, training and research in the area that we are debating are of enormous importance in conditioning what turn out in the end to be market forces. For example, no one can seriously dispute that the success of the United States IT industry in the civilian field owes a great deal to the enormous amount of taxpayers' money which the Department of Defence spends on research—a perfectly proper use of the taxpayers' money. I am not necessarily suggesting that the Ministry of Defence should adopt the same policy here; I merely mention that as an example of the way in which Government expenditure can be used to benefit the economy, obviously including the private sector.
    Those are ways in which market forces are determined by the use of Government policy and resources, and I would like to see that happening here. However, the Government's response to the report, effectively saying that that is not their job and has nothing to do with them, is unfortunate.
    The Ministry of International Trade and Industry in Japan clearly, openly and obviously devotes its policies entirely to the promotion of the Japanese national interest. Nobody makes any secret of that. If the Japanese have
    528
    tended to open the Japanese market to foreign imports more than they have in the past, it is only because they perceive that to be in the Japanese national interest.
    In the highly competitive world in which we live, I see nothing wrong in any Government adopting that policy. But the British Government's attitude, as we perceived it during the inquiry, as during many other inquiries, is that, although they want British industry to make the best possible use of information technology, it does not matter much to them where the equipment comes from; whether it is made in Britain or imported. They do not care much about the future of Britain's indigenous IT manufacturing industry. The hon. Member for Hastings and Rye pointed out the appallingly high trade deficit in that area. We and the Government should be worried about that.
    The Government have said that they are not prepared to make use of their enormous purchasing power to assist in and encourage the development of the British IT manufacturing industry. They are wrong to say that. I hope that they will think again about what we have said in our report. Again, I emphasise that this is not a matter of an ideological difference between parties. The report, like all our reports, was unanimous.
    I do not want to be told about our international obligations under EC rules, the general agreement on tariffs and trade and all that kind of thing. I see that the Minister nods, so I fear that I may be told about it. lest I shall be told about it, let me say at once that I have heard it all before. I also know that other Governments, who are similarly bound by identical rules, manage to find a way of protecting the interests of their own industries and of making sure that their own industries develop in the competitive world in which we live.
    I never quite understand why we should be the only ones who say that there is nothing we can do because of the international rules. When we talked to people in Japan, the United States and throughout western Europe—yes, even in the EC—we found a very different attitude. The Minister knows perfectly well that there is not another Government in western Europe who will sit supinely back and see its own industries destroyed by competition from outside if there is something that can be done about it. There is something that the Government can do, but I am afraid that they are refusing to do it.
    Where there is a will there is a way and it is up to the Government to find the way. It is time that we had pro-British policies from the British Government.
    7.48 pm
    Sir Ian Lloyd: I am glad to hear that the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) has joined the comparatively select band of those who have been to Japan, the United States and elsewhere in Europe to look specifically at the information technology industry. Rather like those astronauts who go into space and never see the world in quite the same way again, hon. Members who have shared that experience never quite see the problems in exactly the same light again.
    This is an old stamping ground of mine, but I feel something of an interloper in what is a vital and important argument between my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Warren) and my noble Friend Lord Young representing the Government. The hon. Member for Rotherham has touched on the crucial and sensitive aspects of this vital debate.

    529
    I am indebted, as I am sure are the House and the country, to my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye for having produced a remarkably comprehensive and interesting report which deserves, and I hope will continue to receive, the closest possible scrutiny. I have read not only the report but the Government's White Paper in response to it. Before commenting on both, I think it fair to say that the interchange between Select Committees and the Government provides a crucial fulcrum on which the balance between Government policy and the views of its critics can be weighed. It is very much in the public interest that that should be done seriously and openly, as it is this evening on the Floor of the House.
    I congratulate the Government on responding positively and constructively to certain parts of the report. On reading the White Paper, I particularly welcomed the recognition in paragraph 5.14 of the significance of the international trading market. Recalling the remarks that had been made about Japan, I never forget for one moment that whatever may be Japan's success on one side of the coin, it depends on the other side of the coin, which is the virtually completely free access that Japanese products have to the OECD world trading market. Neither the Japanese nor anyone else should be allowed to forget that. Therefore, I welcome also the Government's emphasis on the general agreement on tariffs and trade and on access to international markets. Whatever happens, it is important that our policies result in such access.
    Before giving my critical reactions, I shall set the scene. Since I last spoke on the subject—which was quite a while ago—the cost of semiconductors per function has fallen by 75 per cent. It has fallen by half since the report was printed. The size of the information technology deficit has increased enormously and the scale of the IT industry in the United Kingdom, in Europe and worldwide has expanded at a prodigious rate. The world economy now benefits to the tune of the massive figure of 400 billion dollars. About 15 years ago, I said that by the end of the century, IT would be the world's largest industry. Now I believe that that target will be exceeded and that if IT is not already the world's largest industry, it will be within the next few years.
    I very much regret that Britain has sold to France one of its most outstanding examples of information technology, the transputer. United States' investment in microelectronics in 1986—the latest year for which we have figures—reached the colossal equivalent of £60 billion. The figure for France was £8 billion. In 1987, Japan's output of information technology products was 97 billion dollars. By comparison, the total for the EEC was more or less a comparable figure, while that for the United Kingdom was only $22 billion, or one fifth of that for the Community.
    Japan's research and development expenditure now stands at 6·9 billion dollars and is second only to that of the United States, which spends nearly 20 billion dollars. Japan's expenditure is now double that of the United Kingdom, at 3·1 billion dollars. It is a matter of the greatest regret that not one United Kingdom firm features in the list of top 10 companies in respect of computers, telecommunications or semiconductors. Japan completley dominates the export market for consumer electronics, with a 63 per cent. share, compared with 5 per cent. for the
    530
    United States—which is an interesting figure, because it represents a very rapid change from a position of dominance—and 4 per cent. for the United Kingdom, with 27 per cent. for the whole of the European Community.
    A specific and significant statistic is that relating to installed robots, upon which so much of industry's performance depends. The figures are most alarming. The total number of installed robots in Japan is 82,500; in the United States, it is 25,000; in Germany, 12,000; in France, 5,000; and in the United Kingdom, 3,600. If one reflects on those statistics, one draws at all points the conclusion that the diffusion, of microelectronic technologies is now the main driving force of all the OECD economies. The greater the diffusion, the greater the growth rate, the greater the prosperity and the greater the market dominance. The correlation is very clear and very specific.
    I turn to research and development, and hope that I shall interest the House with two technical examples. The first transistor was developed in 1955 or 1956. I recall holding a copy of one in my hand in the House. It had four gates. Today's commercial integrated circuits have 1 million gates. Laboratories are producing circuits with 4 million to 6 million gates, and the cutting edge of science is what are known as gigaflop systems having 1 billion gates. That stage has not yet been reached, but in the field of molecular electronics the cutting edge of science is getting very close.
    At the Carnegie Mellon centre in the United States, work is continuing on 400 megabit optical random access memories, which means having 400 million devices on one small memory chip. Even more exciting is the use of that device in super-computers using what is known as bacteriorhodopsin. That extraordinary material is found in the photosynthetic apparatus of bacteria on the shores of San Francisco, and it can be used as a bistable optical switch—that is, as a semiconductor, because it can signal either on or off—with the phenomenal switching speed of 1 million millionths of a second. When used with laser technology, it offers the prospect of computers that can operate thousands of times faster than the comparatively small number of supercomputers that currently exist throughout the world. A combination of semiconductors of that kind with polymer surfaces presents the possibility of developing artificial vision for computers before the end of the century—and we should reflect on what that could mean for humanity.
    I refer to two other important developments. Fujitsu has produced the first Japanese to English translation system—and what a shame that that was done in Japan—using a 32-bit personal computer. The price will be around £2,200, and the expected revenue is around £45 million in three years. The questions I ask are, why not us, and why not here? Even more depressing is that the first Josephson junction processor has also been produced by Fujitsu. It is based on the prototype developed by a brilliant young Englishman, Dr. Josephson of Trinity college, Cambridge. Again I ask the questions, why not us, why not here? When considering British information technology policy, we cannot escape asking such questions, whatever may be our arguments about the right method of dealing with the problems involved. Only this morning I heard that a young scientist in Hong Kong is close to developing a computer that will recognise spoken Mandarin, and the possible market for that is 1 billion Chinese.
    Mr. Timothy Wood: My hon. Friend mentioned a number of fascinating developments and quite properly asked the questions, why not us, why not here? Is he suggesting that companies or the Government should have played a part?
    Sir Ian Lloyd: I shall not escape that question. It is important and I shall try to answer it directly.
    It has been pointed out that the United States car industry has installed three super-computers. In the same article, we were told that Nissan has installed two which are so much more powerful than the three available to the whole of the United States car industry that they will be able to design, develop and crash a motor car without even building a prototype. Does the British motor car industry have access to that technology? If not, why not? Where does the responsibility lie?
    These machines cost an enormous amount, between £7 million and £15 million. There are a few hundred in the world and only three in the United Kingdom, but they are of the utmost importance. I am glad to say that Europe is not asleep. The European sub-micron silicon initiative involves a £2·7 billion programme and the intention is to increase the present density of integrated circuits by 10, to increase their size by 2·5 times and to extend the elements of memory from 40 million to 200 million—still well below the figure that I gave earlier—and the elements of logic from 2 million to 10 million.
    The world market for super-computers has been estimated to be £100 billion by the year 2000. Those who support the JESSI programme—the European sub-micron programme say that, with luck and if we do it properly and get it right, Europe's share may be £17 billion. Paragraph 5·5 of the White Paper "Information Technology" states:
    "The Government have no plans to require the creation of a national broadband network based on fibreoptic cable."
    I contrast that with what is happening in Japan and the United States. In Japan, it has been stated that the intention is to create a fully integrated digital communication structure using broadband fibre-optic microware.
    I hope that the House will forgive me if I quote fairly extensively from Senator Gore's speech on the so-called Gore Bill in the United States. He said:
    "High-performance computing is the most powerful tool available to those who, in an increasing number of fields, are operating at the frontiers of imagination and intellect. The nation which most completely assimilates high-performance computing into its economy will very likely emerge as the dominant intellectual, economic, and technological force in the next century."
    I fully concur with that judgment. Senator Gore went on:
    "If the United States is going to be a supercomputer superpower in the 1990s, we had better start building a high-capacity, national research and education network today."
    He argued:
    "A national network with associated supercomputers … will cluster research centres and businesses around network interchanges, using the Nation's vast data banks as the building blocks for increasing industrial productivity, creating new products, and improving access to education."
    How, he asks, is this to be done? Now we come to the centre of the debate. Senator Gore said:
    "Can we rely on the market system to provide this kind of infrastructure? We certainly couldn't where the Interstate Highway System was concerned … I believe that the Federal Government must again be a catalyst … Clearly, the
    532
    technological spinoffs and productivity gains would be enormous, from a network that would cost the Government less than one Stealth bomber."
    Senator Gore went on to develop in some detail what he hoped the Bill would do for the United States. He spoke of
    "putting in place a three gigabit per second"—
    not 3 million, which is our standard—
    "national research and education computer network by 1996 … including a National Digital Library … projects like neural networks; … basic research and education; … stimulating the development of hardware; … enhancing the development and distribution of software".
    Senator Gore said:
    "This bill would also authorise $1·75 billion over 5 years, fiscal years 1990 through 1994, to carry out the purposes of the act. The investment is tiny and the payback enormous".
    He said:
    "the only long-term deficit solution is to get away from short-term thinking, look to the future, and invest in the people, technologies, and equipment that will ensure our standard of living and increase productivity."
    That is what is happening or is about to happen in the United States and Japan. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Minister does not think that that is happening. Doubtless he will reply in due course. If I am wrong, I stand corrected. If it is not happening after what has been put forward, I should be surprised if it does not happen fairly soon. If this or something like it does not happen fairly soon in Japan, I shall be even more surprised.
    We come to the question: how is this to be done? I am coming to a sensitive matter. I have just read the exchanges with Lord Young when he appeared for the second time before the Trade and Industry Committee and answered probing questions on ministerial responsibility. I disagree with both parties, which puts me in a difficult position. I do not disagree with the objective of my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Warren)—it is extremely sound—nor do I agree with Lord Young's attempt to play down the significance of this ministerial post. It has been played down, largely on the ground that everyone now knows about information technology and everyone now uses it and therefore there is no need for central responsibility. It is like saying of the Treasury, "Everyone knows about money and we really do not need a Chancellor of the Exchequer." I acknowledge that the analogy is imperfect.
    I can claim some responsibility for this debate because I put up a paper in 1978 that developed the concept of a Minister for Information Technology. I was delighted when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister came to power in 1979 and appointed the present Secretary of State for Education and Science to that post. While he was Minister for Information Technology, we made much progress. He was one of the few hon. Members, and certainly one of the few right hon. Members, with a clear appreciation of what this was all about. While he was in that position, he drove things forward and we were conscious that the nation had as the Minister for Information Technology someone with a grasp, determination and understanding of information technology. Alas, ambition and other things beckoned and the sad clothes of the Minister for Information Technology were dropped, like Cinderella's, into the wastepaper basket, and my right hon. Friend moved on to other and better things. As a result, the nation may have missed out, even if it has gained in other ways.
    Mr. Crowther: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that during the reign of that Minister for Information Technology we developed a considerable trade deficit in that business?
    Sir Ian Lloyd: That may be so, but the reasons for the development of the trade deficit, in both the United Kingdom and western Europe as a whole, and in the United States, are deep-seated. This is the obverse of the remarkable sense of vision, determination and organisation—almost unique in the history of the industrial world —that was displayed in Japan. I came across it for the first time in 1970, when a Japanese Minister of State with specific responsibility for information technology told a visiting delegation from Europe that information technology in Japan bore the same relationship to industrial power as coal did to industrial power in the 19th century. I have never forgotten that, just as I have never forgotten the vigour, force and conviction of that man's statement.
    What are the solutions? There are many, but I favour one particular solution. I am sorry to have to say that I disagree with my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and I probably disagree with many others. We need this focus. If the whole record is in any sense a judgment of whether this decision is right or wrong, I believe that that record is wholeheartedly on my side and no one else's. I stick to that judgment because I have made it on the Floor of the House for almost 25 years. Events are what count and events have proved me increasingly right.
    As a country, we cannot afford to fail in this area. We must think much harder and we must be more effective. We must see a national and European leadership emerging in this sphere. Our science, our inventiveness and our technology are all equal to the challenge and I have every confidence in them. However, our institutions are not, and I have less confidence in them.
    Senator Gore talked about talent and determination. We have almost a superfluity of talent and the very best talent in this country is second to none. We have rather less determination. Let us put talent and determination together. When we have done so, let us use them.
    8.10 pm
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I will not attempt to follow the hon. Member for Havant (Sir I. Lloyd) with the great deal of technical knowledge he has revealed. However, I hope that he will agree that one does not have to have that degree of technical knowledge to be able to approach this subject and to recognise its importance. The information technology industry, regrettably, has its own technology, terminology, statistics and jargon, as many industries do. As a result, many people tend to shut it out, and to think that it is not for them and not terribly important.
    However, the advent of the development of information technology can be compared with the invention of the printing press, the railways, and the internal combustion engine all rolled into one. It is—or represents when used and developed properly—a major leap forward in the way that we organise our business, the means of production and our daily lives. It has already had a substantial impact, but I suspect that its eventual impact will be far greater.
    There are some simple, practical aspects of information technology to which we can all relate, given our everyday experiences of the past 24 hours. The habit has built up
    534
    over generations that people congregate in great cities. I do not believe that that development will be fundamentally reversed, but technology can enable a more sensible balance of time and place to be organised. Many of us use new technology every day when communicating with our constituency offices. I and many other hon. Members have word processors and fax machines at home to enable us to communicate between our homes and secretaries. Those are simple examples of information technology, but they have made an enormous difference to the speed with which information can be transferred. With the development of super-computers, not only speed, but volume and sophistication, come into play as well. They are all important and have substantial implications not only for the economy, but for society as a whole.
    However, there are still many casualties within the system and part of the reason for that is that information technology has come upon us so quickly. It still remains true, for example, that companies buy hardware before they have considered fully what they want to do with it, and before they have considered their software requirements and intercommunicability, not only within their own company, but with their customers and the companies from which they purchase. Much has been learnt, but the learning curve is expensive.
    It is interesting that a survey last year said that the most important priority among British management was upgrading existing systems. I realise that that is partly a reflection of the speed of technology, but regrettably, it is also a reflection of the mistakes made in earlier purchasing decisions. Members of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry will remember in particular the Bank of America, which we visited, where there were substantial errors and the Committee judged that the bank was continuing to make errors in buying information technology systems.
    It is interesting that a survey carried out by Amdahl when our report was in its early stages pointed out that attitudes in British management towards information technology lagged behind those in other European countries and especially in West Germany. One of the problems was that we did not spend much time in training our executives in the use of information technology. The survey said:
    "In Great Britain, the least amount of time is spent learning: for example it is believed that only 9 per cent. of British managers 'often' attend internal presentations or seminars on Information Technology, whereas it is 19 per cent. in France, 29 per cent. in Italy and 36 per cent. in West Germany".
    That is symptomatic of the problem. The survey also showed that the British position was mixed:
    "Expectations are high and there are some excellent success examples … There are some notable exceptions but there is clearly a great deal to do in improving attitudes and understanding if full benefit is to be gained in the years ahead."
    There are problems in attitude in British management, which the Government are entitled to say are not wholly their responsibility.
    However, I find it odd and the Committee collectively found it offensive that the White Paper was not a counter-statement, but a rather cavalier rebuttal of a serious piece of work which involved a great deal of evidence taken from a wide variety of sources and which made common-sense recommendations. The Government impugned many of the recommendations in a way that did not represent what the Committee had said. What offended me was that the Government criticised us for

    535
    points that we did not actually make and rejected recommendations that we did not actually make. That is not a businesslike way in which to go about the matter and was quite unnecessary.
    As the hon. Member for Havant has pointed out, there were areas in which the Government were able to say that they were acting positively and as our Chairman, the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Warren), pointed out in his excellent opening speech, not intervening is, in a sense, an act of intervention. It is a policy decision. The Government are taking a macho ideological position which does not make sense in the day-to-day world in which we all live. Their attitude seems rather unnecessary.
    As the Minister will recall, we had a debate on this subject on 19 April. 1 am pleased to say that the subject was chosen by my own party and the debate was opened by my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), who has direct personal interest in these matters and is an enthusiast for information technology. In particular, he referred to the desirability of having a national broadband fibre-optic cable network. The Government have rejected that and have said that they do not believe that that is especially desirable. They said:
    "The Government have no plans to require the creation of a national broadband network based on fibreoptic cable."
    Again, the Committee did not suggest that the Government should require the creation of such a network. The Committee said that it thought that that would be desirable, and that it was interested to know whether the Government agreed and whether they felt that they would have an input into that network. I must ask the Minister whether the Government believe, just as neutral observers and operators in the game, that a broadband network is desirable. If they do not, the Minister should tell us why. If they do, what contribution are they prepared to make towards securing it? Nobody is suggesting that the Government should require that network or that they should make it happen, but they should say whether they think that it is desirable.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Eric Forth): What would the hon. Gentleman do?
    Mr. Bruce: The Committee is asking the Government to say whether they agree, and if so, what they propose to do. Hon. Members of all parties agreed that a broadband network would be desirable. If the Government do not agree with that, the House should know. Equally, we should know what the Government consider to be the way forward—[Interruption.] The Minister will have the chance to reply, so these are perfectly reasonable questions.
    The Government accept responsibility for the road network. We have debates about it and different views are expressed, but the Government accept the responsibility for ensuring that there is a road network and that it is maintained, updated and from time to time extended. The Government also accept responsibility for the national grid, for gas and electricity. Why do the Government not accept the responsibility for a national information technology grid, which should be in exactly the same category because it is the modern equivalent of those other networks?
    If the Government's argument is that they do not have a role to play, either as a participant in the market or as a gentle guider of the market, they cannot point to history as
    536
    showing that the market has always got it entirely right. Most people would acknowledge that although the building of the railways was a wonderful achievement, the private companies involved built a lot of lines in silly places, with gauges that did not match. Many of those lines did not pay and ultimately had to be closed, yet the Government could have had a logical and useful role in standardising the gauge. It seems extraordinary that the Government cannot state the desirability of them making similar contributions in this area.
    As has already been said, the Government are substantial operators in the market place, as purchasers and users of information technology. I believe that the correct figure for Government expenditure is £1·8 billion per annum, which is about 20 per cent. of the total market. That is no mean and insignificant sum.
    When the Committee visited silicon valley we saw considerable evidence that that was substantially a private venture and an offshoot of the injection of Government defence spending. The Committee is not suggesting that that is what we should be doing. We are simply making the observation that the needs and the huge budget of the American defence industry caused the spin-off of that massive innovative private enterprise explosion in silicon valley. That example proves that the interaction between Government expenditure and private sector growth and development is inescapable and unavoidable. Therefore, for the Government to say that they are not prepared even to consider the implications of what they are doing in terms of its impact on the private sector is both absurd and irresponsible.
    It is not fair for the Minister to say that the Committee is implying that there should be detailed scrutiny. There was certainly never any suggestion that Government expenditure should be used to pull through technology. We simply argued that the Government should give some consideration to the impact of their expenditure on the development of the British information technology industry. We said that where the two could coincide, the Government's interest as a user and the industry's interest as a supplier should coincide, to both parties' mutual benefit. Any sensible Government would surely grasp that idea as being practical common sense and something that could be used to everybody's advantage.
    I value this debate. Our Chairman gave a full and excellent exposition of the Committee's work. I defer to him as somebody who knows a great deal about the subject and as somebody with a great deal more expertise than myself.
    This subject affects everybody. It is crucial to the development of our economy and our society. The Government should not artificially magnify differences, many of which do not exist. They should not belittle the work of the Committee because although the Committee members have broad backs, the sad thing is that ultimately the Government are not belittling the work of the Committee, they are belittling our industry, which worked so hard with the Committee to give a great deal of useful evidence, which I believe has been brought together in a way which is welcome to the industry.
    I repeat that the industry would like the Government to respond and to ensure that in 10 or 15 years from now our British information technology industry will be in much better shape than it is now and that the British economy and British society will be much benefited by that fact.
    8.24 pm
    Dr. Keith Hampson: This is an important debate. It was a privilege for hon. Members —sadly few in number—to hear the distinguished speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Sir I. Lloyd), who knows more about the subject than probably any other hon. Member and who has campaigned on these issues for so long. I endorse the gist of his entire speech.
    My hon. Friend used the word "depressing" several times. I came to this subject as a total stranger when we began our Committee inquiry. Ministers sit in Whitehall, they are sometimes fairly new in their jobs and are not particularly conscious of the issues, so I stress that, as we as a Committee travelled around and saw the Japanese and American efforts and learned about what our partners in Europe, such as the French, were doing, it was indeed depressing to come back and discover what we are doing.
    Hon. Members have used metaphors tonight and have said that information technology is today's equivalent of the railways or the coal industry. I was going to use the example of steam. In so doing, we are searching to indicate the enormous significance of developments in information technology. However, what was not true of the earlier industrial revolutions was the sheer pace of change and the rate of development and progress that there is in this area of information technology. Indeed, that is at the heart of the problem because the continuous and huge cost has conditioned the way in which our rivals throughout the world are handling this issue. Therefore, it is not good enough for Ministers to give the impression that they want to wash their hands of it.
    Moreover, it is not good enough for Ministers to say that the Committee proposed solutions which, frankly, we did not. We were simply trying to draw attention to the scale of the problem and to the significance of what was happening elsewhere in the world. We were not saying that there should be an attempt in the words of the White Paper to "impose a 'best' solution." Where on earth did the Government get that from?
    In the same paragraph, however, the Government said something that we would endorse. I hope that the Minister will bear in mind my words on this in the light of his words in our previous debate on this subject on 19 April. The White Paper states:
    "Government action can be justified to seek to correct failings in the market mechanism".
    That is exactly what we proposed throughout our report and the Government have not denied that fact. Therefore, there was no point in the Minister saying when he replied to that earlier debate:
    "The Select Committee was looking for what the Department sees as a more interventionist approach than the Department of Trade and Industry is prepared to support … I regret … not modern Government policy."—[Official Report, 19 April 1989; Vol. 151, c. 385–6.]
    We are entitled to ask, which Government's policy? Not that of the Japanese Government. At the heart of capitalism, they pursue a different policy, as do the American Government. In this, as in so many areas, we are marching out of step.
    Miss Emma Nicholson: Has my hon. Friend considered the contracting out by the American Government? When I was at the NASA base the other day, I found that the most interesting thing was that it was run by IBM. Did my hon. Friend understand the effects of what he was looking at in the United States of America?
    Dr. Hampson: I shall deal with that in detail in a moment. I was trying to make the point that Ministers are making unfounded accusations about the Committee and that the Government are out of step with what we discovered other Governments were trying to do.
    The Minister's sentiments were not even consistent with the Government's own approach. Within three weeks of the publication of the Select Committee's report, the Department of Trade and Industry issued a press notice which said:
    "Government invests £22 million for extra IT research."
    I hasten to point out that Ministers had not told us that that was happening. Moreover, the Secretary of State appeared before the Committee for a second time three weeks before a major reorganisation of the handling of information technology in his Department was undertaken, yet we were given no indication that that was about to happen.
    The press release to which I have referred is one of several issued by the DTI boasting about what the Department is doing—of an information and engineering advanced technology programme for example, and of £22 million to help electronics to expand the science base of this country. Another press notice is entitled "Semiconductors", and says:
    "The Government announced today … £16 million for a national programme of research into high temperature conductivity."
    Where is the difference between what the DTI is doing on a large number of fronts and what the Committee proposed? We proposed that such activities should be openly accepted. We should not be hiding our initiatives and efforts, or the fact that we are doing what other Governments are doing, albeit in an ad hoc way. We argued that there should be co-ordination. The IT effort spans an enormous range of activities. It involves the schools and how we get young people to cope and to become involved naturally with information technology. It involves training teachers. We have an appalling record on that; information technology coverage in teacher training programmes is wholly inadequate. It involves the awareness of business men and a whole range of other areas' activities—the Training Agency and its training programme for young people and so on.
    We have already acknowledged that a Minister in the Department should be the co-ordinating Minister for inner-city policy. Information technology is enormously significant. Is there not a case for saying that we should have a Minister to try to co-ordinate the Government's efforts? That is what the Committee suggested, but the Government said that it was not part of their thinking on these matters.
    When it comes to trying to get orders for British industry, every effort—rightly—is made by the Department and the Prime Minister to win contracts—for example, for bridges in Turkey—and I give them credit for that, but are we really saying that help for the British construction industry is more important than assistance for information technology—both for the benefit of that industry itself and because of its application? We cannot say that. Information technology will not only be our largest, most important industry; it will be the industry on which our future prospects depend most heavily. This is what will determine the competitive cutting edge of a

    539
    modern industrial country—the acceptance, use and successful development of information technology. The Government acknowledge that in practice, but not openly.
    In Japan, the significance of information technology is all too apparent. When we visited Japan we were given a document issued by the Japan Key Technology Center. It contained the huge headline:
    "Reaching Out Toward the 21st Century"—
    and that is exactly what we are talking about. The document describes the use of Government funds to help co-operative research. Despite the enormous power of the Japanese information technology companies and the huge scale of their own research, they still draw on Government funds. If more than two companies are prepared to capitalise a research and development company, they can get 70 per cent. of the capital from the Japanese Government.
    They can also get loans. This is an interesting idea, to which I draw the Minister's attention. Loans are available for Japanese companies that enter high-tech research. Such loans cover 70 per cent. of the cost of research projects, and the interest and repayment of the loan depend on the success of the project. That is because the risk factor in information technology is enormously high. If the project is successful, the company pays the money back. If the project does not succeed, the payments are less, or the company does not pay at all.
    It is not good enough to say, as so many commentators in this country do, "Well, the Japanese have a different culture." Of course they do, but the idea of trying to bring together the power of the private sector with Government help to co-operate in this immensely costly area is not restricted to Japan. In odd ways, we try it here, and that may provide a little help on the edges, but the Select Committee was concerned about the scale of the investment gap.
    One finds similar arrangements in operation in the United States—the very heart of capitalism. Why did Congress pass the Joint Development and Research Act in 1984? Because the joint involvement of huge American corporations had been breaking anti-trust laws. Having seen what the Japanese are doing, it was most important for the Americans to encourage similar developments. Congress has enacted proposals giving tax credit relief to companies that are prepared to invest in research projects in universities. In America, we see fundamental research assisted by the Government drawing in private sector investment.
    What in any of this does the British Conservative Government disapprove of? Will not the Minister say for once that most of these activities are perfectly within the philosophy and approach of the present Government?
    Mr. Forth: No.
    Dr. Hampson: I find that extraordinary. I think that it should go on the public record that the Minister has just quite clearly said, "No." That is out of character with what other Ministers are saying and with some of the Department's own programmes.
    We cannot ignore the scale of the Japanese and American efforts. Rather than giving a great deal of detail about what the Americans do, let me draw the attention of the House to a book by a man called Kenneth Flamm, called "Targeting the Computer". The book is the result of a research project examining how public procurement policy and investment programmes in Europe and the
    540
    United States have enhanced the development of computer and information technology. The Europeans have not done things very successfully, as the book shows, but that does not mean that we should not make the effort to do them at all.
    The book shows how, in the 1960s, the defence programmes, developed largely for the American air force caused a great breakthrough in high-powered computer work. The role of the Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency in the 1970s is central to the book's thesis. Help was given to bright people who had bright ideas in universities in the United States—not specifically for military purposes but because it was thought that the development of technologies such as the Sun workstation would ultimately benefit the military. The Americans were prepared, as a Defence Department effort, to put huge sums of money in, even though there was no immediate or direct benefit. The Americans were funding projects that it would take 15 to 20 years to follow through, and we are seeing the results in the space programme and the like.
    Of course the British Government do not have resources on that scale, but it is a matter of philosophy and of our approach. We can do something, just as the French have. The "smart" card is now becoming a practical project. It is cheap enough in terms of unit cost for companies to use in the market. That happened largely because the French Government realised that French companies had something valuable but that the project would be difficult to launch because of the cost. They therefore said that a French man's medical records would henceforth be held on a smart card. That created an enormous market for the private sector to develop. The French Government were not picking winners or telling the private sector to do this or do that. It was an example of a Government entering partnership with private companies, helping to create new markets and helping companies to succeed as far as they could in those markets. That is something with which the British Government, of all Governments, should be concerned.
    Even if the Government do not accept the degree of intervention that the Minister might say my remarks imply, they have a role in increasing awareness. The Government constantly talk about awareness in the enterprise initiative. The Committee heard a lot of evidence to the effect that there simply was not enough awareness. We may be having a lot of awareness programmes about Europe. The Government have been spreading knowledge very successfully about the single market. One of the most important factors in helping the country to succeed in the single market will be the adoption of information technology.
    We do not have enough targeted programmes under the enterprise initiative for information technology.
    We do not have enough resources in the teaching company programmes specifically geared to information technology. Let us look at some figures: 41 per cent. of IT managers said that their senior management in this country were not successfully involved with knowledge in IT; the comparative figure for West Germany was 5 per cent.
    The Government have a major effort to make to heighten awareness, even if they do not want to pull through the technologies, help create the markets, develop the partnerships and do something further to develop research. They must do something further on research, even though they do a lot already. They already make

    541
    research grants. I have suggested a different type of loan programme, or, like the American Congress, a tax credit system for companies interested not only in specific developmental work for company use but in pure research.
    One immediate issue would be of enormous benefit, Increasingly, the Government have encouraged the private sector to help universities and other institutions of higher education. We have a programme of about £1 million to try to lever another £10 million in gifts or donations to higher education. But there is also VAT on charitable donations from companies. A company such as Hewlett-Packard that has been giving equipment to Leeds university is charged 15 per cent. on the value of the high-tech equipment that it is donating. That is absurd. That is the right and left hands of Government not knowing what each other is doing.
    We must somehow co-ordinate the Government's effort. The Treasury must believe that short-term cash figures are nothing compared with long-term investment in this country's future. The pay-off in 20-year-olds being able to use the best equipment from Hewlett-Packard, IBM and so on will be more important than spending £40 million on their grannies getting assistance for medical insurance. If we took the £40 million which we are going to put in to assistance for medical insurance and put it into the programmes that we already have to help companies give more equipment to higher education, it would pay for far more in the longer term.
    We are asking whether Britain can win and do its best in Europe and whether we can do the best of which we are capable in the world. The report is trying to tell the Government that Britain must be a winner and that, above everything else, we become a winner through the successful use of information technology. Frankly, the Government must have a more positive response, spend more, be more interventionist and be more prepared to co-ordinate their efforts.
    8.41 pm
    Mr. Roger Stott: I congratulate the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Warren) and the other members of his Select Committee on Trade and Industry on producing their report on information technology. I agree with most of the contents of the report. Without doubt, the Select Committee's conclusions are a devastating critique of the Government's policy on an industry which, in the words of the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) is the touchstone of the new industrial revolution. I agree with the Committee's 52 recommendations, but I should have liked to see them go a good deal further.
    My one regret is that this debate on an important subject is taking place so late. I should have liked to have a full day's debate, so that the Select Committee's recommendations could be fully explored. I have a great deal of respect for the work of Select Committees. I hope that the Minister has had time to reflect on and repent his rather stupid remarks of 19 April, when he referred to the Select Committee as an
    " old-fashioned idea of the gargantuan dinosaur".—[Official Report, 19 April 1989; Vol. 151, c. 385.]
    I hope that the Minister has read the minutes of the evidence of 26 April, when some of his hon. Friends were
    542
    particularly offended by his personal reference to them. I hope that he will have the magnanimity to repent and to desist from using such stupid language.
    Mr. Forth: I ask the hon. Gentleman to re-read that passage. In any case, the last words of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) were that the Government must be more interventionist. I heard him say that, and it will be on the record. Why should I withdraw my remarks, which the hon. Gentleman misquoted, when at least one of my hon. Friends has justified part of what I was saying?
    Mr. Stott: That is a matter for the Minister to take up.
    Dr. Hampson: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to correct that? I said that there is no doubt that my hon. Friend the Minister would call my view interventionist. I am talking about nurturing those industries, not intervening and telling them what to do.
    Mr. Stott: I hope that we can penetrate the Minister's mind, although I have serious doubts about doing that.
    There are three major facets to a debate on information technology. The first is the state of the IT industry, the second is the use of IT by the rest of industry, and the third is the Government's use of IT. I shall concentrate on those three issues.
    The Chairman of the Select Committee has already mentioned that we have a huge trade deficit in manufactures, particularly in information technology. I make no excuse for drawing that matter to the attention of the House. Britain's 1988 trade deficit for information technology was £3·9 billion. That was up by 15 per cent. on the year before, and was almost one third of the total deficit in manufactures. In the past four years alone, the deficit in electronic goods, which includes computers, telecommunications and audio equipment, has risen by a staggering 40 per cent.
    According to the Financial Times a detailed breakdown of the figures shows that the
    "United Kingdom does not enjoy any particular areas of strength."
    The biggest imbalance was in components, professional equipment and semiconductors, at £1·5 billion. For telecommunications, television and audio it was almost as bad, at £1·4 billion. That is double what it was in the past four years. The only declining part of the deficit from £1·1 billion in 1984 to £1 billion last year was in computer and office machinery, but that was almost entirely due to the assembly operations of United States companies in Britain, such as the one in Scotland—Wang—which is now leaving Britain.
    Employment in the United Kingdom electronic and electrical engineering sector has fallen from 752,000 in 1979 to 529,000 in 1989. At the same time there has been, and still is, an increasingly alarming skills shortage. No doubt the Minister will lament that deficit, and claim that all other OECD countries, apart from Japan, suffer trade deficits. That is a fig-leaf that has been claimed by himself and also by his boss, the Secretary of State, in his rather difficult encounter with the Select Committee on 26 April.
    In two ways, it is an extraordinary defence. First, apart from the rather special case of telephone equipment, in which we are still seeing the legacy of public procurement policies, both in their role of producing strong companies in Britain and the investment programme of British

    543
    Telecom and others, Britain's trade deficit in the other relevant sectors is the largest by far of any comparable countries.
    Secondly, and even more extraordinary, Japan's strength is claimed as a defence by a Government who maintain that the type of industrial strategy that is followed by Japan is an abomination against nature. In the words of the sour White Paper that was produced by the Government in response to the report:
    "'Strategy' implies attempts to 'pick winners', to ignore market signals or to impose 'best solutions'."
    "It cannot work," the Government say, yet strategy is precisely what Japan has and what has continued to contribute to its present dominance in information technology.
    Having read about the Secretary of State's encounter with the Select Committee. I remembered that he had a rather bruising encounter with my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) about the definition of the words "strategy" and "policy". The Secretary of State said that the Government had a policy, but, apparently, his departmental officials told the Select Committee that the Government did not have a strategy for the information technology industry. I, and I suspect many others, do not believe that the Government have a policy or a strategy, no matter how those two words are defined. As the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West said, the Government cannot pick winners in the versions of the alternative policies that have been quoted by the Minister. As the Select Committee recognised, only customers that include the public sector can pick winners in the long term.
    Government can, however, do much more to ensure that conditions are created in which winners can come through. People look for winners in the first place. In the words of the Electronics Components Industry Federation, when giving evidence to the Select Committee, market forces cannot be relied on. The Government's fear of committing themselves in any argument about the future is similar to the man who will not leave home for fear of being run over and who spends his time compiling long lists of all those who have been run over in the past.
    Japanese industrial strategy has led to some mistakes, of course, but the Minister would feel much more comfortable tonight if he could claim Japanese IT success. Japan is not the only country to believe in the I-word, "intervention". The French-Italian state-owned company SGS Thomson could not believe its luck when it was allowed to purchase INMOS, the developer of the world-beating, leading edge transputer, just as it was moving into profit after the characteristically long lead time following the initial investment in hightech.
    The Conservatives never liked INMOS because it was established by the last Labour Government and was in the public sector. I find telling the response of Pasquale Pistorio, the boss of SGS Thomson, when asked how he would feel if he were British and saw such a unique company pass into foreign hands. "I do not know," he said, "I am not British." At one level that was, I suppose, a diplomatic answer, but at another it was extremely revealing. It could happen only in Britain. This is the only country in the world that would sell something as valuable as INMOS to a foreign competitor.
    There has been no lack of warning about the parlous state of the British IT sector. The NEDC warned in 1984 that Britain was approaching a precipice. In 1986, the Information Technology Advisory Panel called for a more
    544
    energetic and strategic approach. The Advisory Council for Applied Research and Development, the Cabinet advisory body, and the report to the Department of Trade and Industry from Coopers and Lybrand both called for action. Perhaps the most damning of all was the MacKinsey report into the British electronics industry which pointed a gloomy picture post-1992.
    The Government have not failed to heed just the warnings. They have done all they can to make the situation worse. They abolished the IT little Neddy and they abolished the post of Minister for Information Technology and gave us instead the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs. We always understood that his role in the Conservative party was to stand next to his right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbitt), thus making him appear civilised. The Prime Minister should never have visited upon the Minister who will reply tonight the supposed mantle of Minister for Information Technology, considering that this is one of the most important areas in British industrial activity.
    One bright spot in the activities of the Government was the Alvey programme, but that is now almost entirely wound down. The proposals of the Bide committee, for the relatively modest sum of a £125 million follow-on, has been totally rejected by the Government, as the hon, Member for Hastings and Rye pointed out.
    Yesterday I spoke to Lord Gregson, who was a member of the Bide committee, who told me that that committee has worked for two years to produce its report and that the Government had done nothing about its recommendations. The tragedy is that that seems to be indicative of the attitude of the Government towards the IT industry.
    The Government are winding up their support for such strategic projects as fibre-optics and opto-electronics, as well as the micro-electronics industry support programme and software products scheme. They have made it clear that there is to be no significant support for the large-scale integrated microchip, the exact opposite of what is happening in the United States and Japan. Within a few weeks of the Government making that announcement, the American Government announced a $250 million support programme for collaborative research by United States companies into VLSI technology. Therein lies the real difference.
    We welcome the ESPRIT, RACE, BRITE and other EC-wide research programmes and we want to see those extended and developed. Although Britain's performance is poor, we must catch up with the rest of our European competitors. Part of the problem, and therefore part of the solution, must be to tackle Europe's general backwardness compared with the United States and Japan. Part of that must be a European-led position on the setting of standards.
    We welcome the new DTI push for OSI, even if it is too little, too late. We also think there could be more effort in ensuring that the public sector used OSI equipment. That is an example of the kind of interventionist public procurement policy that can work.
    But although European collaboration is an important part of the way forward, it cannot be a substitute for British Government action. A strong research base in Britian is a prerequisite to participation in collaborative EC research programmes. ESPRIT 2 was massively over-subscribed and we cannot pretend that it is a substitute for our own efforts.

    545
    Insufficient research and development is not the only problem holding back Britain. Despite insufficient funding by industry and a lack of resources in the universities, there are still major technological breakthroughs and exciting discoveries made in Britain. Some are brought to the market, and we wish them well. Some are even brought to the market by British firms.
    There are three factors underlying the failure of British IT to grow in the way that it has grown in other countries. First, British firms have been handicapped in terms of access to funds. There is now a well-researched funding gap for start-up companies, which applies particularly to ventures operating at the inevitably high risk, long-term payback, leading edge of technology. Many of the world's newest large and medium IT companies started out in Califorian garages. British garages have been much less productive. I suspect that that has more to do with the availability of funds to take the development on to the next stage than to any inherent superiority on the part of Californian garages.
    Secondly, we have the general structural problems common to all aspects of British manufacturing industry. I will spare the House a lecture tonight on high interest rates, but our easy market for corporate control and the City-induced emphasis on short-term profits has been particularly damaging to the IT industry. The great struggle between GEC and Plessey provides some important lessons.
    GEC is in a position to make the bid because of its extraordinary cash mountain. It has run up that cash mountain because it has failed to make new investments, and high interest rates allow it to make a significant return. As the Financial Times has commented:
    "GEC has no great reputation as an innovator in non-defence electronics. One of the most striking facts to emerge from the MMC report is that Siemens spends three times as much on research as GEC."
    GEC no doubt also sees an advantage in building up that cash mountain as a defence against other creditors. GEC has always been profitable, but it has not grown in the same way as other European companies.
    Dr. Hampson: As far as I can remember off the top of my head, that is a little unfair. Siemens is so much bigger as a company than GEC. Siemens is worth £14 billion to £15 billion, whereas GEC is worth £3 billion to £4 billion. I believe that GEC's latest account shows that it has been spending about 7 per cent. on research, which is higher than Siemens.
    Mr. Stott: The hon. Gentleman may or may not be right, but my point was related to the bid for Plessey. Although GEC has had so much money generated, it has not spent that money on increasing its research and development—which I believe it should have done—in the same way as other European companies.
    GEC has always been profitable but it has not grown like other European companies. Between 1982 and 1987, GEC declined by 27 per cent. in value. Siemens, on the other hand, grew by 70 per cent., AEG, another German company, grew by almost 500 per cent., ASEA Brown Boveri, the Swiss-Swedish firm, grew by almost 250 per cent. and Philips by 36 per cent. As GEC is one of our biggest firms, we are entitled to feel disappointed by those statistics. However, the City will be impressed by the
    546
    statistics that they value—profits per employee are almost twice those of any of the other big European electronics companies. The Opposition do not object to profits, but we believe that they should be invested in new products and markets and, especially, in research and development.
    There is even less excuse for GEC than any of the other companies because so much of its profit—like Plessey—is made from the taxpayer. GEC and Plessey are two of the six companies which were paid more than £250 million by the Ministry of Defence last year. Both companies—I should exempt Plessey because it has attempted to break away from that syndrome—have preferred the safe yet slow growth markets of defence contracting and other public sector supply contracts to the more risky but higher growth consumer side. Our large electronic companies need a more adventurous and risk-taking attitude and greater market orientation. I hate to think how much time, money and effort have gone into this bid, for no apparent reason. Once again, resources have been drained from the productive sector to profit the financial sector, where all those who make such a good living from the takeover market have made yet another killing.
    The third ingredient in Britain's IT industry is the I-word, Government intervention. I am not talking about centralised planning or DTI meddling in the day-to-day operations of individual firms, but about the kind of approach provided by MITI in Japan and the Department of Defence and NASA in the United States, where public procurement is done in a way that maximises spin-off rather than Britain's overly secretive approach.
    I was interested to read the comments of the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West, when he was cross-examining the Secretary of State. He said:
    "Who are the big buyers in the market? The big buyers, there, are the Government: MINITEL in France, NASA in the United States. From what you are saying, it may be the success of different companies, but it is the use of Government purchasing power that leads to that success."
    The Secretary of State then said:
    "What has MINITEL led on to?"
    If I recall, the hon. Gentleman then rounded on the Secretary of State and said:
    "Thousands of small companies have been founded in France on the back of MINITEL. Have your Department checked it out? What I want to know is, have you even bothered to find out? Do civil servants in this country even bother to look to find out what is happening elsewhere."
    The hon. Member for Leeds, North-West said that, because, if I recall, he was pretty steamed up. He was right.
    A good example of such an approach for Britain would be the introduction of broadband fibre-optics in the communications network, as the Select Committee has recognised. It is an area of technology in which Britain leads the world, both in the strength of the basic science research base and in the application of applied technology, particularly by British Telecom. Such a network would not require huge Government expenditure, bar some initial pump-priming and a commitment to use the network for purposes such as education and training.
    By making a commitment to such a network, the Government will ensure that the private sector can make the investment in the new technology and in the new capacity that will be required. Other countries will want to buy the expertise and technology that we develop. As has been said time and time again tonight, this is a rare opportunity to develop a common European approach, through standards setting and by collaboratively funded research in which Britain's industry can set the pace.

    547
    Broadband cable is the infrastructure of tomorrow. It is the river by which information can flow and the Government should begin to respond to that proposition properly instead of trotting out the conclusions of the Macdonald report.
    I recognise that time is moving on and that other hon. Members would like to participate in the debate. I do not believe, however, that the Select Committee has addressed the matter of high-definition television. The House will be aware that the standard for high-definition television will be a European one. To take advantage of that exciting new technology we must learn some lessons from the past. Television set production in this country has all but disappeared and frankly the Government have just sat back and let that happen. To prevent a further worsening of our balance of payments the Government should be working on—let us use the word that the Minister does not like—a strategy to assist and advise British companies so that we can meet the challenge adequately and play a strong role in Europe. Failure to do so by leaving it entirely to market forces will mean another wasted opportunity and another loss for Britain.
    There are a number of questions that I would like to ask the Minister, but I shall confine myself to two matters. What will happen after Alvey 2? How will the long-term research be funded? Does the Government believe that the United Kingdom has a chance to participate seriously in the artificial intelligence expert systems markets of the 1990s and beyond? What is the Government's position on COCOM, given that other European countries are making major strides in selling information technology products and telecommunications equipment to the Eastern bloc? What will the United Kingdom Government do to protect our firms that are penalised by the codes of COCOM?
    Over the past few years, the Government have been inundated with reports and advice from many learned quarters, the latest of which is the Select Committee's report. If they fail to respond positively to the advice given to them by the Select Committee and by industry and if they fail to respond to the plethora of advice that they have received in the past, they will stand guilty of abandoning the touchstone of the new industrial revolution.
    9.7 pm
    Mr. Richard Page: I congratulate the Select Committee and its Chairman on the report, although I do not agree with everything in it. It is rather like the curate's egg—good in parts.
    I welcome the opportunity, however, to debate information technology as it is the rope on which our manufacturing industry and commercial activities hang. Coupled with that are the effects of information technology on our balance of payments, whether that means benefits to it or a downside negative. At the moment our balance of payments is negative.
    It is a strange fact that, for some reason or other, this country has less investment in manufacturing industry, research and training than any of our international competitors. Why that is so could be the subject of a long, detailed debate, but I do not intend to examine every reason tonight. I know that I tend to sound like a well-worn record as I keep on producing the facts again and again, but I shall continue to do so until something is
    548
    done to put the situation right or I am proved wrong. Obviously, from a national point of view, I hope that I am proved wrong.
    There have been some significant improvements in our manufacturing investment over the past few years. However, those investments are only now level with those of 1979. In percentage terms against their gross national product, the Japanese invest 50 per cent. more than all the other industrialised nations. We are the lowest of the G7 countries when it comes to investment. That is on the negative side, but on the positive side, we must congratulate the Government on the work that they have done on inward investment, and the way in which they have brought companies' and countries' activities into this country. They have been so successful that even the French, that most chauvinistic of nations, have seen where they have gone wrong and seek to emulate us.
    I do not know whether the present levels of manufacturing and inward investment are sufficient to produce, in time, an acceptable level of trade balance without, as may shortly happen, demand being beaten down by the single club of high interest rates. My hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Warren) clearly described the size of the problem when he said that, to overcome the present negative balance of trade, this country will have to produce and sell six more Metros every minute.
    However, that is enough of the general gallop around the park of my particular prejudices. I shall return to the information technology report and the Government's response. I have some sympathy with the Government over the dilemma that they face. First, they do not want to try to pick winners. I have to smile and welcome the conversion of the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) who said that he, too, was apprehensive about any Government's ability to pick winners. His is another of the road to Damascus conversions which are taking place among the Labour party and its policies. If the hon. Gentleman is not careful, the Labour party and the Conservative party will become indistinguishable. I have no doubt that differences will be forthcoming at the next election.
    Mr. Crowther: I am extremely obliged. Will the hon. Gentleman tell us to which Conservative party he has just referred: the Government or Conservative Members on the Select Committee?
    Mr. Page: When it comes to splits in parties, nobody can beat the Labour party, in which the spectrum of political prejudices is so wide that it has gone round in a complete circle. I apologise for stirring up this minor controversy and I shall return to the other horn of the dilemma. If we did not have fun in these debates it would be time we all went home. However, if the House will quieten down, I shall return to the other horn of the dilemma. There are so few of us here this evening that I hardly think these are grounds for a riot.
    The Government must also ensure that there is sufficient national progress to combat and defeat international competition, which exists outside the EC. Later, I shall talk about how we must work within the EC to achieve the success which we all want.
    The Government's example is not one of the best. I am a member of the Public Accounts Committee and we have in front of us a series of reports from the National Audit

    549
    Office referring to the effectiveness of Government Departments in introducing information technology and computers into their daily operations. It would be invidious of me to go through the reports because they make sad and serious reading. The delay in introducing computerisation into Departments is nothing short of a scandal, with one bright exception: the Inland Revenue. That Department has taken significant steps to introduce computerisation and information technology into its operations. I say that from the bottom of my heart, not because I sent my income tax form in this morning.
    We face a dilemma. The Government spend more of total funds on research and development in information technology than do our industrial competitors; on the other hand, our industrial manufacturers contribute far less. The Government must be congratulated on helping to bridge the huge divide between academia and industry by setting up the Alvey programme—£350 million, which has gone into some positive projects. That is a memorable step towards reducing the huge gap and towards achieving what is regarded as standard by almost every other industrial country.
    I have offered credit and congratulations, but I am disappointed to read in the report that the Alvey project will not be evaluated until the 1990s. We must build our future on the success or failure of that project, so we need information about it. Paragraph 17 of the report states that we have not taken commercial advantage of the work done on these projects. That is a crying shame and it illustrates one of the weaknesses in our industrial structure.
    The baton has been taken up by ESPRIT. I am glad to see that more small and medium-sized businesses are involved in that.
    I support the Committee's recommendation that more tax aids be given to the smaller companies to enable them to improve and compete. As the House knows, I am a firm supporter of smaller businesses. They have the flexibility and ingenuity to get projects under way while big companies are still bending down to put their boots on.
    Against that background we must examine what the competition, particularly the Japanese, are doing. The report quotes the Japanese as saying that their information technology industry will be worth £600 billion by the year 2000—for a huge market which the Japanese are targeting for themselves.
    What part can we make IT play in the overall game of national economic success and in redressing the negative balance of trade? There is a growing realisation in the United States that if it adheres to its present course in IT it will soon lose out to the Japanese. United States leadership in this field is under severe pressure. Its lead in specialised chips, super-computers and software is being whittled away. My hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Sir I. Lloyd) gave us a devastating and sorry list of the advances being made by the Japanese. Their success has made the Americans aware of the vital necessity of having a large manufacturing base. It has exploded the myth of the 1970s that America could become more prosperous as a service-based economy.
    We can learn from these experiences. Only as part of Europe can we stem the tide and start to catch up. Europe is caught in the crossfire between the Japanese and the
    550
    Americans, as they shoot it out at the OK Corral. Only by skilful use of the sheer market size of the EEC can we ensure a revival.
    Europe used to show a surplus on information technology; now it shows a deficit. I could list the areas in which we are losing out, but I shall mention only one—the ability to write software. We used to lead the world in this skill, but we are steadily losing our leadership. We shall redress the balance only with the co-operation of all people, all Governments and all industries within the EEC. The official EEC efforts to revitalise high technology on a national framework have been based so far on ESPRIT, RACE and EUREKA. These have been worthy efforts in bringing companies and academic institutions together. The Government are to be congratulated on laying that foundation, and from that flows the recommendations of the Select Committee. Recommendation No. 21, reads:
    "the Government should plan now to avoid any hiatus in academic research in IT when both the national IT programme and Esprit 2 come to an end."
    Simultaneously and in step with that must be the next move, that of international co-operation within the EEC for the introduction of pan-European initiatives away from the protection of small and national champions that operate in a fragmented market. There must be a move towards a larger operation in a larger market. Time is not on our side, but I suggest that what I have said offers the best chance of success of survival for British-based industries in the IT world.
    9.21 pm
    Dr. Jeremy Bray: Like everyone else who has contributed to the debate, I welcome the report. I support the recommendations and I agree with all that has been said by the advocates of faster progress.
    I wish to take the argument one stage further. The hon. Member for Havant (Sir I. Lloyd) made some interesting remarks when he compared information and money. He said that people know broadly how to use money nowadays but they do not say that we can do without the Chancellor of the Exchequer, although to do so would be an attractive thought. The Chancellor does not spend his time telling people that they should use money rather than gold, or beads, or barter. Instead, he is concerned with who does what with money, tax, expenditure, expenditure on what, savings, savings by whom, investment in what and investment for what. As information technology matures, it should be concerned with the use that is made of information rather than the methods by which that use is made. All computer companies nowadays are advertising for sale solutions and not techniques.
    The origins of these matters go back far beyond the recollection or reminiscences of the hon. Member for Havant. Before the 1964 general election, I chaired a committee on the uses of information from a more mature information technology industry. One member of the committee was Professor Richard Stone, who was personal assistant to Keynes and a Nobel prize winner. Another member was Teddy Jackson, the director of economics and statistics at Oxford, who rendered Harold Wilson, as he then was, a great service in coming second to him in PPE at Oxford as an undergraduate. We put together the rationalisation of business statistics which led to the common register of business interests, the setting up of the business statistics office and other developments.

    551
    I shall mention two areas in which the Government are suffering because they are not taking the initiative. I am, of course, in favour of the broadband fibre-optic network, but for what? We must face the fact that the PA Consulting Group's technology report, the Zegfel report on the Netherlands and other papers all reach the conclusion that there is not a market for switched broadband in the foreseeable future. There was, however, a caveat in the PA Consulting Group's technology report. It stated that education and training was a potential application area but that the education sector had no money to spend nowadays and that it was not a potential customer. That may be true under this Government, but is it true in terms of the needs of the education system? I am speaking not in terms of the potential of information technology but of needs, efficient ways of raising standards in schools, the introduction of the national curriculum, and so on.
    I think that the answer to the question is probably yes. Interactive video and broadband access to the best teachers in the country, so that teachers in the classroom can call them up and use their material as needed, is probably the most effective way of raising education standards, in conjunction with many other developments in education. Those methods need to be developed; the curriculum material needs to be developed. It is an expensive business.
    The PA Consulting Group estimates that software development is 10 times as expensive as hardware. The software needs a long lead time in its development. It is no good producing hardware and then trying to develop the software for it, because it will be 10 years before that software is available to exploit the hardware potential. The software must be developed at a stage when the technology is still too expensive to use for its future application. The £6,000 interactive video machine may be far too expensive to use in classrooms generally, even if it is only one for the teacher, but it is essential for the development of the educational methods that will come into use in five, seven or 10 years time, through cheaper machines and on broadband. It is the most efficient way to develop and research the curriculum material, test it in the field, and train people in its use.
    We need to go on from there. The work of the Open university needs to be properly organised and integrated with such projects as the medical work at Bristol university, the engineering departmental links within London university, Salford and other initiatives. A number of operations are being carried out but they are grossly under-funded. There is no leadership from the Government or from the Secretary of State for Education and Science—the once so-called Minister for Information Technology.
    The personal computer revolution should be the model for the development of broadband applications. It is a new medium that people must learn how to use, just as they learned to use personal computers by watching their children playing computer games at home. The computers began to go into the schools and the parents wanted to buy them because they thought that they would provide opportunities for the future. If there is good curriculum material in the schools, everyone will also want it in his or her home. Every parent will want it for his child. There will be a willingness to spend the £400 to £800 per household needed for each new wave of consumer electronics, which introduces the new systems.
    552
    By their neglect of information technology, the Government are also damaging the processes of government. If anyone wants to empty the House, to drive out the Members, he should talk about information technology. If he wanted to drive out even those few Members present tonight, he need only talk about Government statistics. The report on Government economic statistics reveals an outrageous neglect, mostly by the Department of Trade and Industry, but also by the Treasury. There is a discrepancy in the national accounts between the records of income and expenditure of £14 billion—3·5 per cent. of national income. The books do not add up.
    The discrepancy is bigger than the trade gap. It is the stuff on which elections are won or lost, yet the Government are in the dark. They propose only some patchwork improvements to the individual statistical series and so on. The damage was done by Rayner, who missed the point that the biggest users of business information are the businesses themselves; the Government are but bystanders and watchers abstractors of a tiny part of the information flow that runs in great tides throughout the economy. A modern information system for the economy needs to be based primarily on the uses made by business of its own information.
    The system needs to be organised. There needs to be set standards of disclosure, of publication and of access similar to those that are set in the accounting profession. The profit and loss accounts, double entry bookkeeping and so on were invented by the Venetian traders in the middle ages. If the Government do not create the standards and systems, business cannot communicate with itself.
    Practical steps must be taken. The Government must realise that there needs to be an open system, and that system should be brought into the electronic age. It should be based on the requirement of companies to maintain their databases on-line on personal computers or floppy disks. There must be the appropriate security checks so that the right people have the right access at different levels.
    It might be a paradise for the hacker to begin with, until the hacker discovers that he can have more fun and make more money by collating the information that people want rather than by concentrating on what he believes to be hypersensitive information that is being kept from people. The data are then available on a consistent basis between the historical record and the projection into the future. It is not Government who build the models, it is the investment analysts, the shareholders, the takeover bidders, the employees, the customers, the suppliers, who, from this system can build up a comprehensive picture of how the economy works, how business works and how their prospects will develop.
    The proper posture of information technology is not as a supplicant, not as a master, but as an articulate and powerful servant.
    9.29 pm
    Miss Emma Nicholson: I welcome the opportunity to follow such a distinguished speaker as the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray).

    553
    I cannot agree with the report. I urge the House to reject it and to adopt in its stead the excellent White Paper put forward by my noble Friend the Secretary of State.
    Had it not been for the acidic and arctic exchanges between the Secretary of State and the Select Committee, I would have felt able to draw conclusions as he did, empirically, from the report as it stands. However, I cannot, because when one draws conclusions from this report, one is accused of not having read it. The Minister himself was accused of not having read the report before his statement on 19 April when he talked about dinosaur tendencies. If being a dinosaur is an ability to respond effectively to change, the Select Committee in its report has demonstrated that quality.
    I must add here, with my respect for the individual members of the Committee, that the Committee's report does not reflect the high intelligence that is undoubtedly shared by all its members. I have sought long and hard for new ideas in the report, but I can find not one.
    Let me draw the Committee's attention to three crucial paragraphs where the report fails and where its failure is shown most clearly. Those are the last three paragraphs, Nos. 114, 115 and 116.
    I have to read the report because one has to be a fundamentalist when dealing with it. One must read the exact words; one cannot draw conclusions. Paragraph 14 says:
    "There is no doubt that the government no longer attaches a high priority to IT as a frontier technology needing sponsorship."
    I submit that that statement is made as a reflection of ill-considered thinking by the Government, and yet it is exactly the stance that the Government should adopt. A frontier technology? How could IT be a frontier technology? IBM started in the United Kingdom in 1954. I started work in ICL in 1961. IT is most surely not a frontier technology needing sponsorship.
    The report goes on:
    "Whatever the effect of this on the future of the IT industry it does not fit in well with the objective of promoting the use of IT in the economy."
    Of course it does, because frontier technology it is not and it most certainly does not need sponsorship.
    The report goes on:
    "We recommend that IT matters should be dealt with at Minister of State level in the DTI."
    It then says that the Government
    "shows no signs of formulating a total policy for the industry",
    and that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry should
    "be made responsible for all aspects of Government policy on information technology and should produce an annual report on its implementation."
    Old-fashioned thinking indeed.
    But that thinking, particularly the last statement, is based on a complete misapprehension. The misapprehension is identified clearly in the evidence on Wednesday 26 April which we can read at paragraph 1145. That says that the Committee felt that
    "a Minister should be responsible for IT (as would be the case in every large organisation and enterprise in this country) at the Cabinet table."
    That is completely incorrect. Not all boards have an IT director. Nor do most boards have a director who has a
    554
    specific responsibility for IT in his portfolio. For the most part, IT is included in the finance director's responsibilities, and only to a limited extent.
    Industry thrives and creativity wells best from the bottom up and not, through imposition in the IT industry, from the top down. A rigidity of thinking runs right through the report, not just as a thread but as an iron rod which reflects dinosaurial thinking and points to an early death for the report.
    Let us look for a moment at the size and scale of the industry and on the Government's part and the way in which they have computerised so massively. No other speaker has touched on that. The British software industry alone is currently one of the country's great success stories, but almost everyone has overlooked that. It is growing at a rate of 25 per cent. per annum. What other industry in Britain unhampered by Government intervention is doing that? Hardware sales have been dropping annually. It is also worth remembering that computers currently hold 2 per cent. of all human knowledge.
    The Government have not held back from computerisation or from holding more human knowledge on computers. I refer to the Ministry of Defence's CHOTS endeavour using 75,000 terminals, which the Select Committee did not know about, and which will be implemented in September. Within three years, the Inland Revenue will be using 40,000 desktop computers addressing 20 different databases. Twenty million Department of Social Security records are currently being computerised. They will be on line and in daily use, and that will mean any number of word processors on people's desks.
    There has also been enormous investment in computerising hospital records, which, God and the suppliers willing, will be completed by 1991. That is perhaps the largest and most interventionist exercise of all, and the one which will have most impact on everyone in the country, because all of us are concerned about our own health. The Department of Trade and Industry is busy putting company knowledge and advice on computers.
    No member of the Select Committee has mentioned the tremendous departmental shift to computerisation, whereby the Government are changing from the old system of handing down budgetary control through votes, which we presumably inherited from the 1600s, to the modern system of budgetary control with its concomitant partner—the management information system. In academia there is JANET—a computerised network information which serves all our universities, which also have their own excellent departments of computer science. In addition, the Government are buying in through contracting out—and if that is not a way of supporting British industry, what is?
    TAURUS—computerisation of share registers throughout the country—is embedded in the Companies Bill. There is computerisation in industry, and among individuals in the form of bulletin boards. The tiny amateur network of the British Association of Computer Clubs alone has a network of 20,000 members.
    The report does not address some of the real problems. It overlooks what is happening and tinkers instead with old-fashioned thinking and with things that have been and gone. It does not consider properly the question of staffing. Of course there is a tremendous shortage of programmers, and perhaps that is one reason why there is more software intervention and why more self-created software is being

    555
    developed with ADA, which will mean that fewer human beings will be needed. I have already mentioned the crucial importance of women and of middle-aged men in IT and of the lessening need for young people because computing is no longer the skilled and sophisticated profession that it was when I first joined the industry.
    I draw the attention of the House to another part of the Select Committee's report. I shall not pull through the technology, but I shall pull through some of the report's very old-fashioned thinking, to arrive at a fraction of modern thought. Paragraph 51 contains a clear criticism of universities and the Government for not tempting the brightest
    "to undertake higher education in the appropriate disciplines."
    The really interesting thing about IT is that all its disciplines are eminently suitable for all graduates entering the computer industry. BP, for example, takes graduates from all the disciplines within any university framework, ranging from zoology backwards.
    The report does not address the key British weakness, which has nothing to do with training , lack of intellectual creativity, or lack of funds. It is the huge, built-in weakness of lack of marketing ability. That is the single largest factor in inhibiting computer development in Britain, and it always has been. The Select Committee's report does not attract attention to computer misuse, which accounts for one fifth of the computer investment—continuing, capital and recurring—in any computer installation. The report does not address the key issue of standards, which must be the thrust of computer usage.
    The Government's role in computer and high-technology matters should be minimalist. They are a major user of a high standard. The White Paper is not "sour", as was said earlier, but sane and sensible, giving a framework for growth within which United Kingdom-based IT will flourish. The Select Committee report should be discarded and rapidly buried. I suggest to members of the Select Committee, "Hands off information technology. You are well meaning, but astigmatic interference will throttle it to death."
    9.40 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Eric Forth): This has been a fascinating and informative debate, which is not something that one can say about every debate. The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) gave the game away. Indeed, several cats leaped out of bags this evening. Early in the debate, the hon. Gentleman stressed that the report had been unanimous. He went on to give us, as he was entitled to do, a traditional Labour party approach that laid great stress on what I make no apology for calling good, old-fashioned interventionism.
    The key to the debate and to understanding the difference of opinion between the Government and the Select Committee is in what the hon. Member for Rotherham said about the unanimity of the report. In his evidence to the Committee, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, Lord Young, said:
    "I believe there is an honest difference of opinion between us".
    Let us not try to hide that fact. From time to time, Select Committees produce texts that attract unanimous support from all parties on those Committees, and they should not be surprised if the Government are not able to accept their
    556
    recommendations. That Is almost axiomatic and self-evident. I am surprised that members of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry are surprised that there should have been this difference of view between the Select Committee and the Government.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) gave the game away totally in his typically honest way and with his typically honest candour when, at the end of his excellent speech—I made a note of his words and will check them in Hansard tomorrow—he said that the Government must "be more interventionist." That is clear, open and on the record. The hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) recognises that. This is a major reason for the difference between the Select Committee and the Government.
    Mr. Stott: They got it right.
    Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman says that they—the Select Committee—have got it right, meaning, I suppose, that we, the Government, have got it wrong. The hon. Gentleman could not have put it better.
    Dr. Hampson: I was being ironic about my hon. Friend's use of the word "intervention". The Government cannot have a "hands off" approach. They must nurture, as do every other major Government in Europe, the United States and elsewhere. We are not proposing dinosaur thinking. My hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) and my hon Friend the Minister seem to be somewhat ideological.
    Mr. Forth: If I have time, I shall return to the point about what other countries do. We must be a little careful. Many hon. Members have been seduced into seeing what they have thought are attractive elements in other countries' policies, taking the bits that they like. Contributors to the debate have spoken favourably about Japan, the United States and even other European countries. They have suggested that all we have to do is to adopt the good bits, the nice bits or the bits that seem to work well, and all will be well. If I have the time, I shall refute that argument. I do not find it attractive or convincing.
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State spent a long time with the Committee. I do not know whether it was a meeting of minds. At one point in his excellent speech, he said:
    "I believe Government, and I have said so already, has a very real role to set the climate, to set standards, but that the particular technology is not the responsibility of the Government to actually choose and select."
    My right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State put his approach in his usual succinct and elegant way.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Warren), the Chairman of the Select Committee, made an excellent opening speech. He showed, as always, why a Select Committee is prepared to follow his leadership and to unanimously back his reports. From the nature and tone of his speech, I can understand why that should be so, even though there may be differences between us. It is important to put the record straight immediately on one of his points. My hon. Friend quoted an article in the Financial Times. I want to make it clear that there is no Department of Trade and Industry and Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency initiative as he suggested. I understand from the CCTA that it could, if requested, meet the firms to clarify aspects of particular

    557
    contracts, but in that case, all information and all contracts would be available to all bidders. Each bid for Government contracts is considered on its merits and bids by United Kingdom consortia are not given preference over others.
    I wanted to make that point clear because several hon. Members have suggested that in some way, either openly or surreptitiously, we could use Government procurement policy to favour British suppliers. Members of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry above all should know that that is not allowed within the European Community. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West sought to draw a parallel with bridges in Turkey. One cannot compare the Government's support for civil engineering contractors building bridges in Turkey with the public procurement policy of information technology within the European Community. The parallel is faulty in so many ways that it is difficult to know where to start.
    Mr. Wood: This is an interesting point. A number of individuals and companies are concerned that although this country operates correctly with regard to EC policy, other Governments may not take such a pure view. Are the Government taking action to prevent those countries abusing the system?
    Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that important point. The answer must be that if there are members of the European Community who are breaking its rules, flagrantly or otherwise, we should not break them in the same way, but should encourage the Commission to discharge its responsibilities in ensuring that all member states obey the rules equally. Let us not become rule breakers, but let us rather urge the Commission to do the task with which it is charged and responsible—to create the level playing field we all want. I hope that my hon. Friend agrees.
    I want to give the House some idea of the extent of the Department's useful, productive and correct support for information technology. We give support for consultancy, for example, under the financial and information systems initiative and 2,250 such projects were approved in the first 14 months of the initiative. There are three major programmes for information technology transfer and information standards involving about £41 million of spend over three years. We support the introduction of new technology into schools. There is a £6 million programme and the Department of Education and Science also provides support under its schools initiative. There is support for information technology research and development under the Department of Trade and Industry and Science and Engineering Research Council joint framework for information technology, including the United Kingdom's contribution to the European programmes and that will total over £100 million of publicly funded support for information technology research and development this year.
    In that context, and in answer to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye and by the hon. Member for Wigan about the Bide committee, which recommended funding of £300 million in collaborative research
    558
    and development, taking into account spend through the European programmes. The Bide application programme was rejected because we believe—we have a consistent view about this right across the board, not just in relation to information technology—that near-market research and product development is best carried out by industry, and not by the Government using public funds.
    The hon. Member for Wigan referred to INMOS. It is true that industry in the United Kingdom had every opportunity to acquire INMOS when it became available, but the truth was—it may well be a sad truth—that no United Kingdom electronics company was prepared to take INMOS on. The fact that a company from another European Community country chose to do so may say something about its judgment, rather than about that of United Kingdom companies.
    I now turn briefly to high-definition television, to which the hon. Member for Wigan also referred. The Government are providing support for that product. We are supporting the work to establish a European standard for the system. Work is being undertaken under EUREKA, and United Kingdom firms are involved in that project. The Department of Trade and Industry is providing support for the necessary service and development. That is something that has been identified and to which measured support under the research and development heading is being given.
    Several hon. Members have referred to the IT trade deficit. Much concern has been expressed about that and, of course, the Government are concerned, just as they would about any trade deficit in a country which depends on trade more than any other country. However, there has been a trade deficit in this area for many years. Indeed, there was an IT trade deficit in 1978, in the last year of the Labour Government. Obviously, this is a long-standing problem.
    As the hon. Member for Wigan admitted, it is a problem that the other major European countries also face. The Federal Republic of Germany, France and Italy all have trade deficits in computers and communication equipment. In 1987, the United States moved into deficit in this area. Therefore, of all the OECD countries, only Japan has a trade surplus in this area. It should not be forgotten that the United Kingdom has a trade surplus with the rest of the European Community—of over £500 million in 1987. We should not paint too gloomy a picture, because we can point to success.
    In her excellent speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) gave the House some good news and an upbeat picture rather than the doom and gloom that was presented by most hon. Members. We must strike a balance in these matters. We must acknowledge the problems, but also fully acknowledge the success stories. I thank my hon. Friend for doing that and regret that she was the only hon. Member to take such an approach.
    I turn now to the fibre-optic network, with which so many hon. Members are obsessed, besotted or dazzled—I do not know which word to use about it. The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) challenged me to give the Government's view on this, and I do so with pleasure. The Government have listened carefully on many occasions to the arguments in favour of promoting a broad band national grid. We have taken into account the views and the many reports that have been made on this subject. We keep a close eye on developments abroad.

    559
    No one doubts the potential benefits that can be offered by modern telecommunications, or that fibre-optic applications will he important. British Telecom already has over 550,000 km of fibre optic in its network and the amount is increasing daily. However, technological choice and consumer choice are also increasing and it is for the market to signal which services or technologies will be the most successful in the future——
    Dr. Bray rose——
    Mr. Forth: I am afraid that I cannot give way again, because I shall have to conclude my speech in about two minutes' time.
    The House must understand that there is a great difference between recognising the value of technology, which we undoubtedly do, and encouraging, where necessary, British Telecom to do what it thinks is right because it is the expert. As I do, the hon. Member forWgan acknowledged that we have a world lead in that technology. Given that that is the case, there can be no grounds for the Government stepping in with taxpayers' money simply to do something which the market is already doing ably in responding to the needs and demands as they arise. We in the Department of Trade and Industry have a clear view about where we are going.
    Many other points were raised in the debate and I shall study the record to see whether hon. Members require answers from me that I have been unable to give in the short time available to me. The importance that we attach to the matter is fairly obvious, not just from the Select Committee's report but from the care with which the Department of Trade and Industry put together its response to that report in the White Paper. Some unflattering things have been said about our White Paper, but I hope that hon. Members will appreciate that the White Paper at least gives full recognition to the Committee— to the importance of its report and to the detail of its work. The Department went to considerable lengths to reply in depths to the report, and it is to be regretted that we were unable to agree.
    I hope that the Chairman and members of the Committee will realise that we attach great importance to this matter and will continue to do so. We shall examine carefully all the speeches made today—some of them very expert—to decide whether they should influence the direction that we take in future. I gladly——
    Dr. Bray: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. Forth: No.
    Dr. Bray: The Minister has five more minutes——
    Mr. Forth: No, because I want to give the Chairman of the Committee the opportunity to wind up.
    9.55 pm
    Mr. Warren: I shall draw the attention of the House to the points that need answers and explanations. I regret that my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) has misinterpreted the report. She was the only hon. Member who was not in step, and I suggest that it would be a good idea to look at our recommendation 51, which suggests that IT matters should be dealt with at Minister of State level. That does
    560
    not imply a Minister of information technology. Such a Minister could be responsible for finance, for the bicycle shed and IT.
    My concern about the Bide report was that there was no reply at all from the Department. I thought that that was rather an insult from a Department which had called upon the members of the Committee to give their best contributions to the report and to serve for two or three years.
    I am sure that many hon. Members will be surprised to know that, in both the Treasury and the Department of Health, there are Ministers with specific responsibility for looking after IT, just as our report recommended. I am delighted that they are there, and that in both Departments there is clear evidence of progress being made.
    Many of the Select Committee's problems in compiling the report arose from lack of adequate statistics. I hope that the Government will come up with some better ideas, because many of the statistics with which we had to deal were two to four years out of date. That may account for the fact that we were told by officials giving evidence that the Government did not have an IT policy and then Ministers came along and said that they did. Improved statistics might help us all.
    It is interesting to note that the Government have admitted that they do pick winners and that they are picking losers. That is not unusual, but we had always understood that they did not pick winners.
    Let me deal briefly with the broad hand communication system. I felt that the failing of the Macdonald report was that it did not involve the very people who were likely to be users. It did not even ask the questions of the Ministry of Defence, the prime candidate for becoming a user of that equipment. It did not ask the people in the City who dearly want that equipment. It did not ask people running financial services in Scotland, who know that they must have that equipment if they are to remain competitive. Not only do they want it; they are keen to invest in it. Industry is not looking for a Government subsidy all the way. I think that the Government should re-examine the matter and try to understand the opportunities that that system would create for those in business.
    We have moved a long way tonight towards understanding that the Department of enterprise can become the Department of initiative. I gather that the gargantuan dinosaur of Government to which my hon. Friend the Minister referred is on the Government side and not in the Select Committee. I assure the House that the Select Committee, undaunted and as vigorous as ever, will return as necessary to the subject of IT, because it is fundamental to the future wealth of our nation.
    9.59 pm
    Mr. Timothy Wood: I have listened to the debate with interest, and I have heard what I can describe only as a wide range of views. I have reservations about some of the points that have been made on both sides of the argument. Before one comes to any conclusion about solutions, one must examine the causes of the difficulties in information technology.
    Over the years, European countries have acted independently and have fought with one another in the development of information technology, but they have not succeeded. Japan has succeeded because it entered world

    561
    competition through consumer electronics and was thus able to build its research base and funding in a way that European countries did not. I hope that the Government will act to ensure that there is co-operation in Europe——
    The Question necessary to dispose of the proceedings was deferred, pursuant to paragraph (4) of Standing Order No. 52 (Consideration of Estimates).
    It being Ten o'clock, MR. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to paragraph (5) of Standing Order No. 52 (Consideration of Estimates), to put forthwith the deferred Question necessary to dispose of the proceedings on Estimates, 1989–90 (Class XI, Vote 3 and Class V, Vote 2).
    Question agreed to.

Class XI, Vote 3
Resolved,
That a further sum, not exceeding £259,162,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1990 for expenditure by the Home Office on court services, other services related to crime, probation and after-care, police, fire, civil defence, control of immigration and nationality, issue of passports, etc., other protective and community services, certain broadcasting services, data protection and other miscellaneous services including grants in aid and international subscriptions; and on administration (excluding prisons).

Class V, Vote 2
Resolved,
That a further sum, not exceeding £322,022,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1990, for expenditure by the Department of Trade and Industry at its research establishments (including the National Measurement Accreditation Service) and on the running costs of certain of its headquarters divisions, in its radiocommunications division and the Patent Office, support for industry (including industrial research and development, education, training, design, quality, marketing, management best practice and standards, business development and aircraft and aeroengine research and development), space technology programmes, protection of innovation, international trade (including export promotion, trade co-operation and international exhibitions), enterprise and job creation (the inner cities initiative and city action teams), miscellaneous support services, grants in aid, international subscriptions, provision of land and buildings, loans, grants, and other payments.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, at this day's sitting, the Human Organ Transplants Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 90, Noes 2.

Division No. 286]

[10.01 pm

AYES

Alexander, Richard

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Amess, David

Lightbown, David

Amos, Alan

Lilley, Peter

Arbuthnot, James

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Lyell, Sir Nicholas

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Mans, Keith

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Bright, Graham

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Moate, Roger

Browne, John (Winchester)

Moss, Malcolm

Burns, Simon

Moynihan, Hon Colin

Burt, Alistair

Neubert, Michael

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Nicholls, Patrick

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Carrington, Matthew

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Chapman, Sydney

Norris, Steve

Chope, Christopher

Page, Richard

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Patnick, Irvine

Cope, Rt Hon John

Riddick, Graham

Couchman, James

Rowe, Andrew

Durant, Tony

Sackville, Hon Tom

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

Shaw, David (Dover)

Fallon, Michael

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb1)

Favell, Tony

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Forman, Nigel

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Forth, Eric

Stern, Michael

Freeman, Roger

Stevens, Lewis

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Gill, Christopher

Sumberg, David

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Hague, William

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Hampson, Dr Keith

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Harris, David

Thurnham, Peter

Hawkins, Christopher

Trotter, Neville

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Twinn, Dr Ian

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Viggers, Peter

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

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B 'wd)

Waller, Gary

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Warren, Kenneth

Irvine, Michael

Widdecombe, Ann

Jack, Michael

Wood, Timothy

Janman, Tim

Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Mr. David Maclean and

Lawrence, Ivan

Mr. Stephen Dorrell.

NOES

Ashton, Joe

Tellers for the Noes:

Skinner, Dennis

Mr. Bob Cryer and

Mr. Harry Barnes.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Orders of the Day
  Human Organ Transplants Bill
  As amended ( in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Human Organ Transplants Bill
    New Clause 6

      INFORMATION ABOUT TRANSPLANT OPERATIONS
      `(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations requiring such persons as are specified in the regulations to supply to such authority as is so specified such information as may be so specified with respect to transplants that have been or are proposed to be carried out in Great Britain using organs removed from dead or living persons.

      (2) Any such authority shall keep a record of information supplied to it in pursuance of the regulations made under this section.

      (3) Any person who without reasonable excuse fails to comply with those regulations is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale; and any person who, in purported compliance with those regulations, knowingly or recklessly supplies information which is false or misleading in a material respect is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.

      (4) The power to make regulations under this section shall he exercisable by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'. —[Mr. Freeman.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      10.12 pm
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Roger Freeman): I beg to move, That the clause be now read a Second time.
      Mr. Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 1—Register of Transplants—
      'It shall be the duty of every hospital which transplants human organs to keep a record of every such operation, its date, the derivation of the organ, tissue type, blood group, relationship with the recipient and the name of the surgeons and consultants involved, and such records should be forwarded to the Regional Health Authority within a calendar month of the transplant.'.
      Sub-amendment (a) to new clause 1, at end insert
      `and the United Kingdom Transplant Service'.
      Mr. Freeman: New clause 1, in the name of the hon. Lady for Peckham (Ms. Harman), seeks to establish the statutory recording of the details of all human organ transplant operations, involving either live or cadaver donors. It was tabled in a similar form in Standing Committee.
      In Committee I said that we would come back at Report stage with a new clause to encapsulate the essence of the amendment. At that time we accepted the idea of making it a statutory requirement to record information concerning human organ transplants involving live donors. Since Committee stage, we have given further consideration to this matter and decided that it would be useful to have a complete record of transplants involving both live and cadaver donors. Leading representatives of the medical profession have also expressed to the chief medical officer their support for comprehensive mandatory records, and I know that some hon. Members are of the same opinion. New clause 6 sets out our proposals.
      Proposed amendment (a) to new clause I would mean that the United Kingdom transplant service would also
      564
      hold the statutory records. That is impracticable, since UKTS is not a statutory body. In our proposed new clause, the authority which will keep a record of the information will be specified in regulations under the Bill. We intend that the authority for this purpose shall be the health authorities. We will also specify the precise requirements of information to be supplied in regulations.
      The origins of the voluntary register to collect information about transplant operations go back far before the Human Organ Transplants Bill became necessary. Ministers agreed in principle to send out a health circular to initiate the register as long ago as 1986 and the medical profession also expressed their support for it. The arrangements to establish the voluntary register run by the United Kingdom transplant service were made before the decision was taken to include in the Bill the requirement to maintain a complete record.
      It will be some months before the regulations come into force and, until then, the voluntary register will provide information on transplants. That time will also offer a valuable opportunity to see how a system of collecting information on transplants works and to bring to light any possible problems.
      When the regulations setting up a system of statutory records are ready to come into force, we shall discuss with the medical profession whether it thinks there is any reason to continue the voluntary register and, if so, in what form. In Committee, we made a commitment to come back with a new clause, and I hope that new clause 6 fulfils that commitment.
      Ms. Harriet Harman: In Committee the Minister, in response to a new clause that we tabled, undertook to table a new clause today. I thank him for honouring that commitment.
      We tabled new clause 1 tonight and the Government have tabled new clause 6. By my magnificent powers of deduction I believe that the Minister will not accept new clause 1, but will press new clause 6. New clause 1 has two advantages over new clause 6; the first is time, the second is specificity.
      The Minister said that it will be a matter of months before the regulations come into force and that, until then, we shall have a voluntary register. He has said that, once we know how the voluntary register works, it will be possible to introduce the regulations. I am not satisfied that it should be in the lap of the gods as to when the regulations will be introduced to establish the register. I must press the Minister to give us some sort of maximum timetable for the introduction of those regulations. We are entitled to make such a request. He has not been sufficiently specific by just mentioning "months". I hope that he will tell us what the timetable should be—outside organisations interested in the Bill and in the register will demand nothing less.
      New clause 1 would set up the register under statute. I do not believe there is any need for a long enabling clause that gives the Minister the ability to make regulations on all sorts of issues. Having talked to those organisations involved in the transplant programme, the Minister knows that there is a great deal of unanimity about the make-up and content of the register. I trust that the hon. Member for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson) will support me in that.
      We do not need to make a big meal out of this, as it is fairly obvious what we want on the register. The Minister

      565
      need not bother himself with spending months examining the voluntary system and then drafting more regulations. If new clause I were accepted, the regulations would simply come into effect at the same time as the Bill. If new clause I were accepted, there would be no delay. We know what the specifics are, so we do not want to beat around the bush.
      If the Minister insists on new clause 6, I would seek the minimum guarantee from him that all the points that are made in new clause I about what should be on the register are included in new clause 6. Such an undertaking would be helpful.
      We are brimming with a lack of confidence in the Government's ability to get on with this, because we know that they are monstrously side-tracked with the impossible endeavour of trying to explain to the country the White Paper proposals. No one wants that White Paper, but the Government are trying to tell everyone that it is a terribly good idea. In the Department of Health, there is a political lack of impetus behind every other proposal. I do not want to see the Bill drift while Ministers slog up and down the country trying to persuade the people that the White Paper proposals are a good idea.
      The Government's record on this issue is one of indecision and delay. The question of kidneys for sale arose as long ago as 1985 and the Government did nothing about it until a further kidney-for-sale scandal occurred at the end of last year and the beginning of this. Nearly four years had elapsed before the Government acted to make it an offence to sell kidneys. I am frightened that they may allow the establishment of the register to drift under the carpet with the legion of other issues while they remain frenetically concerned about the White Paper. Therefore, I ask the Minister to think again, accept our new clause 1 and take seriously any points made in its support, perhaps by the hon. Member for Newbury.
      Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: I thank my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for bringing forward new clause 6 and fulfilling a promise which he made, as the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) said, as a result of a clause tabled by the Opposition and me. However, my hon. Friend's introductory speech was too short for me to grasp the finer points of what he was saying. As I understand it, the new clause means that the Secretary of State may make regulations—[Interruption.] Would it be possible for those making interruptions from a sedentary position to give me a chance to make a speech on this detailed point?
      As I understand it, the new clause means that the Secretary of State may make regulations requiring persons unknown to supply to an unnamed authority information which is not detailed, and that body shall keep a record of information supplied according to the regulations.
      I recognise that that is an attempt to summarise the clause, and if my hon. Friend tells me that I have misunderstood it I shall give way immediately. However, if I have not misunderstood what he said, it seems that the first difference between his clause and new clause 1 is that I can understand new clause 1 but I cannot understand new clause 6.
      New clause 1 lays down a clear-cut duty and seems to contain most, if not all, of what any of us would want to see in a register of transplant operations. The
      566
      Government's new clause is more obscure and is linked to an authority which dares not speak its name, or even to tell us where it will meet.
      My hon. Friend seemed to imply that the authority was a regional health authority. If that is so, he will surely find that the Bill now becomes misleading. If in new clause 6 the authority referred to is a regional health authority, and in clause 2(3) another authority—as clause 2 (3) puts it,
      "The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that the prohibition in subsection (1) above shall not apply in cases where—
      (a) such authority as is specified in or constituted by the regulations is satisfied—"
      I for one will find myself wondering which authority is which and how we shall know to which authority each clause refers. Will my hon. Friend clarify that point?
      Mr. Freeman: It might be helpful to my hon. Friend if I described the authority under clause 2. This is the authority which will look at all live donations between non-genetically related individuals. That is its sole function, and I said in Committee that we would lay down the regulations. That authority deals only with whether the non-genetically related individuals should be permitted to have a transplant of a kidney, which is the only organ which can be transplanted from live patients.
      I apologise if my hon. Friend could not hear what I was saying earlier. In new clause 6, we are dealing with a separate issue—the recording of live and cadaveric transplants. It is a recording of an event which has taken place. It is not prospective: it is historical. It is designed to meet the point that my hon. Friend and other members of the Committee raised. It is a comprehensive register of all transplants.
      We have not reached a conclusion on whether the authority in question should be a regional or district health authority. Perhaps, if I catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, I shall develop that point at greater length at the end of this brief debate.
      Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for shedding light on the authority, but anyone reading the Bill after tonight's debate will still find the word "authority" in the clause and in the new clause, yet different authorities are meant. How will my hon. Friend clarify that so that there is no doubt in anyone's mind? I read the Government's new clause as referring to the authority mentioned in clause 2, so the speech that I subsequently prepared no longer makes sense. No matter; I have told my hon. Friend of my doubts and I am sure that I would not be the only person to draw the wrong conclusion from reading the word "authority" in the two versions.
      I want to go a little further into why the new clause is worded as it is. As the hon. Member for Peckham asked, why is the statement to be voluntary—
      "The Secretary of State may make regulations"?
      That is not mandatory. Why was it felt necessary to begin with that open statement when, as the hon. Lady rightly said, the request for a mandatory register has been circulating for at least four years, if not longer? I find myself wondering whether the truth is that the regulations have not yet been put together by the Department.
      I also find myself a little uneasy about the assurances that we have been given that this voluntary statement will be turned into a mandatory register at a later date. I have

      567
      been sent a letter dated 6 June 1989 by Mr. Ross Taylor, president of the British Transplantation Society. Under the heading "Policing the Present Bill", he writes:
      "Since 1985 when the original troubles were first reported the British Transplantation Society has been trying to create a mandatory Register of all transplant operations, whether public or private, and covering all organs. We have repeatedly been told by the Department of Health that a mandatory Register is not possible because it would require legislation and we are repeatedly told that it cannot be incorporated in this present Bill. We believe very strongly that it should be incorporated in the present Bill and we can see very little reason why anyone should object to making a record of their transplant activity. We have all the documentation, all the computer work and all the arrangements in hand to establish a Register, but we are told that it will have to be a voluntary Register. If it is voluntary we may well miss the very few transplant operations which are the particular ones that we need to record. The Royal College of Surgeons of England has jointly agreed with the British Transplantation Society to supervise this register, but I don't think I am divulging any confidences when I tell you that the President-Elect of that College feels very strongly indeed, and has said so on many occasions, that the Register should be mandatory."
      I agree with Mr. Taylor and with the president-elect. I hope from the nod that my hon. Friend the Minister is giving me that he, too, accepts that position. Although we are being asked to pass a clause which is not mandatory—I cannot understand why it should not be—I hope that we can have my hon. Friend's assurance that by this time next year the clause will have set up a mandatory register.
      10.30 pm
      If the clause does initiate the setting up of a register, who will keep it? I do not think that my hon. Friend the Minister told us that. Is the register to be made public in any way? Can hon. Members, for example, ask for a debate on the register? Will that be possible? Why should the register not be kept by the United Kingdom Transplant Service? The Minister says that it is not a statutory body, but it is the body which co-ordinates transplants in the United Kingdom. If not the United Kingdom Transplant Service, why not the British Transplantation Society? The president of the society is saying, "I have the equipment and the wherewithal."
      It seems so obvious to me that that is the machinery that should be used to keep the register, to keep it within the hands of those who are most closely involved and who are most anxious that the ethics of transplantation should be maintained at the highest possible level. I have an article from the British Medical Journal of 1986, I think, which sets out recommendations on the use of living kidney donors in the United Kingdom by the British Transplantation Society. The recommendations could have been a model for any legislation that we have discussed in our deliberations.
      I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will give me a promise that the voluntary element in the clause will be translated into a mandatory register within 12 months. I hope also that he will seriously consider whether the United Kingdom Transplant Service or the British Transplantation Society should become the body to manage the register, to keep it up to date, and to be answerable for what goes into it.
      Mr. Freeman: I hope that I can give all the assurances that my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson) has sought. New clause 6 is the Government's response to a system that I was asked in Committee to introduce on Report. It is a mandatory
      568
      reporting system for health authorities covering all live and cadaveric organ donations. We shall introduce regulations—I am happy to respond to the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman), who asked for an assurance—under the new clause and under clause 2, which deals with non-genetically related live donations.
      New clause 6 deals with the reporting system, and we shall introduce regulations as soon as possible—I hope that that will be before the end of the calendar year. The regulations will be debatable. We shall be specifying to whom the reports should be made. We still have not resolved whether it should be regional or district health authorities. We shall be specifying also what should be reported. I assure the hon. Member for Peckham that we shall bear in mind the text of new clause 1, which is specific on what should be reported.
      The voluntary register is to be organised by the United Kingdom Transplant Service. It will be running for the balance of this year, for the six months prior to the coming into operation of the reporting mechanism under the regulations. For that period the voluntary register will be performing a valuable service. For the purposes of research, perhaps, clinicians will be more likely to turn to the voluntary register for greater detail than to the Department of Health. I am thinking of aggregate statistics that we might have from the regional and district health authorities under the reporting mechanism.
      Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: Who will keep the voluntary register?
      Mr. Freeman: We will not frustrate or stand in the way of the continuation of a voluntary register, which could proceed simultaneously with the separate reporting mechanism envisaged under new clause 6. I well appreciate the argument that the voluntary register might provide the research data that clinicians need.
      I shall now answer the points raised by the hon. Member for Peckham. I have dealt with the expected timing of the laying of regulations, which will be debatable. We need to consult the medical professions about what is specified in the reporting mechanism and to whom the report should be made. As to the hon. Lady's suggestion of a lack of impetus, I had hoped that she might congratulate the Government on their rapid progress. The Second Reading Committee was on Tuesday 16 May and now, in the first week of July, the House will—I hope—shortly be giving the Bill a Third Reading. I hope that we shall make rapid progress so that the other place can complete proceedings so quickly that the essential provisions of the Bill can come into force.
      Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: I am sorry to delay the House——
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. The hon. Gentleman has already spoken once, and under consideration I regret that I cannot allow him to speak again.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 7

      PROSECUTIONS
      `No proceedings for an offence under section 1 or 2 above shall be instituted in England and Wales except by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.'.—[Mr.Freeman.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Freeman: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      I shall not detain the House. The new clause would ensure that prosecutions under clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill could go ahead in England and Wales only with the prior consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions. This is to prevent frivolous private prosecutions. A similar clause has been used previously in other Acts whose subject matter is emotive, such as the Surrogacy Arrangements Act 1985. I commend the new clause to the House.
      Ms. Harman: By introducing the new clause at this stage the Minister is making it unduly restrictive. I quite understand that he does not want private prosecutions, and I support him on that. However, it does not mean that he needs to erect the hurdle of requiring the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions. If he wanted to exclude private prosecutions, he should have simply done that. This new clause, together with his rejection of new clause 2, makes this an unenforceable statement of intent rather than a proper addition to the criminal law. I do not understand why he did not simply rule out private prosecutions rather than including the hurdle of the DPP—who, I understand, has plenty to do without having to take on this additional duty.
      Mr. Freeman: The practical effect of excluding private prosecutions is, essentially, to put the matter into the hands of the DPP. I admit, although not a lawyer, that it was our intention to include this provision in the original draft of the Bill. I regret having to come to the House at this stage to seek its agreement to the new clause. It is not an afterthought; it is a correction.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 2

      DISCIPLINARY OFFENCES
      `It shall automatically be deemed a disciplinary offence of serious misconduct if a doctor is guilty of an offence under this Act.'.—[Ms. Harman.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Ms. Harman: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      New clause 2 simply says that if a doctor commits an offence under the Act it will constitute serious misconduct and so require the GMC to consider the matter as a disciplinary offence.
      There is a history to this. In the past, the problem has been that, despite prima facie evidence that a doctor had been involved in such activities, the GMC was not prepared to take any action.
      I know that in response the Minister will say that another statute says that if a doctor commits any criminal offence it is open to the GMC to look at the matter and take disciplinary action. We know that it has the power to look at it, but new clause 2 obliges it, at least on a prima facie basis, to consider an offence under the Act as a
      570
      disciplinary offence of serious misconduct. Its failure to do so in the past has led to the need for the Bill. Had the GMC acted more swiftly and purposefully, we would not have needed the Bill in the first place.
      Without new clause 2 it would be open to the GMC to say that a doctor has been prosecuted and found guilty under the legislation, but that he has been punished enough by the courts and by having his name in the paper so the matter will be left there and the doctor will be allowed to get on with the job.
      The new clause makes an offence under the Act automatically a disciplinary matter. I cannot for the life of me see why the Minister should object to it. He is simply being a bit backward in coming forward on positive issues on the Bill. The Minister should get a grip on the issue. It is obvious that we need the new clause and the Minister should allow it to be included in the Bill.
      Mr. Freeman: The hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) asks me to get a grip on the new clause. I hope that I have had a grip on the Bill during its proceedings. If a doctor is convicted under the Bill, which we hope will shortly become an Act, the hon. Lady wants automatically to instruct the GMC to disbar the doctor.
      Ms. Harman: No, to look at it.
      Mr. Freeman: The hon. Lady has offered no evidence that the GMC has expressed any lack of interest in the Bill or any intention not to investigate or debar those who are convicted. The reverse is true: the GMC has expressed its firm support for the Bill.
      I said in Committee that I would be happy to look again at this, and I have done so. One of the values of our parliamentary proceedings is that we have time for reflection. I am clear that we should not breach the general principle that where disciplinary powers are given to a court or a council such as the GMC—which was given those powers by the Medical Act 1983—it should not at the same time be told that it must automatically take certain action on certain cases brought before it. That negates the whole purpose of setting up a body with discretion.
      I am satisfied, as I hope that the House will be, that the new clause is not necessary. I ask the hon. Lady not to press it to a vote. There will be other occasions to debate the broader principles of how the GMC behaves, when I shall be happy to join the hon. Lady. The new clause raises wider issues and the hon. Lady has not made her case.
      Ms. Harman: The Minister says that I have brought forward no evidence of the GMC's lack of interest. As I mentioned in moving the new clause, it spent four years doing nothing, even when the subject was a matter of public outcry. Its lack of interest is a matter of public record and concern. The Minister would not have had to bring the legislation before the House if the GMC had shown any interest before. The evidence of its lack of interest is the existence of the Bill, and that is lamentable.
      The Minister says that I am asking that a doctor should automatically be debarred if found guilty of an offence under the Act. I am not. He should understand that an offence of serious misconduct requires the GMC to look at the matter for disciplinary purposes. A range of penalties is then open to it, ranging from debarring or suspending from practice right down to a polite letter telling him not to do it again. I am not putting forward automatic

      571
      debarring; I am just saying that the matter should be put under the GMC's nose so that it does not escape its attention in the way that it has done for the past five years. However, I shall not press the matter to a vote.
      Question put and negatived.

    Clause 2

      RESTRICTION ON TRANSPLANTS BETWEEN PERSONS NOT GENETICALLY RELATED
      10.45 pm
      Mr. Freeman: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 2, line 30, after 'children', insert
      'of his brothers and sisters of the whole or half blood or'.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 1, in page 2, line 31, at end insert
      `and (e) his nephews and nieces of the whole or half blood.'
      No. 2, in page 2, line 44, at end insert—
      `(c) the person into whom the organ is to be transplanted is

      (i) the spouse of, or

      (ii) related by marriage within the degrees laid down by subsection (2) above to the person from whom the organ is removed.'.

      Mr. Freeman: We accepted the principle of amendment No. 1 in Committee. It was not our intention to exclude nephews and nieces from the definition of genetic relations for the purposes of the Bill, and, as promised in Committee, we have tabled amendment No. 3, which will have the effect of including them in the definition.
      Amendment No. 2 was also tabled in Committee but was withdrawn by the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman). I was given to understand that the hon. Lady accepted my argument on why the statutory exclusions from the prohibitions of clause 2 should not be extended. However, as the amendment has been tabled again, I shall repeat my reasons for urging hon. Members to resist it.
      Amendment No. 2 seeks to extend exemptions to prohibitions under clause 2 far beyond what is intended. The Bill already excludes genetically related people from scrutiny by the authority. A reason for that is that the existence of a close genetic relationship can be verified with a high degree of accuracy by laboratory testing. In this country, the vast majority of live transplants would be covered by that exemption, as close family members are both more likely to come forward to offer themselves as donors and to prove compatible, in the medical sense.
      Under the Bill, the existence of a genetic relationship would be verified in each case in an objective way by such testing. Appropriate tests may have already been carried out in the process of trying to establish the compatibility of the donor and would-be recipient. In the case of relatives "in law" or people not related at all to the would-be recipient, the existence of some kind of relationship or personal tie is more difficult to establish. Unfortunately, we cannot rule out the possibility of non-genetic "relationships" being formed solely for the purpose of the operation or of pressure—economic or otherwise—being brought to bear upon a donor to submit to a transplant operation.
      For those reasons, it is intended that the authority will consider the available evidence in each case where no genetic relationship has been established, before giving an independent decision on whether an offer of donation is altruistic. However, the fact that the authority will
      572
      scrutinise all cases of live donation between non-related persons does not imply that unnecessary obstacles will be placed in the way of transplants between spouses or "in law" relations. I suggest that amendment No. 2 is contrary to the whole intention of clause 2. 1 urge the hon. Lady to reflect further and not to press it to a Division.
      Ms. Harman: Long ago in the distant past, before I became a Member of Parliament, I wanted to be a parliamentary draftsman. Government amendment No. 3 has been introduced at this late stage because the Government become so confused by all the gobbledegook that they omit to say what they really mean. In this case, they omitted nephews and nieces from the definition because they were so busy referring to
      "brothers and sisters of the whole or half blood."
      Helpfully, with my otherwise under-used parliamentary drafting skills—and certainly for free—I drafted amendment No. 1. But the Government prefer their gobbledegook, which is more complicated and will therefore provide more work for the lawyers. None the less, the definition has been restored, so I am grateful to the Minister for at least incorporating what would otherwise have been a significant omission.
      The Minister reminds me that in Committee the intellectual brilliance of his arguments swayed me against my own amendment to include married people and people related by marriage. However, when it came to drafting my amendments, the force of his arguments escaped me. Now that he has made them again, I am happy to accept them, and I shall not press amendments Nos. 1 and 2.
      Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: My hon. Friend the Minister referred to the authority in clause 2. He said that it is the body that will give consent to these various operations. Again, I am puzzled. Is he saying that the transplants that will take place have been notified to the authority referred to in new clause 6 and that they will be notified also to the authority referred in clause 2. so that two authorities work together? Are both authorities to keep a record of all these transplants? If not, one authority will be aware of all the transplants taking place within families and one will not. I cannot see how that is possible. Unless both authorities know what is going on, the authority that is meant to police the Bill cannot function. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend would clarify that point.
      Mr. C. J. Rudge, consultant transplant surgeon, has said:
      "I have considerable reservations about this second clause in the Bill. There are a number of situations in which the emotional relationship between a potential donor and recipient can be overwhelmingly in favour of allowing transplantation to proceed. I am thinking in particular of transplantation between husband and wife (or vice versa), between step-parents and their children"—
      they are not referred to anywhere in the Bill—
      "and even between individuals related by marriage. I can see nothing morally or ethically wrong for transplants in any of these categories to be carried out, and I have considerable anxieties that they are all made illegal by this Bill. There is no doubt that the number of cadaver kidneys becoming available in this country does not meet, and is never likely to meet, the requirements for the number of patients awaiting transplantation. Within my NHS practice I am currently carrying out a number of emotionally related transplants—until now exclusively between husband and wife. I am very concerned that if these transplants are to be stopped then this would have a significantly detrimental effect on the dialysis and transplant programme within the NHS."

      573
      Mr. Rudge referred to step-parents, about which no hon. Member has spoken yet. Can my hon. Friend the Minister say anything about step-parents being included in the legislation?
      Mr. Freeman: Under clause 2, an authority will be established under regulations. It will comprise perhaps 12 members, perhaps under a medical chairman. Its purpose is to permit, or not permit, transplants between those who are not genetically related. It is a screening mechanism prior to the transplant. It relates only to live transplants. I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that we are not making ethical pronouncements about what is or is not acceptable. In Committee, I said that I could well understand that proposed transplants between spouses, who were not therefore genetically related—or, to use my hon. Friend's example, stepchildren—would be perfectly in order. It is important that we do not send a message that, if the proposed transplants were altruistic and the tissues matched, the House or the authority would frown on them. I hope that that answers my hon. Friend's question.
      New clause 6 deals with the reporting mechanism ex post facto of all live and cadaver organ transplants. It is a separate issue. The reporting mechanism provides information and permits monitoring or "policing", as my hon. Friend said, of the intent and purposes of the Bill. The two are totally separate. The authority under clause 2 is a group of individuals, perhaps under a medical chairman. Under new clause 6, we are talking about authorities as being regional and district health authorities that gather and collect the information on transplants that have taken place.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 75 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
      Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

    AGRICULTURE
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
    That the draft Cereals Marketing Act (Application to Oil Seeds) Order 1989, which was laid before this House on 7th June, be approved.—[Mr. Durant.]
    Question agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered.
That, notwithstanding the practice of the House as to the intervals between stages of Bills brought in upon Ways and Means Resolutions, more than one stage of the Finance Bill may be taken at any sitting of the House.—[Mr. Durant.]

PETITION

  Channel Tunnel
  Miss Kate Hoey: I wish to present a petition which I fully support. I will read it to the House:
  To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of citizens of Great Britain and Northern Ireland showeth that we, the undersigned constituents and supporters of CLORS oppose British Rail's plans to route Channel Tunnel passenger and freight trains on the existing overground railway line through Clapham on the grounds that we will suffer intolerable hardship and environmental damage to our lives and property.
  Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House will urge the Secretary of State for Transport:

  (1) To order an independent environmental impact study in full consultation with all affected residents and businesses in Clapham so that the hardship we will endure can be measured and recognised.

  (2) To hold a full-scale public inquiry into the entire British Rail Channel Tunnel rail project as it affects South London, before the Private Bill is presented to the assembled Parliament.

  (3) To ensure proper consideration of sensible alternative rail schemes to fulfil the rail transport needs of the country as a whole in the light of the Channel Tunnel.

  (4) To ensure that full protection for your humble Petitioners from the effects of Channel Tunnel rail traffic and particularly of heavy freight traffic at all hours, is incorporated into any legislation authorising such traffic.

  The petition has been signed by just over 1,000 petitioners in the Clapham area.
  To lie upon the table.

Property Developers (Code of Practice)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Durant.]
10.56 pm
Mr. Peter Thurnham: This is the fourth Adjournment debate which I have been fortunate to have relating to the planning system, which shows the importance it has to my constituents and to many people in other constituencies. Indeed, it is only a few months since my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Malins) had an Adjournment debate on planning appeals in Croydon, when he said:
"People in north Croydon and elsewhere arc beginning to feel instinctively that the quality of their environment is deteriorating. They believe that local democracy is gradually being eroded. They have an instinctive feeling that, whenever commercial pressures and environmental interests clash, commercial pressures will win the day."—[Official Report, 17 February 1989; Vol. 147, c. 685.]
In November 1987, the ITN "World in Action" Granada television series had a programme entitled "The Planning Game". The programme made a big impact on its audience. It listed examples of how property developers are getting their own way and how aggressive developers, determined to get what they want, can exploit loopholes. It showed some examples, one of which was in my constituency.
The first example was a building that was supposed to be a stables in the green belt which had mysteriously turned into a luxurious £750,000 bungalow. The second example was of a fine meadow in flower, which had been listed as a site of special scientific interest, but which had been sprayed with weed killer and turned into a building site.
The third example featured a well-known west country developer, Mr. Mike Robertson, who was shown getting away with all kinds of abuses, and happily paying fines of £5,500 when he cut down protected trees to develop a valuable site. The fourth example showed ancient verderers' rights in the New Forest being traded off with the council for development advantages, using the private Bill procedure.
The fifth example showed Barratt as the developer using intimidating tactics with local councils to stop them objecting to its proposals. The sixth example, in my constituency, was Birtenshaw farm. It was an example of the developer—Barratt again—finding a legal loophole and getting the Secretary of State to grant planning permission, against the wishes of both the local council and his own inspectors.
I should now like to highlight the present position at Birtenshaw farm, where protesters are camped on the land preventing Barratt from moving its bulldozers, which arrived on Monday of this week. For the past 55 years, Birtenshaw farm has enjoyed the protection of a covenant restricting development on the land. My hon. Friend will be aware that I raised this matter in an Adjournment debate on 7 July 1987 and that in November last year the Government refused to waive the covenant when requested to do by Barratt. Unfortunately, Bolton council has decided not to defend the covenant, to the great dismay of the residents.
I have asked Mr. John Swanson, the chairman of Barratt, to meet me to discuss the situation, but unfortunately he has declined to do so. What sort of
576
behaviour is that, when Sir Lawrence Barratt, who is now life president of the company, says that he wants to become involved in inner-city charities or to take up public office? I appeal to him to respect the spirit of the Ashworth covenant and to give the land to the people of Bolton. I should be glad to recommend him for public office if he took that line.
In a letter to me this week the Prime Minister says:
"I can understand the disappointment of those opposed to the development of this land at finding that the covenant which they thought prevented it is no longer considered to be effective."
It may be that local public opinion could persuade the company not to go ahead with the development, despite the planning permission, but this would be entirely the company's decision. Barratt should heed this, and call off its bulldozers.
I ask my hon. Friend what he can do to revoke the planning permission at Birtenshaw farm, which now has only 12 months to run. Can he not do more to strengthen old covenants? The 1934 agreement was not fully ratified because the second world war intervened, but would my hon. Friend look at the 1986 report of the conveyancing standing committee of the Law Society, which listed five options under the heading, "What Shall we do about Old Restrictive Covenants"? Option 5 suggests compensation for those who have lost out as a result of the failure of the Land Registry properly to record a covenant. Would not that help the residents of Birtenshaw? The Royal Town Planning Institute call for a time limit on covenants of between 40 and 60 years, but surely there should be provision for renewal of covenants where they still serve a purpose.
In January 1987 the Royal Town Planning Institute issued an agenda for "Improving the Planning System for the 1990s". The agenda lists 75 items. One of these—No. 64—was for the establishment of a Planning Assessment Commission, like the Audit Commission, to monitor lapses of performance by local authorities. Another, No. 57, calls for approval by Parliament itself whenever the Secretary of State attempts to override his own inspector's report. I should have liked to see both those courses of action implemented to help the residents before the "battle of Birtenshaw" had started.
The Council for the Protection of Rural England has strongly supported my call for a code of practice to encourage property developers to abide by the spirit of the planning legislation. Indeed, it goes further and asks for legislation to put teeth into a code of practice, to enforce the recommendations of the report in February this year by Robert Carnwath QC on "Enforcing Planning Control". This follows the 1987 report by the efficiency scrutiny team which called for "unlawful development notices," supported by a "guide to procedure," to curb property developers and to help local planning authorities.
As the Granada programme said, property developers today are getting a lot more confident about their ability to get round planning restrictions. To quote the former planning officer, Mr. Proctor, they are getting "extremely brass necked". My hon. Friend is already aware of the brass neck of another developer, Mr. Robert Horrocks, who was the subject of my Adjournment debate on 10 April. There is still no improvement in Harwood precinct, where the whole community is being denied a shopping facility for which planning permission was granted many years ago.

577
I call on my hon. Friend to bring in some really tough laws to deal with these abuses. Any property developer found flouting them should be struck off. In other words, he should not be allowed to become involved in any property dealing in any shape or form. Fines of a few thousand pounds are meaningless when millions of pounds are at stake. Covenants should be properly enforced, and the new computerised Land Registry should allow for compensation by the Lands Tribunal in cases where old covenants are found now to be defective.
The British Property Federation say that its objectives are, first—not surprisingly—to look after its members' interests, and secondly, to enhance its industry's standing in the community, but the president, Mr. Mallinson, advises that the word "developer" is deemed
"synonymous with rapacity and greed."
By contributing £14 million to save archaeology, the British Property Federation can point to the success of the 1986 code of practice in protecting archaeology. That is an example of how the Government can help bring about necessary improvements in developers' behaviour.
I shall list some of the points raised by Bolton council when I drew its attention to the fact that we were to have this debate. Under the heading "Some Difficulties Created by the Present Arrangements" the council lists the following:
1. The life of a planning permission is related to the commencement of the development within a fixed period. It has been established that the digging of a simple trench capable of taking a strip foundation amounts to commencement. Hence a developer can carry out minimal site works with no intention of proceeding further and thereby extend the life of the permission indefinitely. Local examples include a hotel development proposed in the green belt.
2. Unauthorised changes of use are notoriously difficult to resolve and can involve several years of enforcement action."
It lists examples from elsewhere in Bolton.
"Stop notices may be served but there are compensation issues which make local authorities reluctant to take such steps. The unauthorised users are able to exploit the situation whereby a use can continue for a long period before action is taken in the courts.
3. Trees which are protected may be felled by a developer to whom the development potential is worth more than the fine for unauthorised felling (£2,000) or the value of the tree whichever is greater). This can be a very small price to pay for an unobstructed site.
4. Duplicate applications have been submitted recently in respect of:-

1. The Shipgates development …

2. Hill Lane, Blackrod for residential development. In neither instance did this tactic have any bearing on the outcome of the application."

The council has not listed another tactic that some developers adopt, which is that of knocking down listed buildings.
I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the great depth of feeling in my constituency, about this issue and the related issues that I have mentioned. My constituents would like to know exactly what the Government's position is and what prospects there are for legislation in the forthcoming Session to put these matters right.
In conclusion, I refer my hon. Friend to the writings of Professor Hayek, who is now 90 years old. Writing in 1960 on housing and town planning, in his book "The Constitution of Liberty", he says:
578
"The practical problems which policy makers have are of great complexity, and no perfect solution is to be expected."
We understand the difficulties that the Government face, but we look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
I thank those who have helped me to prepare for the debate—the Library, the Royal Institute of Town Planning, the Council for the Protection of Rural England and Bolton council. I call on my hon. Friend to do what he can not only for the residents of Birtenshaw, but for all the people of this country, and bring in legislation to enforce the necessary curbs on those property developers who abuse the freedoms of the existing planning laws.
11.8 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Christopher Chope): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) on raising this interesting topic. Once again, he has used an opportunity to raise issues of concern to his constituents, some of whom I understand are present to listen to the debate. My hon. Friend quoted Professor Hayek, saying that planning problems raise issues of great complexity and that no perfect solution is to be expected. That is helpful to me, because it means that my hon. Friend will not be disappointed by anything that I say in this speech.
I will say a few words later about the matter at Birtenshaw farm, but, before I do so, I will respond to my hon. Friend's proposal that property developers should be subject to a code of practice, and set that proposal in the context of the town and country planning system as it operates today.
Our system of town and country planning has its origins in the Town and Country Planning Act 1947. That Act was updated and consolidated in 1962, and again in 1971, but the essence of the system has stood up well to the test of time.
The 1947 Act took away many of the rights of an individual to develop his land in the way that he wanted. It gave local authorities primary power to decide whether planning permission should be granted. It has long been established that planning permission should be granted unless the development proposal would harm an interest of acknowledged importance, and reasons for refusal should always be well founded and clearly defined. In the 1947 Act, Parliament provided the right of appeal to the Secretary of State if the local authority turned down a planning application.
That right of appeal was in recognition of the fact that rights to develop land have been taken away. The 1947 Act took no rights from third party objectors. Indeed, it gave them a right that they retain today, which is the opportunity to express their views about development proposals, and to have them taken into account by the local authority or the Secretary of State when planning applications and appeals are decided.
My hon. Friend has argued eloquently the case for local opponents of development proposals. I should like to invite him to consider the planning system from the developer's point of view.
There are many types of property developer. A developer may be an individual householder who wants to extend his house to provide more space for a growing family. He may be a small business man who needs to extend his premises to expand his firm and provide more

579
jobs. He may be an industrialist wanting to modernise factory premises. He may be a retailer, keen to improve the quality of shopping space for the consumer. He may be a volume housebuilder providing houses in which people want to live.
Any developer has to put in an application for planning permission. If the local authority turns down the application or fails to issue a decision on it within eight weeks, the developer can appeal to the Secretary of State.
At present, largely because of the strength of the national economy, local authorities in England and my Department have experienced a considerable increase in the numbers of planning applications and appeals. The number of appeals received in the Department last year was 28,500, compared with fewer than half that number in 1983.
Inevitably, handling a huge volume of appeals takes time, and a developer whose planning application is refused and who then goes to appeal is likely to have to wait many months, from the time he first puts in his planning application to the local authority to the day he receives a decision letter on his appeal.
For a developer who has purchased an interest in land, and so has capital tied up in his development proposal, such delay can be extremely costly. The Government wish to reduce the time taken to deal with planning applications and appeals, while ensuring that the quality of the decisions is maintained. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that a good decision is often the one that is taken swiftly. A decision is not necessarily improved by the months that are often taken deliberating over it.
Nevertheless, it is important that development proposals should receive both professional scrutiny and appropriate publicity. There is an opportunity for the public to participate in the planning process, whether by writing letters of objection to the local planning authority or the Secretary of State, or by taking part in a public local inquiry into development proposals.
The Government have advised local authorities that any relevant views expressed by local residents should be taken into account in determining planning applications. Nevertheless, on its own, local opposition to a proposal is not a ground for refusing planning permission, unless that opposition is founded upon valid planning reasons supported by substantive evidence. The substance of local opposition must be considered, but the duty is to decide each case on its merits.
It also has to be said that the purpose of the planning system is to regulate the development and use of land in the public interest. It is not to protect the private interests of one person against the activities of another. The material question is whether a development proposal would affect the locality generally and unacceptably affect amenities that should be protected in the public interest.
I can understand that my hon. Friend wants planning legislation to be tightened up. He has referred to a code of practice to be enshrined in legislation, with the objective of ensuring that developers are more responsive to the views of local people.
I have sought to explain how the planning system is already highly responsive to local opinion. The existing legislation makes local authorities responsible for preparing a local development plan for their areas, and for deciding planning applications. The Government want as many planning applications as possible to he determined locally. I am pleased to say that, at present, over 98 per
580
cent. of planning permissions are granted by local authorities. That means that fewer than 2 per cent. of planning permissions result from decisions by my right hon. Friend or his inspectors on appeal. Only one third of rejected planning applications go to appeal, and nearly two thirds of appeals are then unsuccessful. Those figures demonstrate that planning is a local activity in practice, as Parliament intended.
My hon. Friend will know that the Government are not complacent about planning legislation. In January, we published a White Paper entitled "The Future of Development Plans," which contained firm proposals for requiring local planning authorities to prepare local plans for the whole of their areas.
The existence of an up-to-date districtwide local plan, which will have been the subject of extensive public consultation, should ensure that the local authority's decisions on development proposals are far less susceptible to revision on appeal. It should also lessen the number of appeals. That would enable local planning authorities and the Department to give all the consumers of the planning system, including developers and local objectors, a better standard of service.
My hon. Friend referred to the issue of planning enforcement, and he is right to say that if we are to have a system of planning which enjoys the confidence of the people it must be backed by enforcement procedures that are seen to be effective. A review was undertaken by Robert Carnwath QC. He produced his report in February. It contained a number of recommendations, which have been widely supported, for improving the the system. The Government have published a consultation paper about the recommendations, and we have received a number of comments on it. I assure my hon. Friend that we will bring forward legislation on those matters as soon as parliamentary time permits.
1 shall consider my hon. Friend's arguments about the need for a code of practice to regulate developers' behaviour. Inevitably, there will be some developers whose standards of behaviour fall short of expectations. That is why Parliament has provided enforcement powers. But it is not only some developers whose behaviour may fall short of an expected standard. The same is true in all sectors of human activity.
My hon. Friend referred to the issue at Birtenshaw farm. He has left no doubt that he and many of his constituents in the Bromley Cross and Bradshaw areas of Bolton strongly oppose that development. Local people showed that by their actions last Monday, when they succeeded in preventing the developer from beginning work on the site.
I can readily imagine the disappointment of local people when it became known that a covenant which was made in 1934, which seemed to ensure that the land would remain open, was not thought to be enforceable after all. That news must have been particularly depressing to local hopes for the site, because it came soon after the Secretary of State had rejected Barratt's request to remove the restriction contained in the covenant.
That covenant was an entirely separate issue from the matter of planning permission. The decision to retain the covenant did not affect the planning appeal decision to grant planning permission; nor was it a comment on the merits of the appeal decision.
Barratt is now left with a planning permission which it obtained after properly completing all the relevant

581
planning procedures. If there are no other legal restrictions on developing the land, which it now appears there are not, it is fully entitled to implement that permission.
I listened carefully to what my hon. Friend said about the case, but it does not seem to me that there are any grounds for believing that Barratt has in any way acted improperly in the matter. My hon. Friend is entitled to his view of the scheme and to oppose it vigorously through all the legal means open to him, as he has done. Equally, Barratt is entitled to seek to carry out a scheme for which it has obtained planning permission.
Planning procedures provide opportunities for opposing opinions to be expressed and considered before decisions are taken. The trouble in the Birtenshaw farm case was not that such opportunities were not provided, but that the outcome was unwelcome to many local people. That does not indicate any fault in the planning system. Unwelcome decisions often have to be taken. Nor does it indicate to me a need for the imposition of a code of practice on top of the planning system. Indeed, I find it difficult to visualise a code that would operate to deter a developer from proceeding with work which he is entitled to carry out in accordance with a valid planning permission.
My hon. Friend asked whether my right hon. Friend would intervene to revoke the planning permission that exists for the development at Birtenshaw farm, or to convene a public local inquiry. I have heard nothing to convince me that such action would be justified. There are statutory powers available to revoke planning permission, but my right hon. Friend has used his power only extremely rarely. He takes the view that the power should be used where the original decision is judged to be so grossly wrong that damage is likely to be done to the wider public interest. I think that my hon. Friend knows that it
582
is open to the local authority to initiate revocation procedures. If the authority seeks to do that, there is a well-established procedure and, following on from that procedure, a system of compensation. Some people are under the misapprehension that if, for example, my right hon. Friend were to seek to revoke the planning permission himself, he would be landed with the bill for paying the compensation. I must tell my hon. Friend that, even if my right hon. Friend were to initiate the revocation procedure, the bill for any compensation that might result would have to be met by the local council—in other words, by the local ratepayers, or the community charge payers with effect from April of next year. If the local council and the local people want to start revocation proceedings, there is nothing to stop them doing that. I can understand that that might lead to a lively debate in the Bolton council chamber.
I believe that in general the existing system of planning control provides sufficient checks and balances. Developers, local authorities or third party objectors do not have carte blanche to ride roughshod over the planning system. If there is to be a code of practice, it should surely be a voluntary one drawn up by property developers—for example, the British Property Federation. My hon. Friend has referred to the voluntary code that was drawn up to deal with sites of archaeological importance, which I believe is an important code of practice.
My hon. Friend also referred to a number of other initiatives which he believes could be taken to improve the effectiveness of the planning system. I assure him that some of those ideas are very much in the forefront of the Government's mind, as we move towards what we hope will be an early legislative opportunity to reform our planning system.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-one minutes past Eleven o'clock.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Tax and Price Index
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the most recent figure for the tax and price index.

  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the most recent figure for the tax and price index.

  Mr. George
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the most recent figure for the tax and price index.

  Mr. Galloway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the most recent figure for the tax and price index.

  Mr. Lilley
  The tax and price index increased by 8·4 per cent. over the twelve months to May.

  Self-Employment
  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the increase in self-employment since 1979.

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the increase in self-employment since 1979.

  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the increase in self-employment since 1979.

  Mr. Major
  Self-employment in the United Kingdom has increased by 1,142,000, or 60 per cent. since June 1979.

  Balance of Trade
  Mr. Allan Roberts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest forecast of the balance of trade in visible goods in 1989 and 1990.

  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest forecast of the balance of trade in visible goods in 1989 and 1990.

  Mr. Bidwell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest forecast of the balance of trade in visible goods in 1989 and 1990.

  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest forecast of the balance of trade in visible goods in 1989 and 1990.

  Mr. Major
  The latest forecast of the visible trade balance in 1989 was published in the "Financial Statement and Budget Report" for 1989–90. An updated forecast for 220
  1989, together with a forecast of the visible trade balance in 1990, will be published in the Autumn Statement in the usual way.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will next provide a forecast for the United Kingdom balance of payments in 1989 and 1990.

  Mr. Cunliffe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will next provide a forecast for the United Kingdom balance of payments in 1989 and 1990.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will revise his forecast for the United Kingdom balance of payments in 1989 and 1990.

  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will revise his forecast for the United Kingdom's balance of payments in 1989 and 1990.

  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will next provide a forecast for the United Kingdom balance of payments in 1989 and 1990.

  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he will next provide a forecast for the United Kingdom balance of payments in 1989 and 1990.

  Ms Abbott
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will revise his forecast for the United Kingdom balance of payments in 1989 and 1990.

  Mr. Major
  A forecast of the balance of payments will be published as usual in the next Autumn Statement.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the revised figure for the balance of payments in the first quarter of 1989.

  Mr. Adams
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the revised figure for the balance of payments in the first quarter of 1989.

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the revised figure for the balance of payments in the first quarter of 1989.

  Mr. Major
  Latest estimates for the first quarter of 1989 show a current account deficit of £4·8 billion, an improvement of £0·8 billion over the preceding quarter.

  Mr. Rees
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will revise his forecast for the United Kingdom balance of payments in 1989 and 1990.

  Mr. Lawson
  A forecast of the balance of payments will be published as usual in the next Autumn Statement.

  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate for the United Kingdom's balance of trade in manufactured goods for 1989.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest forecast of the balance of trade in manufacturing in 1989 and 1990.

  Dr. Reid
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest forecast of the balance of trade in manufacturing in 1989 and 1990.

  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest forecast of the balance of trade in manufacturing in 1989 and 1990.
  221
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest forecast of the balance of trade in manufacturing in 1989 and 1990.

  Mr. Major
  The "Financial Statement and Budget Report" for 1989–90 provides a forecast of the balance of trade in manufactures for 1989 only. For this forecast, I refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) on 8 June at column 204.

  Mr. Orme
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he last met the Governor of the Bank of England to discuss the balance of trade deficit.

  Mr. Lawson
  I meet the Governor from time to time to discuss a variety of matters.

  Mr. Archer
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the revised figure for the balance of payments in the first quarter of 1989.

  Mr. Lawson
  Latest estimates for the first quarter of 1989 show a seasonally adjusted current account deficit of £4·8 billion, an improvement of £0·8 billion over the preceding quarter.

  European Monetary System
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he proposes to take to monitor the future development of the European monetary system; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lawson
  The European monetary system is kept regularly under review.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he now expects to seek full United Kingdom membership of the European monetary system.

  Mr. Lilley
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) on 5 July at column 161.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, following the Madrid summit and the decision of Spain to join the exchange rate mechanism, he will make a statement as to any new factors which are relevant to his decision as to whether the time is right for Britain to join the European monetary system.

  Mr. Lilley
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, gave the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) earlier today.

  Manufacturing
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the annual rate of growth of manufacturing output over the last two years.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what was the annual rate of growth of manufacturing output over the last two years.

  Mr. Major
  In the two years ending in the three months to April, manufacturing output grew at an average annual rate of 6·2 per cent.

  Sir David Price
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of the growth of manufacturing productivity in the United Kingdom since 1979 and in the previous two decades.
  222
  Mr. Major
  Between 1979 and the three months to April 1989, output per head in United Kingdom manufacturing industry grew at an annual average growth rate of 4·2 per cent, significantly higher than the 1·6 per cent. growth achieved in the 1970s and 3 per cent. growth in the 1960s.

  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the effect of the current level of interest rates on manufacturing firms employing less than 200 employees.

  Mr. Lilley
  Inflation is the greatest threat to the prosperity of all manufacturing firms. They will therefore benefit greatly from the Government's determination to keep interest rates as high as necessary for as long as necessary as part of its firm anti-inflationary policy.

  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the latest projections for the growth of manufacturing investment in 1989.

  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the latest projections for the growth of manufacturing investment in 1989.

  Mr. Major
  The latest DTI investment intentions survey published in June projected manufacturing investment in constant prices to rise by 15 per cent. in 1989 on a year earlier. The latest CBI quarterly trends survey published in April confirms this buoyant outlook.

  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the annual rate of growth of manufacturing output over the last two years.

  Mr. John Browne
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the growth of manufacturing productivity in the United Kingdom since 1980; and what were the comparable figures in the other major industrial countries.

  Mr. Robert B. Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the growth of manufacturing productivity in the United Kingdom since 1980; and what were the comparable figures in the other major industrial countries.

  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the growth of manufacturing productivity in the United Kingdom since 1980; and what were the comparable figures in the other major industrial countries.

  Mr. Major
  Comparable figures for manufacturing productivity growth in the major industrialised countries are available only up to the fourth quarter of 1988. Manufacturing productivity, as measured by output per person employed, was 51 per cent. higher in the United Kingdom in 1988 than in 1980. Over the same period in the United States productivity increased by 37 per cent., in Japan by 28 per cent., in Germany by 19 per cent., in France by 27 per cent., in Italy by 35 per cent. and in Canada by 33 per cent.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of the growth of manufacturing productivity since 1980.

  Mr. Stevens
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of the growth of manufacturing productivity since 1980.
  223
  Mr. Major
  Output per head in United Kingdom manufacturing in the three months up to April 1989 was 55 per cent. higher than its average level in 1980, an average annual growth rate of 5·2 per cent.

  Interest Rates
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has as to the likely direct effect on investment intentions of a 1 per cent. change in interest rates over a period of 12 months.

  Mr. Lilley
  Despite the sharp rise in short-term interest rates over the past year, the DTI investment intentions survey published on 12 June indicated that industrial investment was expected to rise by 13 per cent. in 1988.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from small businesses on the current level of interest rates.

  Mr. Lilley
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin).

  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about the current level of interest rates.

  Mr. Lilley
  Bank base rates are 14 per cent.

  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from the Confederation of British Industry about the current level of interest rates.

  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from the Confederation of British Industry about the current level of interest rates.

  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from the Confederation of British Industry about the current level of interest rates.

  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from the Confederation of British Industry about the current level of interest rates.

  Mr. Lilley
  None.

  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from small businesses on the current level of interest rates.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from small businesses about the present level of interest rates.

  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from small businesses on the current level of interest rates.

  Mr. Lilley
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin).

  Mr. Turner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he plans to meet representatives from small businesses to discuss the present level of interest rates.
  224
  Mr. Michael Welsh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he plans to meet representatives from small businesses to discuss the present level of interest rates.

  Mr. Lilley
  My right hon. Friend has no plans for specific meetings of this kind.

  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received regarding the level of interest rates; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations on this subject.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the present level of interest rates in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) West Germany.

  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the present level of interest rates in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) West Germany.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the present level of interest rates in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) West Germany.

  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the present level of interest rates in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) West Germany.

  Mr. Lilley
  On 4 July, three-month money market rates in the United Kingdom were 14 per cent., compared with 7·2 per cent. in Germany.

  Economic Growth
  Mr. Conway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate for economic growth in 1989–90.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor forecast at Budget time that real gross domestic product would grow by 21/4 per cent. in 1989–90.

  Inflation
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current underlying rate of inflation.

  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current underlying rate of inflation.

  Mr. McKelvey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current underlying rate of inflation.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current underlying rate of inflation.

  Mr. Lilley
  The best guide to the underlying rate of inflation is provided by the RPI excluding mortgage interest payments, which currently stands at 6 per cent.

  Mr. Foot
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current average rate of inflation in the Group of Seven countries.

  Mr. Lawson
  The current average rate of inflation in the Group of Seven countries is given in the weekly OECD publication "Current Economic Indicators", a copy of which is available in the House of Commons Library.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current average rate of inflation in the Group of Seven countries.
  225
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current average rate of inflation in the Group of Seven countries.

  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current average rate of inflation in the Group of Seven countries.

  Mr. Lilley
  The current average rate of inflation in the Group of Seven countries is given in the weekly OECD publication "Current Economic Indicators", a copy of which is available in the House of Commons Library.

  Mr. Oakes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current rate of inflation; and what it was 12 months ago.

  Mr. Lawson
  The all-items RPI inflation rate was 8·3 per cent. in May of this year, and 4·2 per cent. in May 1988. The best guide to the underlying rate of inflation is provided by the RPI excluding mortgage interest payments, which currently stands at 6 per cent. In May 1988, the corresponding figure was 4·4 per cent.

  Mr Eastham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will revise his latest forecast for the United Kingdom rate of inflation.

  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will revise his latest forecast for the United Kingdom rate of inflation.

  Mr Caborn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will revise his latest forecast for the United Kingdom rate of inflation.

  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will revise his latest forecast for the United Kingdom rate of inflation.

  Mr. Lilley
  The Autumn Statement, to be published later this year, will include an economic forecast containing the outlook for inflation.

  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the highest level of inflation recorded this century; when it was recorded; and what is the current rate of inflation.

  Mr. Lilley
  The highest rate of inflation recorded this century was 26·9 per cent. in August 1975. The current rate of inflation is 8·3 per cent., and the underlying rate excluding mortgage interest payments is 6 per cent.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current rate of inflation; and what it was 12 months ago.

  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current rate of inflation; and what it was 12 months ago.

  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current rate of inflation; and what it was 12 months ago.

  Mr. Lilley
  The all-items RPI inflation rate was 8·3 per cent. in May of this year, and 4·2 per cent. in May 1988. The best guide to the underlying rate of inflation is provided by the RPI excluding mortgage interest payments, which currently stands at 6 per cent. In may 1988, the corresponding figure was 4·4 per cent.
  226
  Mr. Terry Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current rate of inflation in the European Community.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current rate of inflation in the European Community.

  Mr. Flannery
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current rate of inflation in the European Community.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current rate of inflation in the European Community.

  Mr. Lilley
  The current average rate of inflation in the European Community countries is given in the monthly OECD publication "Main Economic Indicators", a copy of which is available in the House of Commons Library.

  Earnings
  Sir George Young
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the percentage increase in the real take-home pay of a married man on male average earnings with two children between 1978–79 and 1989–90.

  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the percentage increase in the real take-home pay of a married man on male average earnings with two children between 1978–79 and 1989–90.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Real take-home pay for a married man with two children on male average earnings is 32 per cent. higher in 1989–90 than in 1978–79.

  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the percentage increase in the real take-home pay of a married man on half average earnings with two children between 1978–79 and 1989–90.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Real take-home pay for a married man with two children on half average earnings is 25 per cent higher in 1989–90 than in 1978–79.

  Mr. Roger King
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the percentage increase in the real take-home pay of a married man on three quarters of male average earnings with two children between 1978–79 and 1989–90.

  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the percentage increase in the real take-home pay of a married man on three quarters of male average earnings with two children between 1978–79 and 1989–90.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Real take-home pay for a married man with two children on three quarters of male average earnings is 29 per cent. higher in 1989–90 than in 1978–79.

  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of gross earnings a one-earner family with two children on average earnings paid in value added tax in(a) 1979 and (b)

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of gross earnings a one-earner family with two children on average earnings paid in value added tax in(a) 1979 and (b)
  227
  Mr. Liffey
  A married man on average male earnings, with two children would have paid approximately 2·7 per cent. of his earnings in VAT in 1978–79 and 5 per cent. in 1988–89.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the effect on a person with a taxable income of £40,000 of raising the highest rate of income tax to 50p in the pound.

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the effect on a person with a taxable income of £40,000 of raising the highest rate of income tax to 50p in the pound.

  Mr. Fishburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the effect on a person with a taxable income of £40,000 of raising the highest rate of income tax to 50p in the pound.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  An increase in the higher rate of income tax to 50p would increase the annual income tax liability of a married man with gross annual income liable to tax of £40,000 by £1,492·50. This figure assumes that the taxpayer is entitled to no income tax relief or allowance other than the married man's allowance.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the extra yield of income tax if the basic rate were raised to 33 per cent.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the extra yield of income tax if the basic rate were raised to 33 per cent.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I refer my hon. Friends to the reply I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson).

  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received on the basic rate of income tax.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  My right hon. Friend receives various representations on this subject from time to time.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the number of people who would face a higher marginal rate of tax and national insurance if the top rate of income tax were raised to 50 per cent. and the employees' national insurance limit were abolished.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman).

  Economic Advisers
  Mr. John P. Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people are employed at the Treasury to advise him on exchange rate policy.

  Mr. Snape
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people are employed at the Treasury to advise him on exchange rate policy.

  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people are employed at the Treasury to advise him on exchange rate policy.
  228
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people are employed at the Treasury to advise him on exchange rate policy.

  Mr. Brooke
  Her Majesty's Treasury's monetary group, responsible for advice on short-term interest rates, the exchange rate and Government funding policy, employs 24 people.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list his economic advisers in the Treasury.

  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list his economic advisers.

  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list his economic advisers.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list his economic advisers at the Treasury.

  Mr. Lofthouse
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list his economic advisers.

  Mr. Brooke
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Wall).

  Employment
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the total increase in employment in the United Kingdom economy and in each of the other major European countries since 1983.

  Mr. Day
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the total increase in employment in the United Kingdom economy and in each of the other major European countries since 1983.

  Mr. Norris
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the total increase in employment in the United Kingdom economy and in each of the other major European countries since 1983.

  Mr. Major
  The information is as follows:

  Growth in Total Employment 1983–88

  Percentage growth

  000s

  United Kingdom

  11·0

  2,589

  Germany

  3·2

  820

  France

  -0·2

  -50

  Italy

  4·2

  930

  Spain

  5·5

  620

  Netherlands

  5·6

  250

  Belgium

  3·6

  130

  Source: Department of Employment for United Kingdom (figures are for increase between June 1983 and June 1988). Other countries' figures calculated from estimates of growth in employment given in June 1989 OECD Economic Outlook (estimates rounded to nearest 10,000).

  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the effect on public expenditure of the fall in the level of unemployment over the last two and half years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Major
  As a result of the fall in unemployment between January 1987 and May 1989, public expenditure
  229
  on benefits for the unemployed has been approximately £23/4 billion lower than it would otherwise have been over this period.

  Exchange Rate
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what mechanisms exist for medium or long-term alteration of the exchange rate.

  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what mechanisms exist for medium or long-term alteration of the exchange rate.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what mechanisms exist for medium or long-term alteration of the exchange rate.

  Mr. Ray Powell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what mechanisms exist for medium or long-term alteration of the exchange rate.

  Mr. Lilley
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has emphasised that the Government are determined not to allow their firm monetary stance to be undermined by a depreciation of the exchange rate.

  Mr. Morgan
  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. Darling
  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.

  Dr. Godman
  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. Members to the reply my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave to the hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) earlier today.

  Mr. Haynes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the pound sterling/deutschmark exchange rate 12 months ago; and what it is now.

  Mr. Terry Lewis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the pound sterling/deutschmark exchange rate 12 months ago; and what it is at present.

  Mr. Leadbitter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the pound sterling/deutschmark exchange rate 12 months ago; and what it is at present.

  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the pound sterling/deutschmark exchange rate 12 months ago; and what it is now.

  Mr. Lilley
  Sterling is currently around 11/3 per cent. lower against the deutschmark than 12 months ago.

  Investment
  Mr. Burt
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what share of gross domestic product was accounted for by business investment in 1988.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what share of gross domestic product was accounted for by business investment in 1988.
  230
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what share of gross domestic product was accounted for by business investment in 1988.

  Mr. Major
  Business investment, as defined in the "Financial Statement and Budget Report", accounted for 14·6 per cent. of GDP in 1988. This is the highest proportion of GDP ever recorded.

  Mr. Boswell
  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
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) on 3 July at column 32.

  International Monetary Fund
  Mr. Gow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he next expects to meet the managing director of the International Monetary Fund; and what matters he expects to discuss.

  Mr. Lilley
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor expects to see Mr. Camdessus on the occasion of the IMF interim committee meeting in Washington in September, when a wide range of matters will be discussed.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the most recent discussion of the International Monetary Fund on help to(a) Guyana, (b) Cameroon, (c) Malaysia and (d) Sri Lanka.

  Mr. Lilley
  The discussions to which the hon. Member refers are confidential. Cameroon and Sri Lanka have current fund programmes. Malaysia has not applied for IMF assistance recently. Guyana has arrears to the fund but is currently following a fund-monitored programme with the objective of paying these off.

  Public Sector Debt Repayment
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the public sector debt repayment in 1988–89.

  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the public sector debt repayment in 1988–89.

  Mr. Lilley
  The public sector debt repayment in 1988–89 was £.14·4 billion, equivalent to 3 per cent. of GDP. This is the largest net repayment since records on a comparable basis have been kept. A net repayment of around £14 billion has been budgeted for in 1989–90, the third successive year of debt repayment.

  Mr. Brandon-Bravo
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much of the public debt he estimates will have been repaid by the end of the financial year 1989–90.

  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much of the public debt will have been repaid by the end of the financial year 1989–90.

  Mr. Lilley
  It is estimated that roughly one sixth of the net public sector debt that has accumulated over several centuries will have been repaid in the three years to 1989–90.

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

  Mr. Kirkhope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are his latest figures for output per hour worked in the United Kingdom, West 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.

  Tourism
  Mrs. Maureen Hicks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total tax yield of tourism from United Kingdom and overseas visitors.

  Mr. Lilley
  It is not possible to estimate the total tax yield from tourism in the United Kingdom.

  Unleaded Petrol
  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has received recent representations on the tax differential on lead-free petrol.

  Mr. Lilley
  My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations on the tax differential on lead-free petrol.

  Business Start-ups
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the number of business start-ups per week in net terms in 1988–89; and what were the comparable figures in 1987–88.

  Mr. David Davis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the number of business start-ups per week in net terms in 1988–89; and what were the comparable figures in 1987–88.

  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the number of business start-ups per week in net terms in 1988–89; and what were the comparable figures in 1987–88.

  Mr. Major
  In the calendar year 1987, the latest for which figures have been published by the Department of Employment, the net increases in the number of businesses registered for VAT was 45,000 an average of nearly 900 a week. The figures for 1988 will be available later in the summer. However, the unadjusted Customs and Excise figures suggest that the rate of increase since 1987 has been even faster, and the net increase in the financial year 1988–89 may have amounted to some 1,300 per week.

  Mortgage Repayments
  Mr. Allen McKay
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the monthly increase in mortgage repayments for the average mortgage holder as a result of increases in interest rates over the last 12 months.
  232
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the monthly increase in mortgage repayments for the average mortgage holder as a result of increases in interest rates over the last 12 months.

  Mr. McWilliam
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the monthly increase in mortgage repayments for the average mortgage holder as a result of increases in interest rates over the last 12 months.

  Mr. Lilley
  The increase in payments for the average mortgage holder since July 1988 is estimated to be about £55 per month net of basic rate tax relief.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of high interest rates on mortgage holders; and what steps he is taking to ameliorate this.

  Ms. Wise
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of high interest rates on mortgage holders; and what steps he is taking to ameliorate this.

  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of high interest rates on mortgage holders; and what steps he is taking to ameliorate this.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of high interest rates on mortgage holders; and what steps he is taking to ameliorate this.

  Mr. Lilley
  Everyone has far more to fear from the resurgence of inflation than from a period of high interest rates.

  Profitability
  Mr. Tracey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the increase in profitability for non-North sea industrial and commercial companies over the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the increase in profitability for non-North sea industrial and commercial companies over the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Waller
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the increase in profitability for non-North sea industrial and commercial companies over the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Major
  The net real rate of return for non-North sea industrial and commercial companies was estimated in the "Financial Statement and Budget Report" to have risen in 1988 to almost 11 per cent., its highest level for over 20 years.

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

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  No.

  Imports and Exports
  Mr. Radice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will revise his forecast for growth in the current year in(a) non-oil imports and (b) non-oil exports.

  Mr. Bell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will revise his forecast for growth in 1989 in(a) non-oil imports and (b) non-oil exports.

  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will revise his forecast for growth in the current year in(a) non-oil imports and (b) non-oil exports.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will revise his forecast for growth in 1989 in(a) non-oil imports and (b) non-oil exports.

  Mr. Major
  No. Not until the Autumn Statement.

  Government Expenditure
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the fall in general Government expenditure, excluding privatisation proceeds, as a proportion of gross domestic product since 1982–83.

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the fall in general Government expenditure, excluding privatisation proceeds, as a proportion of gross domestic product since 1982–83.

  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the fall in general Government expenditure, excluding privatisation proceeds, as a proportion of gross domestic product since 1982–83.

  Mr. Major
  The 1989 "Financial Statement and Budget Report" gave a figure of 391/2 per cent. for the ratio of general Government expenditure, excluding privatisation proceeds, to gross domestic product in 1988–89. The corresponding figure for 1982–83 was 463/4 per cent.

  Shareholders
  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the latest figure for the number of shareholders in the United Kingdom; and what information he has on comparable figures in other major EC countries.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The joint Treasury and stock exchange survey carried out in January and February 1989 estimated that approximately 9 million people own shares, 20 per cent. of the adult population; a threefold increase since 1979. I have no directly comparable figure for other major EC countries.

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he last met the European Community to discuss zero rating of value added tax.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he last met the European Community to discuss zero rating of value added tax.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he last met the European Community to discuss zero rating of value added tax.
  234
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he last met the European Community to discuss zero rating of value added tax.

  Mr. Lilley
  VAT zero rates were among a number of matters discussed when my right hon. Friend attended an informal meeting of the Economic and Finance Council (ECOFIN) on 18 and 19 May.

  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will relieve village and parish halls of liability to value added tax; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) on 4 July at column 88.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the number of new value added tax registrations for businesses with registered addresses in south-east Cambridgeshire for the calendar years 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988 and 1989 to date.

  Mr. Lilley
  The local VAT office at Harlow covers not only south-east Cambridgeshire, but the area bounded by Harlow, Hertford, Royston, Ely and Saffron Walden. The number of new VAT registrations processed by that office for each of the years in question were:

  Year

  New registrations

  1985

  2,219

  1986

  2,393

  1987

  2,679

  1988

  3,002

  19891

  883

  1 To 31 March.

  Children in Poverty
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has had from the Child Poverty Action Group on the number of children living in poverty.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has had from the Child Poverty Action Group on the number of children living in poverty.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has had from the Child Poverty Action Group on the number of children living in poverty.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has had from Child Poverty Action Group on the number of children living in poverty.

  Mr. Major
  My right hon. Friend has had no such representations.

  Married Man's Tax Allowance
  Mr. Andy Stewart
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received on the married man's tax allowance.

  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received on the married man's tax allowance.
  235
  Mr. Norman Lamont
  My right hon. Friend receives various representations on this subject from time to time.

  Money Supply
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the average annual increase in the money supply on an M0 basis over the past two years; and what estimate he has made of the increase in the current year.

  Mr. Lilley
  The annual increase was 4·9 per cent. in 1987–88 and 7·2 per cent. in 1988–89. No forecast has been published for 1989–90 but a target range of 1 to 5 per cent. was set in the "Financial Statement and Budget Report".

  Debt
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the Government's funding policy on the national debt; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  The Government's funding policy is described in paragraph 2·23 to 2·26 of the 1989–90 "Financial Statement and Budget Report".

  Customs Pursuits
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set out the minimum time taken for a United Kingdom customs cutter in hot pursuit of a suspect vessel to obtain clearance to enter(a) French, (b) Belgian and (c) German territorial waters; and if he will make a statement on these arrangements.

  Mr. Lilley
  Customs and Excise has a memorandum of understanding with the French Customs specifying contact points and the procedures to be followed while operating in each other's waters. Customs has similar close co-operation with other EC countries and has good lines of communication with both the Belgian and German authorities. Clearance for operating in their territorial waters can thus be arranged quickly, usually by telephone.

  Credit Cards
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received on the range of interest rates charged by credit card companies.

  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received on the range of interest rates currently charged by credit card companies.

  Mr. Stott
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received on the range of interest rates currently charged by credit card companies.

  Mr. Lilley
  The Chancellor has received a number of representations on this matter.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information he has on the range of interest rates currently charged by credit card companies.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information he has on the range of interest rates currently charged by credit card companies.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information he has on the range of interest rates currently charged by credit card companies.
  236
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information he has on the range of interest rates currently charged by credit card companies.

  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information he has on the range of interest rates currently charged by credit card companies.

  Mr. Lilley
  This is a matter for the companies concerned.

  City Meetings
  Mr. Denis Howell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what meetings he has attended since the Budget in the City of London on matters concerning(a) United Kingdom economic policy in general and (b) the level of interest rates in particular.

  Mr. Lawson
  I have meetings from time to time with institutions and individuals from the City of London at which a variety of subjects are discussed.

  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what meetings he has attended since the Budget in the City of London on matters concerning(a) United Kingdom's economic policy in general and (b) the level of interest rates in particular.

  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what meetings he has attended since the Budget in the City of London on matters concerning(a) United Kingdom economic policy in general and (b) the level of interest rates in particular.

  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what meetings he has attended since the Budget in the City of London on matters concerning(a) United Kingdom economic policy in general and (b) the level of interest rates in particular.

  Mr. Lilley
  My right hon. Friend has meetings from time to time with institutions and individuals from the City of London at which a variety of subjects are discussed.

  Public Expenditure
  Mr. Wood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a further statement on his plans for public expenditure in 1990–91.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a further statement on his plans for public expenditure in 1990–91.

  Mr. Major
  The Government's expenditure plans for 1990–91 were published in the 1989 public expenditure White Paper, Cm 601–621; they will be considered in the public expenditure survey and the results will be announced in my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Autumn Statement.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of civil servants above the level of principal are women; and what was the proportion in 1979.

  Mr. Lawson
  At 1 January 1989, 9 per cent. of non-industrial civil servants above grade 7 level were women. This compares with 5 ½ per cent. at 1 April 1979.

  Economic Policy
  Mr. James Lamond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from institutions in the City of London about United Kingdom economic policy.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from institutions in the City of London about United Kingdom economic policy.

  Mr. Major
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones).

  Corporation Tax
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received on the basic rate of corporation tax.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The Chancellor has received a number of representations about the rates of corporation tax.

HEALTH

  National Health Service Reform
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are his estimates of the extra numbers of accountants required to carry out the new auditing systems proposed in the White Paper "Working for Patients"; and whether these will be funded from existing funds or from an additional special fund.

  Mr. Mellor
  We expect that staff currently auditing the NHS will transfer to the Audit Commission, as proposed in "Working for Patients". Additional funding has been agreed for this financial year for 22 staff with expertise in various aspects of value for money auditing and for five trainees for general audit work. Future staffing and funding needs are being considered.

  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether any extra consultant posts will be created as a result of consultants' additional duties in carrying out auditing work following National Health Service reforms.

  Mr. Mellor
  The commitment to medical audit in the White Paper will involve some use of consultants' time. Out of the extra £32 million given to assist in the implementation of the Government proposals for the Health Service this year, an additional £2 million has been allocated to assist in the development of medical audit.

  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what training will be available to general practitioners on budget management as proposed in his White Paper.

  Mr. Mellor
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State gave to my hon. Friend for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) on 8 May at columns 319–20.

  Cervical Smears
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what arrangements are made in(a) the Eccles constituency, (b) the city of Salford, (c) Greater
  238
  Manchester and (d) the north-west region for cervical cancer smear tests for women up to the age of 30 years, 30 to 40 years, 40 to 50 years, 50 to 60 years and over 60 years of age; if he will provide the figures for these tests and these age groups for 1970, 1975, 1980, 1985 and 1988; what new proposals on these tests have been made by the North West regional health authority; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  We do not hold data for the Eccles constituency and the city of Salford centrally in the form requested. Data for North Western regional health authority and Greater Manchester is provided in the table.

  Cervical cytology

  Number of smear tests

  Thousands

  North Western RHA

  Greater Manchester

  1970

  199

  n/a

  1975

  283

  209

  1980

  333

  240

  1985

  399

  274

  1987–88

  389

  235

  Source: Form SBH 140.

  1 There were boundary changes between 1970 and 1975. This figure relates to the Manchester region.

  The national cervical cancer screening programme will provide screening for women aged 20 to 64. Health authorities are making arrangements to invite all eligible women for screening within five years of introduction of each district's computerised call and recall system. All districts in England commenced their programme by April 1988.

  Opting Out
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what regulations or guidance exist to govern the balloting of consultants on opting out; and whether these were applied in the recent ballot at Queen's medical centre, Nottingham.

  Mr. Mellor
  None, although we have made it clear that when the time comes for formal application, it would not be sensible for RHAs to organise ballots of staff or any other groups with an interest.

  NHS Grading
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health by how much Southampton district health authority was underfunded for the purposes of nurses regrading.

  Mr. Mellor
  The Government met the full cost of funding the nurse regrading exercise, based upon regional health authorities' own estimates of the costs. This is therefore a matter for the regional health authority and my hon. Friend may wish to contact the chairman, Mr. Buchanan, for such information as he requires.

  Nurses (Retraining)
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how long he estimates it will take to retrain all state enrolled nurses who have currently expressed an interest in retraining in each health authority in England and Wales;

  (2) what moneys he intends to make available to the health authorities for state enrolled nurses to undergo conversion courses.
  239
  Mr. Mellor
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has given an assurance that the Government regard enrolled nurse conversion and plans for safeguarding the continued contribution of those who do not convert as an integral part of the implementation of the Project 2000 reforms of nurse education and training. Thirteen Project demonstration districts have submitted plans for enrolled nurse conversion, and funding has been made available to those districts. The overall timetable for the national implementation of Project 2000 has not yet been decided.

  The number of training institutions approved to conduct conversion courses has increased from six in 1985–86 to 138 in December 1988. We welcome the guidance which has been issued by the United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing Midwifery and Health Visiting on more flexible means of conversion.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many state enrolled nurses have been accepted for retraining this year in each health authority in England and Wales;

  (2) what is the current size of the list of state enrolled nurses waiting to be retrained by each health authority in England and Wales.

  Mr. Mellor
  We do not collect this information for England centrally. Information relating to Wales is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Accident and Emergency Services
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, further to his answer of 27 June,Official Report, column 424, how he intends that district health authorities should be responsible for securing accident and emergency services in their districts where regional health authorities refuse any accident and emergency service provision for that district.

  Mr. Mellor
  All district health authorities will be responsible for seeing that contracts are in place which ensure that their residents have access to comprehensive health services, including accident and emergency provision. It will be the responsibility of regional health authorities to monitor the performance of their districts to secure this objective. Regions' performance of this role (and others) will be monitored by the NHS management executive.

  Smoking
  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many letters from individuals his Department received about smoking in the workplace in the last 12 month period and in the immediately preceding 12 months; and if he will make a statement.

  Percentage speech therapy staff by grade as at 30 September 1987

  Regional health authority

  Snr II

  Snr I

  Ch IV

  Ch III

  Dist CH II

  Dist CHI

  Dist Snr chief

  Northern

  39·43

  40·89

  3·99

  6·33

  8·73

  0·00

  0·63

  York shire

  35·69

  49·78

  1·12

  3·60

  6·08

  2·48

  1·24

  Trent

  47·94

  32·38

  4·55

  10·37

  2·38

  0·40

  1·98

  East Anglian

  47·05

  36·27

  2·22

  7·87

  5·73

  0·86

  0·00

  North West Thames

  40·70

  41·08

  4·40

  8·67

  3·75

  0·47

  0·94

  North East Thames

  36·13

  39·18

  3·18

  15·59

  4·66

  0·85

  0·42

  South East Thames

  39·38

  39·94

  3·60

  10·62

  5·08

  0·92

  0·46

  South West Thames

  28·83

  51·20

  0·42

  13·82

  5·14

  0·60

  0·00

  240
  Mr. Mellor
  In the 12 months ending on 30 June 1989 the Department received 54 letters on this subject, nine of which had been forwarded by Members of Parliament.

  The corresponding figures for the 12 months ending on 30 June 1988 were 480 and 42.

  Tobacco
  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will be discussing the continued existence of the Health Promotion Research Trust in his current negotiations with the tobacco industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  Funding for the Health Promotion Research Trust does not figure in the formal voluntary agreements with the tobacco industry which we hope shortly to renegotiate. However, the trust has undertaken much valuable work since its creation in 1984. Careful consideration will therefore need to be given to its future as the industry's agreed contributions will cease at the end of this financial year.

  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the committee for monitoring agreements on tobacco advertising and sponsorship receives audited reports of expenditure on advertising from the United Kingdom tobacco companies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  Under the voluntary agreement with the tobacco industry on tobacco products' advertising and promotion, and health warnings, the Tobacco Advisory Council and the Imported Tobacco Products Advisory Council provide the Department with confidential quarterly returns of net cigarette brand and hand rolling tobacco advertising expenditure data for press and posters. The position is then reported to the committee for monitoring agreements on tobacco advertising and sponsorship.

  Speech Therapists
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the grades of speech therapists in England, Wales and Scotland following the regrading under HSS(TC7)3188 broken down by area board, showing the percentage in each grade before regrading and the percentage after.

  Mr. Mellor
  We do not have the information in the form requested, but the tables show the percentage of speech therapists in each grade in regional health authorities in England at 30 September 1989. The information relating to Wales and Scotland is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. The position by English region is as follows:
  241

  Regional health authority

  Snr II

  Snr I

  Ch IV

  Ch III

  Dist CH II

  Dist CHI

  Dist Snr chief

  Wessex

  46·47

  27·99

  4·90

  13·21

  4·45

  2·97

  0·00

  Oxford

  31·87

  44·40

  3·48

  15·38

  2·09

  2·78

  0·00

  South Western

  34·47

  49·26

  2·75

  8·03

  2·20

  2·20

  1·10

  West Midlands

  45·07

  36·03

  6·17

  6·05

  5·11

  0·79

  0·79

  Mersey

  41·53

  34·48

  0·88

  13·58

  6·88

  2·65

  0·00

  North Western

  44·98

  37·75

  4·05

  6·76

  5·60

  0·43

  0·43

  Percentage speech therapy staff by grade as at 30 September 1988

  Regional health authority

  Grade A

  Grade B

  Grade C

  Grade D

  Grade E

  Northern

  13·37

  47·96

  25·13

  11·17

  2·38

  Yorkshire

  7·11

  49·83

  33·68

  5·98

  3·40

  Trent

  10·72

  56·83

  26·79

  2·38

  3·28

  East Anglian

  9·40

  59·77

  21·78

  6·49

  2·56

  North West Thames1

  10·93

  63·80

  16·37

  5·32

  3·58

  North East Thames

  12·55

  32·01

  36·06

  14·67

  4·72

  South East Thames

  15·03

  52·02

  22·14

  8·43

  2·38

  South West Thames

  10·28

  54·30

  27·56

  5·24

  2·62

  Wessex

  5·23

  61·72

  24·10

  5·23

  3·73

  Oxford

  6·85

  53·45

  28·51

  7·19

  3·99

  South Western2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  West Midlands

  10·59

  59·21

  20·43

  7·58

  2·20

  Mersey

  13·30

  48·23

  29·79

  6·03

  2·66

  North Western

  14·81

  39·98

  36·60

  4·30

  4·30

  1 North West Thames figures as at 31 March 1989.

  2 South Western figures not available in comparable form.

  Cytogeneticists (Salaries)
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the average salary in each of the last 10 years for a cytogeneticist with a PhD or MSc in(a) Greater London and (b) Manchester.

  Mr. Mellor
  We do not hold this information centrally.

  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the pay increases for cytogeneticists in each of the past 10 years.

  Mr. Mellor
  Cytogeneticists have received the same increases each year as physicists, biochemists and clinical psychologists. The percentage increases in the pay round year 1 August to 31 July for the last ten years are as follows:

  Percentage

  1978–79

  27·0

  1979–80

  14·0

  1980–81

  6·0

  1981–82

  110·77

  1982–83

  110·77

  1983–84

  4·5

  1984–85

  4·7

  1985–86

  6·0

  1986–87

  5·0

  1987–88

  5·5

  1 This figure represents an increase implemented with effect from 11 September 1982 to cover a two year period.

  Natural Medicines
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has plans to introduce regulations to outlaw the sale of natural, herbal and homeopathic medicines and drugs other than through a pharamaceutical outlet to bring the United Kingdom into line with other EEC countries.

  Mr. Mellor
  We have no such plans at present. The European Community is committed to directives on homeopathic medicines and conditions of supply of 242
  medicines to the public, but specific proposals have not yet been submitted to the Council of Ministers. When EC proposals are published, we shall consider them carefully for compatibility with United Kingdom traditions and communicate with interested parties as to the United Kingdom input to negotiations.

  Haemoglobinopathy
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish in the Official Report the results of his survey of haemoglobinopathy services; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The analysis of district health authorities' responses to the Department's request for information on screening and counselling services for sickle cell and thalassaemic diseases in nearing completion. When the completed analysis has been studied, I will write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures he has proposed to co-ordinate the activities of the haemoglobinopathy charities; what plans he has for further action; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  Officials of the Department separately met representatives of three of the national voluntary organisations concerned in September 1988 to discuss the possibility of a national umbrella body to co-ordinate the activities of the haemoglobinopathy charities. The voluntary bodies concerned expressed doubts about the usefulness of such a body. In view of the expressed lack of interest we have no plans to proceed further with these proposals.

  Drug Costs
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to be able to make available the net ingredient cost of prescriptions using the names of the products dispensed by pharmacy contractors in 1988; and if he will place a copy in the Library.
  243
  Mr. Mellor
  We do not expect to have the information requested until October 1989 at the earliest. When it becomes available a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Ancillary Staff
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the total numbers of ancillary staff employed in each district and regional health authority.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 14 June 1989]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) on 4 July.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Set-aside Scheme
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many hectares of agricultural land have been set aside under the European Economic Community scheme in each member state for the current year.

  Mr. Ryder
  The information for the 11 member states required to implement the scheme is as follows:

  Member states

  Hectares set aside

  Belgium

  329

  Denmark

  Nil

  France

  15,707

  Germany

  169,729

  Greece

  n.a.

  Ireland

  1,310

  Italy

  155,606

  Luxembourg

  Nil

  Netherlands

  2,621

  Spain

  34,229

  United Kingdom

  54,779

  Total

  434,310

  Source: European Commission.

  Morecambe Bay (Shellfish)
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food why he has not designated shellfish waters in Morecambe bay under the provisions of European Community directive 79/923/EEC.

  Mr. Howard
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 20 February 1989 to the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts), Official Report, column 496.

  Fylde Coast (Sewage Outfall)
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what contacts his Department has had with the North West water authority over its proposals to construct a long sea outfall at Rossall point on the Fylde coast.

  Commodity

  2United Kingdom stocks '000 tonnes

  3EC stock '000 tonnes

  1979

  1984

  1989

  1979

  1984

  1989

  Wheat

  Nil

  95

  255

  11,219

  14,989

  13,289

  Beef

  11

  10

  21

  161

  295

  331

  Olive Oil

  n/a

  Nil

  Nill

  n/a

  185

  259

  The cost of storing and maintaining these stocks during 1988 was:
  244
  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Officials were informed of the North West water authority's work at an early stage. Before plans were drawn up the Ministry were asked to provide information about fisheries in the Fylde coast area. After consultation with local fisheries organisations this information was provided with a view to seeking to ensure that interference with fisheries was avoided. The Ministry sought from the authority information about the possible locations of the discharge and the nature and likely effect of the effluent. The authority gave a detailed presentation of the results of its studies of the various options and explained the reasons for the preferred option, and the Ministry has clarified further points of detail. The Ministry has since been formally consulted under the Control of Pollution Act 1974 on the proposed outfall.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the potential for hydro transportion of sediment-associated viruses from the proposed long sea outfall in to the Lyne deep from Rossall point on the Fylde coast to shell fisheries in Morecambe bay and adjoining coastlines.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Based on the design characteristics of the proposed outfall, the location of the shellfisheries and experience with viral-related shellfish contamination elsewhere, the Ministry does not expect sediment transport of viruses to present a problem. To demonstrate that no problem occurs the Ministry have recommended to North West water authority that, if the outfall is constructed, monitoring of the microbiological quality of relevant shellfish stocks be undertaken before and after discharge commences.

  Intervention Stores
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the total amount of wheat, beef and olive oil which is stockpiled (i) in the United Kingdom and (ii) in the European Economic Community as a whole, in(a) 1989, (b) 1984 and (c) 1979; and what was the total cost of storage and maintaining these for 1988.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The table shows the total amount of wheat, beef and olive oil held in public intervention stores in (i) the United Kingdom and (ii) the European Community in 1979, 1984 and 1989. EC stocks of beef and wheat reached peak levels of 711 and 11,843 thousand tonnes respectively in 1985. The current levels of EC beef and wheat stocks represent reductions of 53 per cent. and 82 per cent. respectively from the peak levels.
  245

  £ million5

  EC

  United Kingdom

  Cereals4

  440

  74

  Beef

  382

  36

  Olive Oil

  11

  0

  Total

  833

  110

  1 Includes durum wheat. No intervention for durum wheat in the United Kingdom.

  2 End April.

  3 End April, except for olive oil in 1984 (end March).

  4 Separate breakdown for wheat not available.

  5 Expenditure charged to the 1988 budget relates to expenditure during the period November 1987 to October 15 1988.

  Tenderising Enzymes
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he plans to introduce legislation prohibiting the administration of meat tenderising enzymes;

  (2) what research has been commissioned by his Ministry into the use of tenderising enzymes administered by inter-jugular injection prior to slaughter.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  On 20 June I announced that our decision not to accept the recommendation by the Farm Animal Welfare Council in its report on the slaughter of red meat animals that the administration of the tenderising enzyme papain to cattle before slaughter should be banned would stand.

  Research into the effects of the technique on the live animal was carried out following publication of the council's report. I have placed a copy of the results of the research in the Library.

  Dichlofenthion
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to restrict the fat-soluble pesticide, dichlofenthion, for use in sheep-dips and other agricultural uses.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  [holding reply 27 June 1989]: Pesticides and veterinary medicines containing dichlofenthion require licences. One such sheep dip is currently licensed but has not been marketed for some years and its licence will expire later this year.

THE ARTS

  National Museums
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Minister for the Arts whether he has received the corporate plans of the national museums.

  Mr. Luce
  I have received the 1989 corporate plans of the national museums and galleries. I and my officials have met a number of the institutions to discuss their plans and will be meeting others in the near future.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Minister for the Arts whether he plans to publish the corporate plans of the national museums.

  Mr. Luce
  It is for the trustees and director of the individual national museums or gallery to consider the circulation of their corporate plan, including whether this should be published.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Industrial Disablement Benefit
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claims for industrial disablement benefit have been made in each year since October 1984 up to the latest available date.

  Mr. Scott
  The information is as follows:

  Number

  October 1984 to September 1985

  112,298

  October 1985 to September 1986

  124,518

  October 1986 to September 1987

  104,222

  October 1987 to September 1988

  90,727

  October 1988 to March 1989

  144,734

  1 Six months.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in how many cases of claims made since 1 October 1986 for industrial disablement benefit(a) awards were made at less than 14 per cent. on the basis of (i) provisional and (ii) final awards and (b) awards were made at 14 per cent. or more.

  Mr. Scott
  Between 1 October 1986 to 31 March 1989, there were 101,359 assessments of disablement at less than 14 per cent. Between 1 October 1986 and 31 March 1988, the latest date for which information is available, there were 14,693 awards for assessments at more than 14 per cent. disablement. It is not possible to distinguish between provisional and final awards.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what savings have been made in each year since October 1986 up to the latest available date by operation of the 14 per cent. rule for industrial disability.

  Mr. Scott
  The estimated savings are as follows:

  £ million

  October 1986 to April 1987

  10·9

  April 1987 to April 1988

  35·0

  April 1988 to April 1989

  39·5

  Vaccine Damage
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security why, pursuant to the answer to the right hon. Member for Stoke on Trent, South,Official Report, 20 June, columns 94–96, some of the information requested regarding all vaccine damage payments made in 1980, 1981 and 1982 is not available.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The details requested cannot be supplied for any of the vaccine damage payments made in 1980 as these have been destroyed in accordance with normal arrangements. Unfortunately some of those records for 1981 and 1982 are missing and cannot be found despite a very thorough search.

  Office Reorganisation
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will ensure that outstationing of Department of Social Security offices will not take place until such time as the operational strategy computer provisions have been completed.
  247
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The project to move out of 21 London offices the "backroom" work that does not need face to face contact with the public is now well advanced. We are going ahead with this initiative because of our commitment to ensuring our customers receive the highest quality service.

  We are confident that the operational strategy computer systems are capable of supporting the needs of the project and of our customers.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will ensure that when outstationing of Department of Social Security offices is completed, telephone calls to the social security centres by claimants from local offices, public kiosks, and their homes, will be charged at the local rate and that the same charges will be available to advisers acting on the claimants' behalf.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Telephone calls to the social security centres made from claimants' homes and public kiosks in the London local call area will be charged at the local rate. Calls made from the telephones to be sited in the public areas of the branch offices will give direct access to the social security centre and will be free.

  Advisers acting on behalf of claimants will be able to use the same facilities and, provided the call is made from within the London local call area, they will be charged at the local rate.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what facilities for people with disabilities will be provided in the new Department of Social Security branch offices to enable proper access and a comfortable wait.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Branch offices are still in the planning stage, but the aim will be to continue to improve and provide facilities for the disabled in these offices.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what undertakings have been given to local Department of Social Security staff affected by outstationing about their future employment by the Department of Social Security in the same geographical area.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Staff who work in the local offices participating in the relocation of work project have been given the following assurances:

  (i) there is no question of compulsory transfer to the social security centres in Glasgow, Belfast and Wigan but any member of staff who wishes to transfer may apply to do so;

  (ii) when transfers are necessary, staff will be expected to transfer to local, regional or headquarters offices within daily travelling distance of their home. All such transfers will be to other offices within the London pay zone, unless an individual prefers to go somewhere else;

  (iii) each individual member of staff will be treated on an individual basis. Cases of immobility will be dealt with first;

  (iv) all staff will be invited individually to nominate the offices they would wish to transfer to. Management will do everything they can to match transfers to individual preferences. Where an individual cannot be posted to an office of his or her choice in the first instance, he or she will be given top priority when vacancies occur within one of the preferred offices;

  (v) we do not envisage any need for compulsory transfers involving a move of home. There should be no need for redundancies.

  248
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether facilities such as a nappy-changing area and tea and coffee machine will be provided in the new Department of Social Security branch offices.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The provision of such facilities will be considered when the new branch offices are being developed. The improved service to the public they will provide is expected to reduce significantly the time customers spend in our offices. The need for such facilities will be determined in the light of experience.

  EC Benefit Systems
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what approximate correlation exists in each EEC state between the level of social security benefits and gross domestic product per head.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The latest available figures are as follows:

  Current Expenditure on Social Protection as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product (Eurostat)

  1983

  1984

  Netherlands

  33·7

  —

  Belgium

  30·8

  29·4

  Denmark

  30·2

  28·7

  West Germany

  29·1

  28·7

  France

  28·5

  —

  Luxembourg

  26·5

  —

  United Kingdom

  24·1

  24·1

  Ireland

  23·9

  23·3

  Italy

  23·7

  23·3

  No figures available yet for Greece, Spain or Portugal.

  Benefit Statistics
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the latest available figures for the cumulative amounts, since 1979, of(a) unclaimed benefits, (b) benefit fraud and (c) expenditure savings, expressed in real terms, at 1989 prices.

  Mr. Scott
  It is not possible to ascertain precisely the total amounts of Social Security benefits fraudulently claimed or left unclaimed. Details of the latest available information on the take up of benefits is contained in paragraphs 27 to 29 on pages 1 5–1 6 of Cm 615. Similarly it is not possible to show the cumulative effects of expenditure savings since 1979. Calculations for the income-related benefits would be impossible in the light of major changes over the past decade. An analysis of the national insurance benefits could be carried out only at disproportionate cost using a range of artificial assumptions, rendering any answer speculative.

  Single Parents
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many single parents in receipt of one-parent benefit have been sent green forms instructing them to send their benefit books to local social security offices.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Postal review is a normal part of benefit procedure. A postal review of one-parent benefit claimants began in February. So far 300,000 postal review forms have been issued. Claimants should return their order books to the social security office only if they have changes to report.
  249
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he has issued any instructions to local social security offices laying down a maximum period for which one-parent benefit books sent in as directed by green forms may be held before being returned to the parent.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No. All order books returned to local offices for adjustment are returned as soon as possible. If the hon. Member has a particular case in mind he may care to write to me.

  Income Support
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people are currently having their claim for family credit reviewed as not being consistently engaged in remunerative work for over 24 hours a week while unable to claim income support because they regularly work over 24 hours a week; and when he expects to make a decision over eligibility for family credit in these cases.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  None, but we are considering whether legislative changes are necessary to minimise the risk of families failing to qualify for either family credit or income support in the future.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish the medical evidence that £21·70 a week paid for food is sufficient for a healthy diet for a person living in bed and breakfast accommodation; and what similar medical evidence is used to calculate other income support applicable amounts.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  There is no specific amount included in income support levels to cover food.

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the cost of ceasing to treat (a) child benefit and (b) one-parent benefit as a resource for housing benefit, assuming case-load take-up levels of family credit of (a) 40 per cent., (b) 50 per cent., (c) 60 per cent. (d) 70 per cent., (e) 80 per cent., (f) 90 per cent. and (g) 100 per cent.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 9 June 1989]: I regret that the precise information requested cannot be provided. Housing benefit currently comprises four distinct elements —rent rebates, rent allowances (all of Great Britain), rate rebates (in England and Wales) and community charge rebate (in Scotland).

  The estimated costs in 1989–90 of ceasing to treat child benefit and one-parent benefit as a resource for housing benefit would be as follows:

  £ million

  (i) Rent rebate and rent allowance:

  (a) Child benefit

  80

  (b) One parent benefit

  7

  (ii) Projected cost assuming rate rebates were fully in place throughout Great Britain:

  (a) Child benefit

  40

  (b) One parent benefit

  3

  (iii) Project cost assuming community charge rebates were fully in place throughout GB:

  250

  £ million

  (a) Child benefit

  60

  (b) One parent benefit

  2

  Notes

  1. Where a person with at least one child in his family and working 24 hours or more a week claims housing benefit and has not also claimed family credit, calculation of potential family credit is included in the assessment of housing benefit. (The notional amount so arrived at is not counted as part of the housing benefit income for 25 working days following the despatch of the notice of housing benefit entitlement to the claimant to allow reasonable time for him to claim family credit.) Differential take-up of family credit would not, therefore, affect the estimated costs set out above.

  2. Some lone parents, such as widows and those on invalidity benefit or retirement pension, do not get one-parent benefit. They would, therefore, be excluded from the increase in housing benefit that other lone parents would get from the disregard of one-parent benefit.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what has been the cumulative total of his Department's expenditure since May 1979 to date over and above the expenditure level prevailing in May 1979.

  Mr. Scott
  [holding answer 29 June 1989]: The total programme of public expenditure on social security in 1979–80 and each of the following years, including the forecast for 1989–90, is as follows. The size of the programme had the level of spending remained exactly as it was in 1979–80 in real terms is also indicated:

  £ billion

  Actual/planned expenditure

  Expenditure at level of 1979–80

  1979–80

  19·4

  19·4

  1980–81

  23·5

  23·0

  1981–82

  28·6

  25·2

  1982–83

  32·5

  27·0

  1983–84

  35·2

  28·3

  1984–85

  38·1

  29·7

  1985–86

  41·5

  31·2

  1986–87

  44·4

  32·3

  1987–88

  46·3

  34·0

  1988–89

  47·6

  36·6

  11989–90

  51·1

  38·4

  1 Planned.

  Attendance Allowance
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received calling for the payment of attendance allowance automatically as of right to blind people living alone: what his reponse has been; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  [holding answer 3 July 1989]: We have occasionally received representations on this subject in the course of correspondence with hon. Members on behalf of individual constituents. In reply we have explained that entitlement to an attendance allowance is not geared to specific disabling conditions or illnesses. People with a severe disability qualify for the allowance if they require from someone else either frequent attention in connection with bodily functions or continual supervision or watching over to avoid substantial danger to themselves or others.

PRIME MINISTER

  Psychiatric Patients
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Prime Minister when she expects to meet representatives of MIND to discuss the relevance for discharged long-stay psychiatric patients of section 7 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Representation and Consultation) Act 1986.

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

  Taunton
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will make an official visit to Taunton.

  The Prime Minister
  I have no plans to so.

  Inner Cities Policy
  Mr. Kirkhope
  To ask the Prime Minister what recent representations she has received on the Government's inner cities policy.

  The Prime Minister
  I have received a number of representations, many of them in support of the Government's inner cities policies. Under the comprehensive range of measures, costing £3·5 billion this year which makes up the action for cities initiative, good progress continues to be made in the regeneration of our inner cities. In the 57 inner city target areas, unemployment fell by almost 24 per cent. in the 12 months to May 1989. Recorded crime in the Metropolitan police force areas fell by 6 per cent. in 1988. Involvement of private companies continues to grow—over the last six months the number of companies working with the Government's inner city task forces has increased from 450 to 500.

  Economy
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has received representations regarding the performance of the economy.

  The Prime Minister
  I have received a number of such representations.

  Toxic Solid Waste
  Sir Hugh Rossi
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has received representations regarding the disposal of toxic solid waste.

  The Prime Minister
  A number of representations have been received on a variety of subjects related to the disposal of toxic waste.

  Privatisation
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has received representations regarding Her Majesty's Government's privatisation programme.

  The Prime Minister
  I receive a number of representations from time to time regarding the privatisation programme.

  Human Rights
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister if Her Majesty's Government will support the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights in the form 252
  outlined in the Human Rights Bill which is set down for Second Reading on 7 July; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  No. We are committed to, and support, the principles of human rights in the European Convention on Human Rights but we believe that is is for Parliament rather than the judiciary to determine how these principles are best secured.

  Litter
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Prime Minister what recent representations she has received on the litter problem.

  The Prime Minister
  I have received a large number of letters from people concerned about litter. They demonstrate wide support for tougher measures to control litter. The Government intend soon to announce a range of proposals for improving legislation in this area.

  Pension Age
  Sir David Price
  To ask the Prime Minister what is the Government's policy towards the equalisation of pension age for men and women as proposed in the draft directive of the European Community entitled "Equal Treatment for Men and Women in Pensions and other Benefits"; and what attitude towards the proposal she will adopt in the Council of Ministers.

  The Prime Minister
  At the meeting of the Labour and Social Affairs Council of Ministers in Luxembourg on 12 June neither France nor the United Kingdom were able to lift their reserves on this draft directive. Consequently the draft directive will not be discussed at the Council of Ministers but will be referred back for further work by officials. The House of Lords Select Committee on the European Community published its report on this draft directive earlier this month and the Government will respond to that report in due course.

  Roads
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has received recent representations on the case for improved roads.

  The Prime Minister
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has received a number of representations recently supporting the proposals announced in the White Paper "Roads for Prosperity" for a greatly expanded trunk road building programme.

  Human Rights (China)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Prime Minister if Her Majesty's Government will refer the actions of the Chinese Government in their present policy of violence and reprisals against Chinese students to the Human Rights Commission of the United Nations; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  We intend to raise our concerns about the recent deplorable events in China at the next session of the United Nations Committee on Human Rights and at the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) which meets this month in Geneva.

  Iran
  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has received representations regarding the United Kingdom's relations with Iran.

  The Prime Minister
  I have received regular representations about our relations with Iran, both from hon. Members and from members of the public. We have consistently made clear that we can have normal relations only if Iran clearly renounces the use or threat of terrorism and violence in all forms.

  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has received representations regarding housing.

  The Prime Minister
  Yes.

  Shipbuilders
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow, 20 June,Official Report, column 77, where funds are provided to United Kingdom shipyards for construction under the shipbuilding intervention fund, what proportion of those funds is required to be spent within the United Kingdom.

  The Prime Minister
  Under European Community rules we cannot discriminate against other EC content. However, in administering intervention fund and intervention aid, officials in the Department of Trade and Industry and the Northern Ireland Department of Economic Development encourage United Kingdom shipyards to procure as much EC content as possible.

  Water Bill
  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Prime Minister what recent representations she has received on the Water Bill.

  The Prime Minister
  Many individuals and organisations have commented on a wide range of privatisation matters, which are being considered in the context of the Water Bill.

  Royal Air Force
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has received representations regarding the Royal Air Force.

  The Prime Minister
  I receive many representations about the Royal Air Force.

  West Yorkshire
  Mr. Waller
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will make an official visit to West Yorkshire.

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

  Police Force
  Mr. John Browne
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has received representations regarding the police force.

  The Prime Minister
  I have received a number of representations.
  254
  At the end of March this year, police strength in England and Wales stood at 125,631. This is a record and represents some 14,100 more officers than when the Government first took office. Expenditure on the police is up by almost 55 per cent. in real terms. We shall continue to regard the police as a priority.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Marland
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has received representations regarding the common agricultural policy.

  The Prime Minister
  The Government frequently receive representations about agricultural policy.

  The United Kingdom agricultural industry is widely respected for its efficiency and competitiveness. It is well placed to benefit from the opportunities for fair competition which completion of the EC's single internal market will bring. And I was pleased at the royal show to pay tribute to the enormous contribution the agriculture industry and the thousands of individual farmers make to our national life.

  Nuclear Deterrent
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has received representations regarding the nuclear deterrent.

  The Prime Minister
  I have received a number of letters from individuals and organisations.

  Fraud (EC)
  Sir Anthony Grant
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has received representations regarding fraud in the European Community.

  The Prime Minister
  I have received a number of representations.

  National Health Service
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has received representations regarding the National Health Service.

  The Prime Minister
  The Government have received large numbers of representations on the National Health Service from members of the public, the professions, and various interest groups. Many share the Government's desire for a Health Service that gives patients more choice and rights as consumers, that is more responsive to the needs of local communities, and that builds on its existing successes and efficiency to give better value for money.

  Raw Nook Community Centre, Bradford
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Prime Minister whether she expects to pay an official visit to Raw Nook community centre in Bradford.

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

  Harold Macmillan (Biography)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister whether she has obtained for the library of No. 10 Downing street, Alistair Home's biography of Harold Macmillan.
  255
  The Prime Minister
  Yes.

  Government Departments
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Prime Minister what recent representations she has received about the future structure of Government Departments.

  The Prime Minister
  I receive numerous representations on a wide variety of issues including the structure of Government Departments.

  Rail Travel
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will state the last occasion she travelled on a train in order to carry out official engagements; and how many times in all she has done so since May 1979.

  The Prime Minister
  I have nothing further to add to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) on 3 July 1989 at column 13.

  Engagements
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 6 July.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 6 July.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 6 July.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 6 July.

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today.

TRANSPORT

  "Better Rail" Campaign
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many representations he has received from the NUR's "Better Rail" campaign.

  Mr. Portillo
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met representatives of NUR, ASLEF and TSSA after the Nera report was published last year. Since then we have received about 700 representations from hon. Members and members of the public.

  Trucks (Suspension)
  Mr. Roger King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he intends to publish the Transport and Road Research Laboratory's findings on road-friendly suspension systems for 40-tonne trucks.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We attach high importance to road-friendly suspensions on all vehicles. We are encouraging the use of air suspensions particularly on the heaviest articulated lorries. I am sending to my hon. Friend and placing in the Library copies of the two most recent reports published by the Transport and Road 256
  Research Laboratory about relevant research on suspensions and the dynamic relationship between axles and the road. This forms part of the case Britain is arguing internationally to secure vehicles that are more road-friendly.

  Coastguard Service
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport why the Coastguard chief is located in the heart of London.

  Mr. Portillo
  The chief coastguard has traditionally been located in London to ensure ready access to Ministers. The need for coastguard headquarters to remain in London is currently under review.

  Mobility Roadshow
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many people attended the Mobility roadshow; how many motor manufacturers exhibited at the Mobility roadshow; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The fourth Mobility roadshow, organised by the Department of Transport, took place over three days last month at the Department's Transport and Road Research Laboratory in Berkshire. It was attended by about 20,000 people, the majority of whom were disabled.

  Eleven major motor manufacturers exhibited the latest models of standard production cars suitable for adaptation for disabled people. Nearly 4,000 test drives were taken in adapted cars on the laboratory's private road system.

  Among the show's other 140 exhibitors were manufacturers of buses, minibuses, vans, vehicle lifts, hand control equipment, wheelchairs and small powered vehicles and many other products, as well as a range of organisations offering services and advice to people with disabilities.

  Plans are in hand for the fifth show to be held in the summer of 1991.

  East London Rail Study
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, when he expects to announce the conclusions to his east London rail study.

  Mr. Portillo
  Shortly.

  M4 (Safety Fencing)
  Sir William Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much has been spent on safety fencing on the M4 during the year 1988–89; how much is expected to be spent in 1989–90; and, of the amounts spent or to be spent, how much is attributable to replacements of faulty safety fencing.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  It is estimated that some £270,000 was spent in 1988–89 on the replacement and maintenance of safety fences on the M4. The replacement of fences is undertaken for various reasons such as changes in road surface levels as a result of resurfacing, or damage caused by impacts, and it is not possible to attribute the amounts spent to particular reasons. We are not aware of any safety fencing having to be replaced because of inadequate
  257
  performance. Some £380,000 has been allocated for replacement and maintenance in 1989–90. Actual expenditure will depend on the extent of unpredictable factors such as accident damage. All safety fences continue to be regularly inspected and maintenanced.

  Orange Badge Scheme
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many people with severely deformed or no arms currently hold orange badges.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  This information is not held centrally.

  The responsibility for assessing applicants for orange badges rests with individual local authorities.

  The Department neither issues nor withdraws badges.

  The national scheme was created to help people not capable of walking.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has of the number of people with severely deformed or no arms who have difficulty in shopping unless special provision is made for them.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  This information is not available.

  The OPCS survey into disability in Great Britain states that there are 1·23 million people with reaching and stretching disabilities and 1·737 million with dexterity problems. Caution is needed in using any of the figures in the report because:

  (i) a relatively low threshold of disability was used for the report.

  (ii) people with both reaching and stretching and dexterity problems would be counted twice.

  (iii) the survey was designed to be a survey of disability, not of the causes of disability. People could be counted as having reaching or stretching difficulties because they had sight problems or suffered from mental illness etc.

  The Department of Health has advised that there were 12,800 upper limb amputees in England and Wales in 1986. This figure represents only people seen by artificial limb centres and so does not represent the total number of amputees. It is not known how many of those artificial upper limb users would have actual difficulty in carrying shopping. Many will have one missing limb rather than two.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what initiatives he has undertaken to help people with severely deformed or no arms to be able to use normal parking facilities.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Department's Mobility roadshow held at the Transport and Road Research Laboratory (16–18 June) attracted 20,000 people from many parts of the country to view and test a wide range of adapted vehicles and other mobility aids and products.

  We are constantly on the look out for new ideas and ways of helping people with all kinds of disabilities.

  We are supporting the Parking Bill currently before Parliament. This would provide for the wider use of systems of payment such as magnetic cards or vouchers rather than coins. These new systems can be more convenient for many disabled drivers, particularly those with dexterity problems.

  We tabled an amendment to the Bill which would give the Secretary of State power to require local authorities to
  258
  display information at the entrance to off-street car parks, including the availability of allocated spaces for disabled people. The British Standards Institution is currently developing a code of practice on information required at public car parks.

  The British Standards Institution is also working on a range of new standards for parking control equipment. Equipment manufacturers and disabled people are represented on the relevant technical committee. The standards will take account of features such as the height of displays and the ease of operation of equipment.

  We give advice to organisations which seek to make it easier for disabled people to use their cars.

  We advise individual disabled motorists through our mobility advice and vehicle information service (MAVIS).

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research has been done into the range of activities for which disabled people use the orange badge; and to what extent it is used in connection with shopping.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The orange badge scheme allows people with severe mobility problems to park closer to their destinations and to stay longer than normal parking regulations permit. The scheme helps badge holders to engage in as wide a range of activities as they can manage.

  The design of buildings and their external spaces is also important. Much progress has been made by Government, local authorities, and private bodies over recent years. Shop mobility schemes are operated by voluntary bodies in many parts of the country. We have preferred to concentrate our efforts in practical ways, rather than to commission research into particular issues such as shopping.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about fire safety in the Channel tunnel.

  Mr. Portillo
  The Government are fully seized of the need for fire safety in the Channel tunnel. In agreement with the French Government they set up an independent safety authority composed of senior United Kingdom and French experts, to vet all Channel tunnel designs and operational procedures and, when necessary, to advise the intergovernmental commission to reject anything which would not afford a proper degree of safety. Both United Kingdom and French fire experts are members of the authority.

  Accident Investigations
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give the reasons for(a) making publicly available investigations into accidents involving aircraft and (b) not making publicly available those into accidents involving ships.

  Mr. Portillo
  Regulations are about to be laid before the House governing the investigation of accidents involving ships. Among other things these provide for the publication of reports or summaries of investigations.

  This will put marine and aircraft investigations on broadly the same footing.
  259
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to publish findings of the report into the incident involving the hydrofoil from Southampton on 27 November 1987.

  Mr. Portillo
  When the investigation into the incident is completed a summary report will be made public.

  I cannot give a date for the release of this report as the investigation is still in progress.

  European Transport Systems
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will undertake a comparative study of fares, investment, public transport usage and road congestion in European nations.

  Mr. Portillo
  No. The circumstances of different European cities are not readily comparable.

  Pedestrian Crossings
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give the figures for road deaths for(a) children and (b) adults, killed near pedestrian crossings for each of the last 10 years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The information requested is as follows:

  Number of children and adults killed near pedestrian crossings: 1978–87

  Children killed on pedestrian crossing

  Children killed on within 50 metres of pedestrain crossing

  Adult killed on pedestrian crossing

  Adult killed on within 50 metres of pedestrain crossing

  1978

  15

  16

  124

  109

  1979

  6

  l0

  118

  144

  1980

  16

  14

  115

  135

  1981

  10

  13

  101

  97

  1982

  13

  14

  112

  120

  1983

  11

  23

  114

  136

  1984

  10

  15

  96

  148

  1985

  12

  20

  106

  123

  1986

  13

  13

  126

  158

  1987

  13

  21

  96

  140

  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to increase the amount of time allowed for pedestrians to make use of pelican crossings when crossing the road.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The recommended timings for pelican crossings were revised in 1987, and are incorporated in the departmental standard TD 28/87 "Pedestrian Crossing; Pelican and Zebra Crossings". This introduced a two second extension to the crossing time, to be used at the discretion of the highway authority.

  We are looking at ways in which extended crossing time can be made available specifically for elderly and disabled pedestrians.

  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with the police and traffic authorities to encourage them to take measures to enforce motorists to respect pedestrian rights on zebra and pelican crossings.
  260
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Enforcement of road traffic law is a matter for the police who have to decide on priorities in the light of local conditions. We are in regular contact with the Association of Chief Police Officers and local authority road safety officers on all matters relating to road safety.

  All road users should have proper regard for pedestrians wherever they are, and should pay particular attention to rules 56–57 of the highway code.

  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his policy on the phasing out of zebra crossings in favour of pelican crossings.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We have no such policy. Pelican and zebra crossings are used in different circumstances which reflect different pedestrian and traffic flows, and traffic speeds. Local highway authorities have considerable discretion over the installation of both types of crossing, although the Department of Transport issues guidance as to the most helpful criteria.

  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made with trials of new pedestrian facilities at traffic-signalled junctions including the use of infra-red devices to detect the presence and movement of pedestrians.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Department is co-operating with its French and Dutch counterparts in a research programme to improve pedestrian facilities at traffic lights.

  A trial site is to be set up later this year at the Department's Transport and Road Research Laboratory. Various new pedestrian facilities, including infra-red detectors, will be developed.

  Consultation with highway authorities and other interested groups will be undertaken as part of this work.

  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to receive the report of the Transport and Road Research Laboratory on new techniques to identify sites for pelican crossings.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The final report of the Transport and Road Research Laboratory's study into pedestrian crossing criteria is expected in mid-1990. In the meantime we shall be publishing later this year two reports on the relationship between pedestrian flows and accident rates, which are directly relevant to the problem.

  In April this year we published a major package of measures aimed at improving pedestrian safety which we intend to implement as quickly as possible.

  Rail Electrification
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any information as to whether British Rail has initiated research into the advantages and disadvantages of the electrification of the east midlands railway line.

  Mr. Portillo
  I understand that British Rail is co-operating closely with the consultants who produced the recent local authorities' report on the midland main line.

  Aviation Security
  Mr. Prescott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether his Department issued any general aviation security warning on 21 December.
  261
  Mr. Channon
  No.

  Heavy Goods Trailers (Safety)
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the number of heavy goods trailers failing to pass the annual test.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  There has been a rising trend in the number of trailers failing the annual test over the period 1983–1988. A task force of experts from the Department and the industry was set up to investigate the reasons for failure.

  Their interim report has been placed in the Library of the House. A final report will be produced later this summer.

  The trailer failure rate appears to be more related to changes in requirements over the period in consideration than to a decline in standards of maintenance of trailers on the road.

  Interim recommendations are:

  1. to develop an acceptable method of testing the braking performance of unladen trailers;

  2. to explore the scope for increasing the service brake force within the upper limits of the European Community requirements;

  3. to provide advice to operators on good maintenance practice;

  4. to undertake regular surveys of random samples of goods vehicles and trailers in use.

DEFENCE

  Compensation Claims
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many sick 10 certificates banning compensation claims for injury to members of the armed forces were issued each year from 1986 to date.

  Mr. Neubert
  It would not be possible, except at disproportionate cost, to produce details of certificates issued from 1986 to date under sections 10(1) and 10(2) of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has issued a total of 11 certificates during the time in question under section 10(3) of the Act: four in 1986, two in 1987, one in 1988 and four so far in 1989.

  Skyguard (RAF Finningley)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the implications of the transit area in the surrounding area of RAF Finningley; and when Skyguard will be in operation in this area.

  Mr. Neubert
  The structure of the United Kingdom low flying system in the RAF Finningley area is, as elsewhere, designed to minimise the disturbance to the public. Skyguard is being deployed to assist the RAF police in their task of monitoring low flying in the United Kingdom. As with the general RAF police monitoring programme, however, it would not be appropriate to release details of proposed Skyguard deployments in advance.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many complaints he has received over the past 12 months about low-flying military aircraft; and what action he has taken.

  Mr. Neubert
  Between 1 June 1988 and 31 May 1989 the Ministry of Defence received 6,273 inquiries and complaints about military low-flying training in the United Kingdom. Each inquiry or complaint is carefully considered and appropriate action taken.

  F111 Aircraft
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has had with his United States counterpart about the deployment of F111s in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend is currently on an official visit to the United States of America, where he will meet Mr. Cheney and discuss a range of issues of mutual interest.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if the proposal to station further F111 aircraft of the United States Air Force at RAF Upper Heyford is part of a North Atlantic Treaty Organisation decision-making process or a bilateral United States-United Kingdom decision-making process;

  (2) on which date he was first informed of proposals to station further F111 aircraft of the United States Air Force at RAF Upper Heyford;

  (3) what information he has received from the United States Government, or any service or agency answerable to that Government, regarding proposals to station further F111 aircraft of the United States Air Force at RAF Upper Heyford;

  (4) whether in the light of the proposals made at the recent North Atlantic Treaty Organisation summit, there have been any changes to the proposal to station further F111 aircraft of the United States Air Force at RAF Upper Heyford.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I have nothing to add to the reply I gave the hon. Members for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Dunnachie), Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray), and for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) on 13 June 1989 at columns 395–96.

  Defence Exports Services Organisation
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will indicate the annual salary of the head of the Defence Exports Services Organisation and the extent of the bonuses for which he could be eligible.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The present head of the defence export services, Sir Colin Chandler, is on secondment from British Aerospace, which pays his salary. The Ministry of Defence pays British Aerospace the equivalent of grade 2 Civil Service salary for Sir Colin's services. There is no provision in these arrangements for the payment of bonuses. Mr. Alan Thomas will start taking over from Sir Colin Chandler as head of defence export services in early July and will assume total responsibility for the post in September. He was appointed at a salary of £100,000 a
  263
  year subject to annual review and he will be eligible for a performance bonus within an annual maximum of £25,000.

  Nuclear Response Policy
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy to make known to the Warsaw pact the circumstances in which he would agree to a nuclear response to a conventional attack upon Germany by a member of the Warsaw pact.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No.

  Queen's Birthday Parade (Horses)
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were the names and ages of the oldest and youngest horses taking part in this year's birthday parade; where each was bred; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neubert
  I regret that this information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Stonehenge (Incident)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people were arrested by personnel from the Ministry of Defence police acting in support of the Wiltshire constabulary on the morning of 21 June; and how many of those arrested were charged.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Thirty-seven arrests were made by the Ministry of Defence police in the course of operations in support of the Wiltshire constabulary. None of those arrested has yet been charged.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the use of personnel from the Ministry of Defence police in support of the Wiltshire constabulary in operations in the area of Stonehenge on the morning of 21 June.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  In accordance with the Ministry of Defence Police Act 1987 section 2(2)(d), Ministry of Defence police officers deployed in support of the Wiltshire constabulary in response to the latter force's specific requests of assistance.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what cost will be passed on to the Wiltshire constabulary for the use of personnel from the Ministry of Defence police on the morning of 21 June.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Since members of the Ministry of Defence police were deployed in the Salisbury plain area in order to protect the property and other interests of my Department it would not be appropriate to make a charge for any assistance which was given to the Wiltshire constabulary in the course of those duties.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the cost to his Department for the use of personnel under the control of his Department in support of the operations by the Wiltshire constabulary in the area of Stonehenge on the morning of 21 June.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total number of personnel from the Ministry of Defence police deployed in support of the Wiltshire constabulary on the morning of 21 June.
  264
  Mr. Sainsbury
  Approximately 75 Ministry of Defence police officers gave assistance to the Wiltshire constabulary during the night of 20–21 June.

  United States Deep Space Programme
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has received any proposals from the United States Air Force to station any electro-optical deep space surveillance equipment in the United Kingdom as part of the GEODSS programme, or any other programme.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I am not aware of any such proposals.

  Boscombe Down Airfield
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list North Atlantic Treaty Organisation-funded construction in support of United States forces that has taken place at Boscombe Down airfield funded from each of the last five North Atlantic Treaty Organisation funding slices; and if he will list similar construction that is scheduled to be funded from future North Atlantic Treaty Organisation funding slices.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It is not our practice to publish information of this kind.

  RAF Feltwell (Tracking Station)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the current status of the proposed deep space tracking station at RAF Feltwell.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I have nothing to add to the answer I gave the hon. Member on 3 February 1989 at column 449.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which portions of the electromagnetic spectrum will be used by the proposed deep space tracking station at RAF Feltwell.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It is not our practice to publish information of this kind.

  US Central Command (Hythe)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 29 June 1988,Official Report, column 267, if he will list in tabular form the quantities of materials that have been stored at Hythe, Hampshire, in support of United States Central Command in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No materials have been stored at Hythe, Hampshire in support of the United States Central Command.

  Wayne Beal
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many persons were recruited with Wayne Beal into 2nd Queen's Regiment; and how many completed the course.

  Mr. Neubert
  There were 32 others recruited along with Wayne Beal; 19 of these successfully completed the training course.
  265
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will investigate why the adjutant turned away key witnesses at the court martial of those accused of bullying Wayne Beal.

  Mr. Neubert
  I will write to my hon. Friend.

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will obtain and make available a transcript of the court martial proceedings in the case of those accused of bullying Wayne Beal of 2nd Queen's Regiment, Bassingbourne barracks.

  Mr. Neubert
  A transcript of the presiding judge advocate's summing-up will be made available as soon as possible.

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will seek a report on the reasons why an adjournment in the court martial of those accused of bullying Wayne Beal to enable medical evidence to be obtained was refused.

  Mr. Neubert
  I will write to my hon. Friend.

  Nuclear-powered Warships Safety Committee
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members there are on the nuclear-powered warships safety committee; and how many of them had previously worked(a) full-time, (b) part-time and (c) on a commission basis for his Department.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  There are currently 23 permanent members of the nuclear-powered warships safety committee (NPWSC), excluding the secretariat of two. Of these, five are currently employed full-time by this Department. A further seven MOD officials, who are not members of the committee, may attend or be represented at its meetings if the agenda includes items within their area of interest. Of the 18 external NPWSC members, five have previously worked as full-time MOD officials. The other external members have not worked for this Department, either part-time or on a commission basis.

  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how the running costs of the nuclear-powered warships safety committee are met.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The running costs of the NPWSC are met from public funds. In general, these costs are paid by the Ministry of Defence, although the expenses of the eight NPWSC members who are full-time employees of other public bodies are paid by their employers.

  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the membership of the nuclear-powered warships safety committee.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It is not considered appropriate to release the names of individual committee members, for reasons of personal security.

  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether members of the nuclear-powered warships safety committee receive payment or expenses for their work from his Department.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Those members of the Nuclear-Powered Warships Safety Committee who are not 266
  employees of the Ministry of Defence or other public bodies receive a fee in line with those laid down in the scale of daily fees payable to members of Royal Commissions, advisory committees and similar bodies. All members may claim travel and subsistence expenses.

  Ha'burn (Sinking)
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the circumstances surrounding the sinking of the fishing boat Ha'burn in the Firth of Clyde.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  On the morning of Friday 30 June the fishing vessel Ha'burn, while fishing in the Clyde approaches, caught a mine-like object in its nets. The vessel informed HM Coastguard and proceeded to Troon on the Ayrshire coast. The Royal Navy base at Faslane was also informed, and an explosive ordnance disposal team was despatched to the scene and indentified the object as a German world war II ground mine.

  The skipper of the Ha'burn agreed to take the mine to deep water, where the Royal Navy team were to dispose of it by a controlled explosion. When the vessel had reached a suitable location, a demolition charge was attached to the mine which was then lowered to the sea bed. A safety fuse was set and the vessel began to retire to safety. The charge, however, detonated prematurely and before the Ha'burn had time to clear the area.

  The vessel was holed by the resulting explosion and later beached some 500 yards from Great Cumbrae island. The crew, who were unhurt, were rescued by an inshore lifeboat from Largs. A board of inquiry has been convened. The owners of the Ha'burn have been informed of the procedures for submitting a claim for compensation.

  Birkbeck College
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment of security at Birkbeck college was made prior to awarding the contract for the study of the recruitment and selection of Royal Navy personnel to the college.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Since the work is not classified the question of security at Birkbeck college did not arise.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current security classification of the contract awarded to Birkbeck college for the study of the recruitment and selection of Royal Navy personnel.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The work in question is unclassified.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what changes have been made to the security procedures concerning documents relating to the contract awarded to Birkbeck college for the study of the recruitment and selection of Royal Navy personnel since the contract was awarded; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  No. Papers were returned when they were no longer needed in accordance with normal procedures.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what communication there has been between the governors of Birkbeck college and his Department concerning the security of documents relating to the contract for the study of the recruitment and selection of Royal Navy personnel awarded to the college.
  267
  Mr. Sainsbury
  No. Following the letter which the master of the college wrote to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence on Monday 3 July 1989, my noble Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement met her on Tuesday 4 July 1989, but this was to discuss recent press reports.

  Corporal Steven Smith
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has about the death of Corporal Steven Smith in Hanover; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Two under-car improvised explosive devices were placed under private vehicles belonging to service men, which were left-hand drive and carried United Kingdom type civilian number plates issued for use by the British Forces in Germany, and were parked in a married quarters area in Hanover. One device exploded at 18.15 hours local time on 2 July 1989, causing the death of Corporal Smith and injuries to his wife and four children. The second device was located and neutralised. Both were attached to the cars by magnets.

  The Provisional IRA has claimed responsibility for both the devices. The German police are continuing their inquiries.

  Security (West Germany)
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what security arrangements are made for those service personnel who do not live inside Ministry of Defence barracks or bases whilst stationed in West Germany.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  All service men, United Kingdom-based civilians and their dependants are briefed periodically on the security situation and on the measures they should take for their own protection. It would not be appropriate to comment on individual security measures. Close liaison is also maintained with the Federal German authorities, who have primary responsibility for the prevention of terrorist crimes outside United Kingdom bases.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether any areas in West Germany outside Ministry of Defence bases or barracks have ever been the subject of a co-ordinated test and evaluation of security.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The security of off-base married quarter areas in Germany is kept under constant review, in liaison with the appropriate local police authorities.

  Iraq (Aircraft Sales)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the Government's policy on the sale of Hawk aircraft to the Government of Iraq.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  It has been the consistent practice of successive Administrations not to comment on individual defence sales. Any overseas sale of Hawk would require an export licence and any prospect of such a sale to Iraq would be considered against the guidelines announced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary on 29 October 1985 at column 450.

  Army Polo Teams
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence,, if he will list those regiments in which regimental officers are required to make a regular subscription towards the regimental polo team.

  Mr. Neubert
  No officer is required to subscribe towards his regimental polo team.

  IUKADGE Command and Control System
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his reply of 26 June, how long the delay in introducing the improved United Kingdom air defence ground environment command and control system will be.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 29 June 1989]: As I stated in my reply to the hon. Gentleman's question of 26 June at column 370, it is premature to speculate on the length of further delay to the introduction of the IUKADGE command and control system before the results of the independent audit have been assessed. We consider, however, that it should be possible to complete the work in the early 1990s.

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his reply of 26 June, when it was decided to seek maximum return from the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation common infrastructure budget for the improved United Kingdom air defence ground environment command and control system by abiding by the rules of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation international competitive bidding.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 29 June 1989]: September 1978.

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what additional costs have been incurred as a result of the delay to the introduction of the improved United Kingdom air defence ground environment command and control system.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 29 June 1989]: The delay to the introduction of the IUKADGE command and control system will have some small cost implications, due for example to the need to run on the existing command and control system for somewhat longer than originally intended. The main contract with United Kingdom Systems Ltd is, however, fixed price; the financial risks for the completion of the ICCS continue, therefore, to lie with the contractor.

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what organisation is carrying out the independent audit and review of the improved United Kingdom air defence ground environment command and control system.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 29 June 1989]: The independent audit of the IUKADGE command and control system is being carried out by a joint industry/MOD team led by SD Scicon Ltd.

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the independent audit and review of the improved United Kingdom air defence ground environment command and control system will be completed.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 29 June 1989]: The independent audit of the IUKADGE command and control system was completed at the end of June and will be fully assessed during the next few weeks.

WALES

  Urban Investment Grant
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the planned expenditure for urban investment grant for each of the next three years.

  Mr. Grist
  The provision for 1989–90 is £3 million (as shown in the supply estimates class XVII, vote 6 subhead B2). I have made no firm decisions on the distribution of the block resources beyond 1989–90.

  Business Establishment Grant
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many companies in receipt of a cash grant from his Department to establish a business in Wales have discontinued such business within five years of establishment.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Information in the form requested is not available. However, it is possible to provide information on companies which have received regional selective assistance. Since the introduction of the current guidelines for regional selective assistance in November 1984, two companies which received RSA towards establishing new businesses in Wales are known to have discontinued such business. These companies received some £20,000 in grant. Over the same period 80 projects received RSA to establish new businesses in Wales with associated expenditure to date of some £9 million.

  Welsh Development Agency
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if his civil servants discussed with the Welsh Development Agency's west Wales senior executive management buy-out plans; and if he will make a statement.

  (2) if the Welsh Development Agency has had any discussions with outside consultants regarding the proposed privatisation of the Welsh Development Agency's west Wales region; if he will publish the consultants' names; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  There have been no such discussions.

  Forestry
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what action he is taking to control the spread of rhododendron in Forestry Commission and private woodland in Wales.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The Forestry Commission controls rhododendron on its own land, where it is significantly affecting tree growth, by cutting and by application of herbicides. Owners of private woodlands are given advice on methods of controlling rhododendron, and the Commission is carrying out research into alternative methods of control, including methods of limiting regrowth after cutting.

  Child Care Facilities
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures he is taking to encourage the provision of child care facilities in the workplace in Wales;270
  what information he has on how many firms and Government offices currently provide these facilities in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  New Government initiatives on child care provision were announced on 11 April by my hon. Friend, the Minister of State for Home Affairs, including measures to encourage employers to provide child care facilities using the tax reliefs available to them. No information is available on the provision of child care facilities by employers in Wales.

  Water Privatisation
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he proposes a promotional campaign to sell Welsh water authority shares abroad; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I am considering how best to sell Welsh water authority shares so that privatisation will give the people of Wales the best possible opportunity to own Welsh Water.

  Cervical Smears
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the average time taken by each Welsh health authority to process cervical smear tests and provide the results for the patient and her general practitioner; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  Information for 1988–89 is currently being collected by the Department from Welsh health authorities. I shall write to my hon. Friend once the results have been collated.

  BSE—Infected Cattle
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathyinfected cattle, at non-European Economic Community-approved slaughterhouses in Wales, have been identified.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Four cases have been reported of which two proved positive and one negative; on the other one the result of testing is still awaited.

  Voluntary Organisations
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the total available funding for 1989–90 for supporting voluntary organisations in Wales in the social services field under section 64 of the Health Service and Public Health Act 1968; and what was the corresponding figure in each of the previous three years.

  Mr. Grist
  The information is as follows:

  Year

  £

  1986–87

  1,126,202

  1987–88

  1,145,680

  1988–89

  1,133,998

  1989–90

  1,696,653

  Funds for voluntary organisations in the social services field are also available under section 26 of the Development of Rural Wales Act 1976. The figures are as follows:
  271

  Year

  £

  1986–87

  594,616

  1987–88

  725,049

  1988–89

  811,527

  1989–90

  965,245

ENVIRONMENT

  Lawn Tennis Federation Cup
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will provide support to Nottingham for the running of the 1991 Lawn Tennis Federation cup.

  Mr. Moynihan
  All Government funds in direct support of sport are channelled through the Sports Council. Any requests for support for the running costs of the Federation cup should be addressed to the council.

  Waste Disposal
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list in the Official Report the county councils which have made representations to him arising from his consultation paper regarding the role and functions of waste disposal authorities; and what views were expressed.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Representations have been received from the following county councils:

  County of Avon

  Bedfordshire County Council

  Royal County of Berkshire

  Buckinghamshire County Council

  Cambridgeshire County Council

  Cheshire County Council

  Cleveland County Council

  Cumbria County Council

  Derbyshire County Council

  Durham County Council

  East Sussex County Council

  Essex County Council

  Gloucestershire County Council

  Hampshire County Council

  Hereford and Worcester County Council

  Hertfordshire County Council

  Isle of Wight County Council

  Kent County Council

  Lancashire County Council

  Lincolnshire County Council

  Norfolk County Council

  Northamptonshire County Council

  Northumberland County Council

  North Yorkshire County Council

  Nottinghamshire County Council

  Oxfordshire County Council

  Shropshire County Council

  Somerset County Council

  Staffordshire County Council

  Suffolk County Council

  Surrey County Council

  West Sussex County Council

  Warwickshire County Council

  Wiltshire County Council

  The authorities expressed a range of views on the various issues raised in the consultation paper. These, and very many other responses, are being carefully considered.

  Paper
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his policy on the use of non-recycled stationery, packaging and printed reports within his Department.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Department's policy is progressively to increase the use of recycled stationery.

  Smoking
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether his Department has evaluated the effect of smoking on environmental pollution; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  No formal evaluation of the effects of smoking on environmental pollution has been undertaken, but preliminary estimates suggest that overall it has very little impact. It is, however, recognised that smoking can contribute to pollution of the indoor environment, and the Government encourage the implementation of voluntary no-smoking policies. In addition, where banning smoking is appropriate for particular safety or hygiene reasons, the Government have not hesitated to take action.

  Aquatic Environment
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to reduce the inputs of red list substances to the aquatic environment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave on 10 April to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page) at column 405.

  Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made towards establishing the Queen Elizabeth II conference centre as an executive agency; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  I am pleased to announce that the Queen Elizabeth II conference centre will today become an executive agency of the Property Services Agency.

  The centre provides secure conference facilities for national and international Government meetings up to the highest level. It also markets its facilities commercially, competing for business on quality and price with a wide range of public and private undertakings, both at home and overseas. The centre has already achieved a great deal since it opened in 1986. Establishing it as an agency will give it additional management tools to develop its business further on increasingly commercial lines, and the scope to compete even more effectively in a highly competitive national and international market.

  The centre will be expected to reduce progressively its net cost to the Exchequer. To this end I have set progressively more demanding targets against which its future progress and performance will be assessed. Peat Marwick McLintock management consultants have been commissioned to undertake a full review of the centre's performance since it opened, and to consider the

  273
  possibilities for further improvements in the future. They have been asked to advise on specific targets and performance indicators. Their recommendations will influence the Government's decisions on financial and other targets for incorporation in the corporate plan and business planning process. Meanwhile I have instructed the centre chief executive to seek to increase controllable revenue and decrease expenditure each by 2½ per cent. per annum compared with the centre's previous forecast so as to produce a surplus before interest, depreciation and rates of £50,000 in 1989–90, £200,000 in 1990–91 and £320,000 in 1991–92.

  Mr. Roy Kendrick, who has been responsible as general manager for the successful development of the centre's business since its opening, has been appointed chief executive of the new agency. I wish him and his staff every success in their continuing endeavours.

  Copies of the framework document are being placed in the Library of the House.

  London Docklands Development Corporation
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what conditions he places on newly appointed members of the London Docklands development corporation in respect of the participation of firms with which they are associated in developments in the area of the corporation.

  Mr. Trippier
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that I gave on 22 February to the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) at column 704.

  Acer Pseudoplatanus
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he classifies Acer Pseudoplatanus as an indigenous species for the purposes of his Department's policies.
  274
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Acer Pseudoplatanus is regarded as a species that is naturalised but is not indigenous.

  Refrigerators (Disposal)
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is aware of any examples of good practice by local authorities in the United Kingdom, concerning the safe disposal of refrigerators and freezers so as to minimize the release of chlorofluorocarbons into the atmosphere during their disposal.

  Mr. Atkins
  I have been asked to reply.

  Several local authorities have set up schemes for the collection of discarded refrigerators and freezers with a view to recovering, recycling or disposing of the CFCs they contain. Officials in the Department of the Environment are considering whether advice to local authorities in this area would be appropriate.

  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many representations he has received concerning the introduction of safe disposal sites for refrigerators and freezers.

  Mr. Atkins
  I have been asked to reply.

  I have received representations from companies and members of the public about the risk of CFCs escaping from discarded refrigerators and freezers. There are however technical and logistical difficulties in recovering and recycling CFCs from domestic refrigerator coolant systems, and from the accompanying foam insulation. Together these account for only around 3 per cent. of total CFCs in use in the United Kingdom.

EMPLOYMENT

  Employment Training
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how much has been paid to(a) employment training agents and (b) employment training managers under the underpinning arrangements since the inception of the scheme to the latest available date; and if he will make a statement about his future policy on underpinning arrangements.

  Mr. Nicholls
  So far some £0·67 million has been paid to training agents and £19·38 million to training managers under underpinning arrangements up to and including May 1989.

  Underpinning was based on original profiles of training agent action plans/training manager starts, constructed prior to the commencement of employment training. From September 1989 training agents/training managers will be able to make a much more accurate judgment of likely throughput in the light of experience on the programme to date. It is therefore envisaged that underpinning payments will no longer be required.

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how much his Department has paid out to employment training trainees in the form of training bonus since the start of the scheme to the latest possible date; and how much of that has been paid because either(a) the trainee obtained a vocational qualification and (b) the trainee completed a part of the action plan.

  Mr. Nicholls
  To the end of May 1989 the Training Agency had paid out £105,000 in training bonuses.

  It is not possible to identify separately the proportion of funds paid in respect of (a) vocational qualifications obtained and (b) action plans completed.

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the average payment of benefit plus the additional £10 per trainee on employment training at the latest available date; how many employment training trainees are on placement with employers; how many employment training trainees had left the programme earlier than planned; how many employment training trainees had left to take up jobs; and how many employment training trainees had become unemployed when they left.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The average weekly training allowance including the training premium is estimated to be around £50 per trainee on employment training.

  The number of employment training trainees on placements with employers was estimated to be 45,000 on 16 June, the latest date for which information is available. Reliable information broken down as requested about trainees who have left the programme is not available.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the total number of employment training places available for each training agency area; and what were the number of places filled for each training agency area on the latest date for which information is available.

  Mr. Nicholls
  There is no information at present about the number of available places at Training Agency area 276
  office level. The information will be available later in the year. The information requested for filled places is given in the table:

  Employment training: filled places at 23 June 1989

  Area office

  Number

  Yorkshire and Humberside Region

  Bradford, Calderdale and Kirklees

  4,541

  Humberside

  5,170

  North Yorkshire and Leeds

  4,393

  Sheffield and Rotherham

  5,464

  Wakefield, Doncaster and Barnsley

  5,436

  North West Region

  Cheshire

  3,040

  Cumbria

  1,399

  Lancashire

  4,203

  Central Manchester

  4,133

  Greater Manchester North

  2,710

  Greater Manchester East

  2,536

  Merseyside

  9,047

  Northern Region

  Cleveland

  6,283

  County Durham

  5,439

  Northumberland, North Tyneside and Newcastle

  4,650

  Sunderland, South Tyneside and Gateshead

  6,394

  Wales

  Dyfed and West Glamorgan

  4,376

  Gwent

  2,253

  Gwynned, Clwyd and Powys

  3,200

  Mid and South Glamorgan

  4,891

  Scotland

  Ayrshire, Dumfries and Galloway

  3,113

  Central and Fife

  2,862

  Glasgow City

  4,731

  Grampian and Tayside

  2,607

  Highlands and Islands

  1,010

  Lanarkshire

  2,567

  Lothian and Borders

  3,437

  Renfrew, Dumbarton and Argyll

  2,769

  South East Region

  Berkshire and Oxfordshire

  1,250

  Buckinghamshire and Hertfordshire

  1,708

  Essex

  1,741

  Hampshire and Isle of Wight

  2,134

  Kent

  2,022

  Surrey

  475

  Sussex

  1,868

  London Region

  Inner London North

  5,920

  Inner London South

  3,356

  London East

  2,286

  London North

  3,680

  London South

  1,693

  London West

  1,219

  South West Region

  Avon

  2,646

  Devon and Cornwall

  5,642

  Dorset and Somerset

  1,868

  Gloucester and Wiltshire

  1,640

  West Midlands Region

  Birmingham and Solihull

  7,592

  Coventry and Warwickshire

  2,661

  Dudley and Sandwell

  2,939

  Staffordshire

  3,668

  The Marches, Hereford/Worcester

  2,690

  Wolverhampton and Walsall

  3,171

  East Midlands and Eastern Region

  Bedfordshire and Cambridgeshire

  1,684

  Derbyshire

  2,938

  Leicestershire and Northamptonshire

  2,832

  277

  Area office

  Number

  Lincolnshire

  1,375

  Norfolk and Suffolk

  3,223

  Nottinghamshire

  3,393

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish in the Official Report the level of expenditure so far spent on ET (a) in total, (b) advertising which mentions companies participating in ET through the large contractors unit and (c) (b) as a percentage of (a).

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 22 June 1989]: Total expenditure on (a) employment training (ET) in the seven months to March 1989 was £423·6 million.

  Expenditure on (b) poster, press and television advertising which mentions companies participating in ET was £3·1 million in the same period. (b) is 0·7 per cent. of (a).

  Three of the six companies mentioned in the television advertising are involved in ET at area office level and not through the LCU.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give the most recent details of(a) the number of filled places on the 23 large company ET schemes listed in the Official Report, 27 February, column 34, (b) any changes to the maximum number of places allocated for each of those schemes and (c) which of those schemes have since withdrawn from ET.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 4 July 1989]: The table updates to 26 May 1989 the details of the 23 large company ET schemes listed in the Official Report, 27 February, column 34.

  The maximum number of places allocated column shows, in brackets, the changes to the figures listed in the Official Report.

  None of the schemes listed has withdrawn from employment training.

  Company

  Maximum Number of places Allocated

  Places filled at 26 May 1989

  J. Jarvis and Sons

  2,496

  (-430)

  924

  J. Laing Construction

  2,178

  (-160)

  1,032

  Henry Boot Construction

  569

  (-381)

  185

  Invicta Training (Grand Metropolitan Catering)

  715

  (-160)

  316

  Martin James

  640

  (- 95)

  482

  Geo. Wimpey

  547

  (-119)

  202

  Mowlem

  405

  138

  Comet PLC

  374

  42

  Pilkington

  270

  (- 30)

  226

  Ferranti

  215

  (- 35)

  115

  Mill Garages Ltd.

  170

  (- 10)

  118

  Tower Radio Ltd.

  250

  108

  Portals Engineering Ltd.

  250

  219

  Marley Extrusions Ltd.

  200

  Ryder Ltd.

  150

  148

  Team Greyfriars Ltd.

  200

  175

  John Lawrence Group

  150

  32

  ICI

  100

  (- 50)

  74

  Sumlock Business Services

  90

  (- 60)

  24

  R and D Associates

  125

  (- 33)

  144

  Simon Engineering

  110

  66

  Coastline Ltd.

  70

  (- 30)

  67

  Strategic Marketing

  100

  66

  International Ltd.

  100

  66

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many employment training training 278
  managers there are (a) nationally and (b) by Training Agency area; and how many are receiving subsidies above the basic grant per trainee.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 26 June 1989]: There are currently 1,251 employment training (ET) training managers. The number of training managers in each Training Agency area is given in the table. Training managers do not receive subsidies but are paid grants to provide training.

  Numbers

  Scotland

  Ayrshire, Dumfries and Galloway

  34

  Central and Fife

  34

  Glasgow City

  40

  Grampian and Tayside

  23

  Highlands and Islands

  14

  Lanarkshire

  28

  Lothian and Borders

  27

  Renfrew, Dumbarton and Argyll

  33

  Northern

  Cleveland

  38

  County Durham

  30

  Newcastle

  37

  South Tyne

  43

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  Bradford, Kirklees and Calderdale

  17

  Humberside

  34

  Leeds and North Yorkshire

  36

  Sheffield and Rotherham

  23

  Wakefield, Barnsley and Doncaster

  21

  North West

  Cheshire

  27

  Cumbria

  8

  Greater Manchester Central

  30

  Greater Manchester East

  11

  Greater Manchester North

  24

  Lancashire

  26

  Merseyside

  31

  West Midlands

  Birmingham and Solihull

  29

  Coventry and Warwickshire

  10

  Dudley and Sandwell

  18

  Staffordshire

  20

  The Marches

  12

  Wolverhampton and Walsall

  13

  East Midlands and Eastern

  Bedfordshire and Cambridgeshire

  12

  Derbyshire

  21

  Leicestershire and Northamptonshire

  27

  Lincolnshire

  8

  Norfolk and Suffolk

  18

  Nottinghamshire

  20

  Wales

  Cardiff

  38

  Gwent

  21

  Swansea

  43

  Wrexham

  29

  South West

  Avon

  20

  Devon and Cornwall

  20

  Gloucester and Wiltshire

  14

  Somerset and Dorset

  15

  South East

  Chatham

  9

  Chelmsford

  15

  Fareham

  11

  High Wycombe

  12

  Reading

  11

  279

  Numbers

  Sussex

  12

  Woking

  6

  London

  Inner London North

  27

  Inner London South

  25

  London East

  13

  London North

  12

  London South

  11

  London West

  10

  Total

  1,251

  Training (Redundancy Payments)
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how much money has been reimbursed to(a) community programme agents and sponsors, (b) employment training training managers and (c) employment training training agents for redundancy payments during the period from 1 September 1988, up to the most recently available date.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Information is not available in the precise form requested. The amounts of money reimbursed for redundancy payments from 1 September 1988 up to and including May 1989, are as follows:

  (a) Community programme agents and sponsors—£1·;961 million.

  (b) Employment training (ET) training.

  and

  (c) Managers and training agents—£0·138 million.

  Disablement Resettlement Officers
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether disablement resettlement officers are encouraged to make direct referrals, where appropriate, of disabled people to Finchdale, Portland, Queen Elizabeth's and St. Loyes' residential training colleges.

  Mr. Lee
  Disablement resettlement officers consider the individual training needs of their clients. Where these needs can be most appropriately met by one of the four residential training colleges, they are able to make a direct referral to the relevant college.

  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the overall budget of the Disablement Advisory Service; what proportion of the budget is devoted to promoting the service; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  [holding answer 6 June 1989]: Information about the overall cost of the Disablement Advisory Service (DAS) is not available. In 1988–89, approximately £341,000 was spent on leaflets, videos, advertisements, exhibitions etc. promoting services and schemes, including the DAS, to encourage and assist the employment of people with disabilities. In addition, DAS staff make direct approaches to employers to promote its objectives, services etc.

  Tourism
  Mr. Bevan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, if he has concluded his review of tourism policy; and if he will make a statement.
  280
  Mr. Fowler
  I announced last July that I was reviewing those aspects of tourism policy for which I am responsible—the promotion of Britain overseas, and the promotion and development of tourism in England.

  I have concluded that the present organisation needs to be simplified and that the industry should be more directly engaged. Government financial support for the promotion of tourism should continue, but this needs to be more sharply focused.

  Within the framework of the 1969 Development of Tourism Act, I intend to work closely with the chairman and members of the British Tourist Authority (BTA) and the English tourist board (ETB), and with the chairmen of the regional tourist boards in England to make changes along these lines, to improve cost-effectiveness and to extend partnerships with the industry. Accordingly, I am asking the BTA to ensure that greater authority is devolved to its overseas regions. I shall expect the BTA to work even more closely with industry in overseas markets, and to move some of its operations into the private sector. The present head office structure should, as a consequence of these various changes, be slimmed down.

  I will also expect the ETB to devolve many of its activities and direct substantially more of its funding to the regional tourist boards under a form of contract, targeting that support especially to regions where the private sector most needs such support. This would enable the RTB's to increase their marketing activities and their direct involvement in encouraging the development of tourism locally. I would expect the regional boards to use such funds as a lever to achieve further private sector participation. I shall also expect the ETB to move into the private sector activities for which that is appropriate. The ETB will continue to play an important co-ordinating role but, as a consequence of these changes, I shall clearly expect a reduction in the scale of its activity at the centre.

  On 30 January, I announced the suspension of the section 4 scheme of financial assistance for tourism projects in England, pending the outcome of my review more generally. In the second half of 1988 investment completed or underway on major tourism projects in England were some £2·5 billion. Accordingly I believe that the future prosperity and growth of tourism no longer depends on this scheme. No new offers of financial assistance will therefore be made under the scheme in England. Fees for applications held over since the suspension will be returned, and all offers of assistance already made will be honoured, subject to the conditions of offer being met.

  Tourism is now worth some £19 billion annually to the United Kingdom economy and the Government remain committed to this important industry.

  Remploy
  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish the reports to the Remploy board of directors which recommended the closure of the Rutherglen factory and the transfer of the work force to the Clydebank factory.

  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.
  281
  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information he has on the number of disabled employees made redundant by Remploy in the last 10 years.

  Mr. Lee
  [holding answer 29 June 1989]: I am informed by Remploy that no disabled employees have been made redundant by the company in the last 10 years.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Domestic Violence
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department with whom he has had discussions regarding the Home Office publication on domestic violence; and what conclusions have been reached.

  Mr. John Patten
  Home Office research study No. 107 "Domestic Violence: An overview of the literature" will be discussed at the next meeting of the ministerial group on women's issues. This will take place on 20 July.

  Broadcasting
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration he has given to representations about basing Channel 5 in Liverpool; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  We see considerable merit in Channel 5 being based outside London.

  Commission for Racial Equality
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will consider the appointment of a member of the black and minority ethnic communities as chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality when the position becomes due for reappointment;

  (2) if he will publish a breakdown of commissioners in the Commission for Racial Equality in terms of ethnic group;

  (3) if he will publish a breakdown of staff in the Commission for Racial Equality in terms of grades and ethnic group;

  (4) what is the period of the appointment of the chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality; and when it comes up for renewal;

  (5) what is the present remuneration of the chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality;

  (6) what representations he has received from commissioners of the Commission for Racial Equality or others regarding the number of people from black and minority ethnic groups in senior positions; and if he will make a statement;

  (7) what steps he is taking to increase the representation of black and minority ethnic communities in the Commission for Racial Equality at senior grades;

  (8) when he expects next to meet the chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality; and what will they discuss;

  (9) whether he will place in the Library a copy of the Commission for Racial Equality equal opportunities statement and policy.

  Mr. John Patten
  The chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality is appointed for five years. The 282
  appointment of the present chairman, whose current remuneration is £45,315 per annum, expires on 31 January 1993. When the time comes, candidates from the ethnic minority communities will undoubtedly be among those considered for this important post.

  The current ethnic distribution of the commission and its staff is as follows:

  Afro-Caribbean or African

  Asian

  Other

  White

  As at 30 June 1989

  Commissioner

  3

  6·0

  —

  5·0

  Chief executive

  —

  —

  —

  1·0

  Director

  —

  1·0

  —

  3·0

  Principal

  1

  5·0

  —

  9·0

  SEO

  8

  4·0

  —

  23·5

  HEO

  24

  13·0

  5

  16·0

  EO

  9

  6·5

  1

  7·0

  Graphic designer

  —

  —

  —

  1·0

  AO

  16

  7·0

  —

  4·0

  AA

  6

  —

  —

  2·0

  Typing manager

  1

  —

  —

  —

  SPS

  2

  —

  —

  —

  PS

  7

  2·0

  1

  2·0

  Typist

  10

  0·5

  —

  5·0

  Messenger

  1

  —

  —

  2·0

  Responsibility for the staffing of the commission lies not with the Secretary of State but with the commission itself. I am placing a copy of its equal opportunities statement in the Library. The commission is, I know, keen to improve representation of the black and other ethnic minority communities at senior grades. My right hon. Friend has received three letters about the staffing of the CRE. While, like the commission itself, we hope to see more black and other ethnic minority appointments, we do not judge the effectiveness of the commission's work for racial equality simply in terms of the ethnic composition of its staff.

  My right hon. Friend expects to meet the chairman shortly to discuss current issues of mutual concern. I will be meeting the chairman and other commissioners at a commission on 25 July.

  Data Protection Act
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief constable of Sussex police as to the action he has taken to delete material collected on computer relating to the 1988 Conservative party conference in accordance with the Data Protection Act; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  No. This is an operational matter for the chief constable of Sussex police.

  Unleaded Petrol
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the level of combustion of(a) unleaded petrol and (b) leaded petrol; what are the implications for the control of petrol fires; what are the implications of the increasing use of unleaded petrol for the type of equipment and appliances required by the fire service; and whether these are being made available.

  Mr. John Patten
  I am advised that the combustion characteristics of both are identical. Users of unleaded
  283
  petrol are therefore at no greater risk from fire. I am satisfied that fire brigades are adequately equipped to deal with petrol fires.

  Police Communications
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration he has given to the improvement of police communications by employing the use of a space satellite; if he has explored the possibility of co-operation with his counterparts in other member countries of the European Community; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  As part of its programme of work aimed at improving police communications, the Department keeps under active review the costs and benefits of using satellites, either on a United Kingdom or a European basis. Our present view is that such a development is not yet either a practical or an economic proposition, but a further review of the use of this technology for police communications is about to be undertaken.

  Immigration
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the number of immigration appeals currently waiting to be heard in Scotland.

  The Attorney-General
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) on 4 July at column 113.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many European Economic Community nationals have settled in the United Kingdom since 1973.

  Mr. Renton
  European Community nationals wishing to reside in the United Kingdom benefit from certain provisions of Community law. They may apply for settlement after a period of temporary residence in the United Kingdom. Over the period 1973–88, a total of 41,000 European Community nationals (excluding citizens of the Republic of Ireland) were accepted for settlement in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if any central record is maintained of the numbers of European Economic Community nationals or nationals of overseas territories of European Economic Community states who come to the United Kingdom and do not depart; and if he has any information of the numbers involved.

  Mr. Renton
  No detailed central record is kept of EC nationals entering or leaving the United Kingdom. However, sample information from the international passenger survey suggests that about 7 million EC nationals entered the United Kingdom in 1988, and of these about 30,000 intended to stay for a year or more.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if any restrictions are placed on persons admitted for settlement to European Economic Community nations and then awarded citizenship who enter, and remain to work, in the United Kingdom.
  284
  Mr. Renton
  All EC nations (except, for a transitional period, Spanish and Portuguese nationals) have the right under Community law to work or seek work in other member states. No distinction is made in Community law between persons born with EC nationality and those who acquire it later.

  Broadcasting
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to give powers to the Independent Broadcasting Authority to be able to prevent the involvement in television companies which it regulates, of individuals found to be unfit to hold a television broadcasting licence in other countries.

  Mr. Renton
  The IBA is not bound by regulatory decisions in other jurisdictions in carrying out its functions under the Broadcasting Act 1981. We are considering what enforcement powers will be needed by the Independent Television Commission, which we have proposed should take over from the IBA.

  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he next expects to meet representatives of the broadcasting authorities; and what subjects he expects to discuss.

  Mr. Renton
  I meet representatives from the broadcasting authorities regularly in order to discuss a wide variety of topics in which they have an interest.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Late Sittings
  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how many times to date the House of Commons has sat beyond midnight during the current parliamentary session; and what are the comparable figures for each parliamentary year from 1979 to date.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Tuesday 4 July was the 135th sitting day of this Session, and up to and including that date, the House had sat beyond midnight 48 times. The figures for the same point in previous Sessions since 1979 are as follows:

  Number

  1979–80

  49

  1980–81

  54

  1981–82

  42

  1982–83

  133

  1983–84

  46

  1984–85

  60

  1985–86

  57

  1986–87

  237

  1987–88

  57

  1Short Session: 115 sitting days.

  2Short Session: 109 sitting days.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Disabled Persons
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will amend section 4 of the Building (Prescribed Fees) (Amendment) Regulations (NI.) 1983 to
  285
  provide that all building works designed to secure the greater health, safety, welfare or convenience of disabled persons, within their own homes, and in public places and buildings, continue to receive exemption from payment of plan fees and inspection fees; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  It is not necessary to amend building regulations to provide exemption from fees for building work carried out to dwellings, or buildings to which the public are admitted, solely for the benefit of disabled people. Regulation 6A of the Building (Prescribed Fees) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1982 (SR 1982 No. 392) already provides that exemption.

  Building Regulations
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what are the total numbers of(a) plan fees and (b) inspection fees that were paid to each district council in Northern Ireland under the Building (Prescribed Fees) Regulations (NI) 1982 in each year since 1 January 1983, in respect of (i) buildings to which members of the public are admitted, whether on payment or otherwise, (ii) public dwellings, (iii) private dwellings and (iv) other buildings;

  (2) what are the total numbers of applications for exemption of payment of (a) plan fees and (b) inspection fees, refused for each district council area in Northern Ireland under the Building (Prescribed Fees) (Amendment) Regulations (NI) 1983 in each year since 1 January 1984, in respect of (i) buildings to which members of the public are admitted, whether on payment or otherwise, (ii) public authority dwellings, (iii) private dwellings and (iv) other buildings;

  (3) what are the total numbers of exemptions from payment of (a) plan fees and (b) inspection fees, granted for each district council area in Northern Ireland under the Building (Prescribed Fees) Regulations (NI) 1983 in each year since 1 January 1984, in respect of (i) buildings to

  Fatalities

  Major injuries

  Minor injuries

  Total

  September 1982-December 1982

  —

  4

  33

  37

  January 1983-December 1983

  —

  16

  73

  89

  January 1984-December 1984

  —

  11

  81

  92

  January 1985-December 1985

  —

  17

  118

  135

  January 1986-December 1986

  —

  31

  207

  238

  Janaury 1987-December 1987

  —

  42

  199

  241

  January 1988-December 1988

  1

  30

  162

  193

  January 1989-December 1989

  —

  13

  71

  84

  Total

  1

  164

  944

  1,109

  Benefit (Young People)
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many young people have been refused benefit after making an application under the severe hardship rule.

  Mr. Needham
  Twelve during the period 12 September 1988 to 30 June 1989.
  286
  which members of the public are admitted, whether on payment or otherwise, (ii) public authority dwellings, (iii) private dwellings and (iv) other buildings;

  (4) what are the total values of (a) plan fees and (b) inspection fees that were paid to each district council in Northern Ireland under the Building (Prescribed Fees) Regulations (NI) 1982 in each year since 1 January 1983, in respect of (i) buildings to which members of the public are admitted, whether on payment or otherwise, (ii) public authority dwellings, (iii) private dwellings and (iv) other buildings;

  (5) what are the total values of applications for exemption of payment of (a) plan fees and (b) inspection fees refused for each district council area in Northern Ireland under the Building (Prescribed Fees) (Amendment) Regulations (NI) 1983 in each year since 1 January 1984 in respect of (i) buildings to which members of the public are admitted, whether on payment or otherwise, (ii) public authority dwellings, (iii) private dwellings and (iv) other buildings;

  (6) what are the total values of exemptions from payment of (a) plan fees and (b) inspection fees granted under the Building (Prescribed Fees) (Amendment) Regulations (NI) 1983 in each year since 1 January 1984 in respect of (i) buildings to which members of the public are admitted, whether on payment or otherwise, (ii) public authority dwellings, (iii) private dwellings and (iv) other buildings.

  Mr. Needham
  Information in the form requested is not readily available and could be compiled only at disproportionate cost.

  Youth Training Programme
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many fatalities, major injuries and minor injuries occurred to those in YTP schemes since the programme's inception to the latest date(a) for each year and (b) the total.

  Mr. Viggers
  The figures are as follows:

  Graduates
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will give the total number of graduates in employment as a percentage of all in employment for each of the years 1984, 1985, 1986 and 1987.

  Mr. Viggers
  Estimates from labour force surveys in Northern Ireland are as shown in the table:
  287

  Graduates of working age1 in employment as a percentage of all in employment (at spring of each year)

  Percentage

  1984

  5·1

  1985

  5·4

  1986

  6·0

  1987

  5·8

  1 Men aged 16–64, women aged 16–59. Graduates can only be identified for these age groups.

  Coats Viyella
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what financial assistance has been received by the Coats Viyella plant in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Viggers
  [holding answer 26 June 1989]: Coats Viyella has 10 manufacturing plants within the textiles and clothing sector in Northern Ireland employing 3,600 people. In the 1988–89 financial year financial assistance totalling £5,556,670 was paid to the CV group.

  Shipbuilding (Redundancies)
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the total number of redundancies in the shipbuilding and ship repair industries in Northern Ireland during the period 1 January 1979 to 31 December 1988.

  Mr. Viggers
  [holding answer 30 June 1989]: The total number of redundancies during this period at Harland and Wolff was some 6,000.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Fun Eating at School Today Campaign
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the local education authorities currently participating in the Fun Eating at School Today campaign.

  Mr. Butcher
  The information requested is as follows:

  England and Wales

  Avon

  Bedfordshire

  Berkshire

  Birmingham

  Bolton

  Bradford

  Bury

  Calderdale

  Cambridge

  Cheshire

  Clwyd

  Cornwall

  Coventry

  Croydon

  Cumbria

  Devon

  Doncaster

  Dudley

  Enfield

  Essex

  Gateshead

  Gloucester

  Haringey

  Hillingdon

  Hounslow

  ILEA

  Isle of Wight

  288

  Kirklees

  Knowsley

  Leicestershire

  Lincoln

  Newham

  Northamptonshire

  Northumberland

  North Yorkshire

  Nottingham

  Redbridge

  Richmond

  Rochdale

  Sandwell

  Sheffield

  Solihull

  Somerset

  South Tyneside

  St. Helens

  Staffordshire

  Suffolk

  Surrey

  Sutton

  Tameside

  Wakefield

  Waltham Forest

  Warwickshire

  Wigan

  Wiltshire

  Wolverhampton

  Scotland

  Borders

  Central

  Dumfries Fife

  Glamorgan

  Highland

  Lothian

  Orkney

  Shetland

  Strathclyde

  Tayside

  Western Isles

  Northern Ireland

  Armagh

  Belfast

  County Antrim

  South East Board

  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the progress of the Fun Eating at School Today campaign.

  Mr. Butcher
  Since joining the FEAST campaign this year, the participating local authorities have noted an increase in pupil take-up of school meals, in contrast to the decline of recent years. This is encouraging evidence that pupils can be attracted by a quality service.

  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has to review the success of the Fun Eating at School Today campaign.

  Mr. Butcher
  This is for the organisers to do. My right hon. Friend will, however, watch with interest the results of this excellent initiative, which is promoting healthy eating habits among school children.

  Consumer Education
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what would be the effect of EEC Commission proposals for the promotion of innovation and for consumer education in United Kingdom secondary education.
  289
  Mr. Jackson
  Responsibility for secondary education rests with member states, and not with the European Community. The Commission's proposals for the promotion of innovation in secondary education have yet to be considered in detail by member states, although in general they correspond with the thrust of current domestic policies in secondary education. The Commission's recent report on consumer education in secondary education does not conflict with the Government's current education or consumer policies.

  City Technology Colleges
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what criteria he would use to evaluate a proposal to turn into a city technology college a school which has already been refused grant-maintained status; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Butcher
  My right hon. Friend has not received, and has no grounds for expecting to receive, any such proposal. Any proposal for the establishment of a city technology college in a particular set of premises would be considered on its merits.

  South Park School, Lincoln
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has received any proposals to turn South Park school, Lincoln, into a city technology college; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Butcher
  My right hon. Friend has received no such proposals.

  School Governors
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many governors have been removed from governing bodies prior to the expected end of their term of office(a) during the current year and (b) before the current year.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The information requested is not available.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many local education authority appointed governors there are in each of the local education authorities in England and Wales.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Department of Education and Science does not collect details of the precise number of local education authority appointed governors within each authority. I will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has received any representations about the removal of local education authority appointed governors from school governing bodies.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend has received various representations on this matter. Local education authorities have the statutory power to remove from office governors whom they appoint. They must, however, exercise that power reasonably and we would consider carefully any complaint that they had failed to do so in a particular instance.

  Schools (Costs)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish a table similar to table 12.7 of Cm. 612 recalculated to 1980–81 as the base year, showing the increase in the average unit costs of primary and secondary schools; and if he will provide a breakdown of the increase in real unit costs 1980–81 to 1987–88 shown by that table in a way similar to the 1979–80 to 1987–88 analysis recently provided by his Department to the Education, Science and Arts Committee.

  Mr. Butcher
  The real-terms increase in the average net institutional expenditure per pupil in maintained primary and secondary schools in England between 1980–81 and 1987–88 is as follows:

  Increase in real terms1 unit costs

  Per cent.

  1980–81

  100

  1981–82

  104

  1982–83

  106

  1983–84

  109

  1984–85

  110

  1985–86

  112

  1986–87

  121

  1987–88

  129

  1 Cash prices for 1980–81 have been repriced to 1987–88 prices using the GDP deflator.

  The real terms increase of 29 per cent, between 1980–81 and 1987–88 may be analysed as follows:

  Per cent.

  Increase due to:

  Volume

  reduced pupil:teacher ratio

  11

  improved provision for non-teaching costs such as books and equipment and repairs and maintenance

  6

  Total volume

  17

  Price

  teachers' pay

  11

  non-teaching pay and prices

  1

  Total prices

  12

  TOTAL

  29

  Higher Education (Funding)
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what has been the outcome of his consultations on shifting the balance of public funding of higher education to fees; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The proposals in the consultation paper "Shifting the Balance of Public Funding of Higher Education to Fees" have been widely welcomed. In the light of this positive response, the Government have decided to increase the full-time undergraduate tuition fee met through mandatory awards from its 1989–90 level of £607 to £1,675 in 1990–91. I am writing as follows today to the chairmen of the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council and Universities Funding Council."The Government's consultation paper "Shifting the Balance of Public Funding of Higher Education to Fees" was published on 25 April. The Department has received over 150 responses, including that from the Council for which I am grateful.

  291
  The overwhelming majority of the responses supported the proposed increase in the publicly funded fee. In the light of this reaction, I have announced today the Government's intention to proceed with the shift. The flat-rate fee for full-time undergraduate students met under the mandatory awards arrangements will be set at £1,675 for the academic year 1990–91. Officials are writing separately to the Council's Chief Executive about the corresponding deduction which will need to be made from the Council's grant and some other technical issues.
  A key issue raised by the proposals is the financing of part-time courses and full-time courses not designated under the awards regulations. The Government fully recognises the importance of the continuing availability of these courses in increasing and diversifying higher education opportunities.
  As the consultation paper makes clear, the shift of funds from central grant to fees will be in respect of students on designated courses with awards. We intend to maintain the level of funds made available to the Funding Councils for the support of part-time and full-time non-designated courses. I look to the Council in turn to discharge its funding responsibility so as to ensure that support for places on these courses is at least maintained, and I welcome the PCFC's recent decision to provide some enhancement of the resources available for funding part-time places in 1990–91. It is important that the Council's funding methods are such that there need be no increase in fees for these courses in line with the planned increase in the publicly funded full-time fee, though it will remain the case that the level at which fees are set is a matter for individual institutions.
  I should like also to respond to the concern that has been expressed in the responses about the position of full-time self-financing students who are on designated courses but are not themselves eligible for a mandatory award, usually by virtue of previous study. For students who are already enrolled (ie who started their courses in the academic year 1989–90 or before) there will, as with those on non-designated courses, be no shift of funds as a result of the switch. Therefore there will be no financial pressure on the system to charge such students more in real terms than they are paying at present. It ought to be possible for the Council and institutions together to translate this policy into detailed practice, so affording the protection envisaged for this group of students in the consultation paper.
  For new self-financing students on designated courses, it will continue to be for institutions to set the fee charged. That is something they will do in the light of local circumstances, including the interests of the students concerned. It would be quite contrary to the general thrust of the Government's policies to seek to impose a standard line on institutions.
  In view of the widespread interest generated by the consultation paper, I am releasing the text of this letter to the Press."

  The deadline for comments on the consultation paper's second proposal to introduce differentiated fees in 1991–92 expires at the end of July. I will inform the House of the Government's conclusions on that consultation in due course.

ENERGY

  Electricity Generation
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his estimate of the volume of coal consumption for the purpose of electricity generation in 1989; and what was the national consumption in 1988.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The Government do not publish estimates of coal consumption. In the four months January to April 1989, coal consumption by United 292
  Kingdom public supply power stations was 29·4 million tonnes. Consumption on the same basis for the whole of 1988 was 82·5 million tonnes.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Mortgage Repossessions (Leeds)
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Attorney-General how many court actions relating to mortgage repossessions occurred in the Leeds county court in each year since 1982.

  The Attorney-General
  The number of mortgage actions for possession issued in Leeds county court were:

  Number

  1982

  803

  1983

  508

  1984

  558

  1985

  800

  1986

  773

  1987

  492

  1988

  807

  Sir Terence Conran
  Mr. Stanbrook
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will seek to institute committal proceedings against Sir Terence Conran, chairman of the Storehouse group of companies, to restrain him from his named intention to break the law by authorising the opening of the group's shops on Sundays in defiance of the terms of the Shops Act 1950.

  The Attorney-General
  As I have indicated to my hon. Friend in answers given on 17 April 1989 and 3 July 1989, it is the statutory duty of each local authority to enforce the Shops Act 1950 in its area. If a local authority considers, in the exercise of its discretion, that proper enforcement requires that a threatened breach be restrained by injunction, it is open to it to make such an application to the High Court.

  Criminal Legal Aid
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Attorney-General what consideration he is giving to alternative remuneration structures for solicitors providing criminal legal aid services.

  The Attorney-General
  In the light of information obtained last year which linked profitability from criminal legal aid work with the volume dealt with, the Lord Chancellor recognises that the present remuneration structure for criminal legal aid, which is based on national averages and across the board rates, may no longer be entirely appropriate. He has therefore invited the joint data committee of his Department and the Law Society, with assistance from the Legal Aid Board, to consider the coverage of solicitors' firms which handle criminal legal aid cases and the volume of work available to them. He will consider whether alternative remuneration structures are required when the committee has reported.

  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Attorney-General what steps he is taking to ensure the general availability of criminal legal aid services; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  The Lord Chancellor is committed to ensuring that criminal legal aid services
  293
  continue to be generally available. There is no objective evidence at present that there are insufficent solicitors available to undertake criminal legal aid work. The number of solicitors carrying out this work is kept under review. The matter is also presently being considered by the joint data committee of the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Law Society.

  Solicitors' Firms
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Attorney-General when he expects to receive the survey of the joint data committee of the coverage of solicitors' firms; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  The committee's work is still in a very early stage and it is not yet possible to say when it will report.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Cambodia
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the Government will be attending the Paris peace conference on Cambodia in July; and if he will make it his policy to oppose a solution which permits the return of the Khmer Rouge.

  Mr. Eggar
  We expect to attend the international conference. A central objective of our policy is to prevent the Khmer Rouge returning to power by force and to help bring about a political settlement which enables the Cambodian people to elect a Government of their own choice.

  China
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make representations to the Chinese authorities on behalf of Liu Huanwen, Liu Qiang, Bai Dongping and Han Dongfang of the Beijing Autonomous Workers Union arrested over the past month; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  We and our European partners have repeatedly urged the Chinese authorities to put an end to their repressive actions against those who have done no more than claim their democratic rights. In the declaration on China adopted by the European Council on 27 June the Twelve called for the admission of independent observers to attend trials and to visit prisons. This would cover those members of the Peking Autonomous Workers Union to whom the hon. Member refers.

  Visas
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many people have applied to the post in Dusseldorf for visas to visit the United Kingdom during 1989 to date; what were the figures for the comparable periods of 1988 and 1987; what were the total numbers of applicants by nationality; what were the total numbers of applications(a) granted and (b) refused; and what was the average waiting time for interview for each month in each year.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 13 June 1989]: The consulate-general in Dusseldorf received 5,380 entry
  294
  clearance applications in the period January to May 1989. Applications in the same period in 1988 and 1987 were 5,300 and 4,858. Details of nationality are not kept. The total number of entry clearances (including visas for dependent territories) issued and refused are:

  Issued

  Refused

  1987

  9,892

  82

  1988

  11,890

  156

  11989

  4,265

  66

  1 January to May.

  The average waiting times, in weeks, for the minority requiring interview for each month in 1987, 1988 and 1989 to date were:

  1987

  1988

  1989

  January

  8·0

  8·0

  17

  February

  7·0

  9·0

  19

  March

  6·0

  8·0

  21

  April

  4·0

  7·0

  23

  May

  2·0

  5·0

  21

  June

  4·5

  4·0

  —

  July

  6·0

  4·5

  —

  August

  8·0

  7·0

  —

  September

  10·0

  9·0

  —

  Octomber

  8·0

  12·0

  —

  November

  9·0

  16·0

  —

  December

  9·0

  17·0

  —

  The rise in applications recorded in 1988 resulted in a backlog of paperwork related to those applications which attracted either refusal or further inquiries. From the autumn, staff were diverted to deal with it. They have now been redeployed to increase the number of interviews and thus reduce the waiting time.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Manufacturing Trade (EC)
  Mr. Robinson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster with which members of the European Community the United Kingdom enjoyed a surplus in manufacturing trade in 1988.

  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster with which members of the European Community the United Kingdom enjoyed a surplus in manufacturing trade in 1988.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster with which members of the European Community the United Kingdom enjoyed a surplus in manufacturing trade in 1988.

  Mr. Buckley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster with which members of the European Community the United Kingdom enjoyed a surplus in manufacturing trade in 1988.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster with which members of the European Community the United Kingdom enjoyed a surplus in manufacturing trade in 1988.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  In 1988 the United Kingdom had surpluses in trade in manufactures with Ireland, Spain and Greece.

  Consumer Goods
  Mr. Bright
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster by how much the volume of consumer goods exported in the first quarter of 1989 grew; and by how much the volume of consumer goods imported changed.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  In the first quarter of 1989 the volume of exports of consumer goods1 on a seasonal adjusted overseas trade statistics basis increased by 12 per cent. over the previous quarter. On the same basis imports of consumer goods1 fell by 1 per cent.

  1Part of SITC 7 & 8, based on the United Nations broad economic categories.

  British Export Goods
  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans his Department has to increase promotion of British export goods in(a) European Community countries, (b) other European countries, (c) the United States of America and (d) other countries.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  I announced on 17 January at columns 106–08 the relaunch of my Department's export initiative which introduced new measures to enhance the extensive range of export services traditionally provided by the Department. The initiative provides practical help, advice and support for United Kingdom exporters for all overseas markets. Major promotional campaigns, such as Opportunity Japan have an important role to play in this process.

  Export performance overall is encouraging. In the three months ending May 1989, non-oil exports increased in real terms by 7 per cent. over the same period last year.

  Fitness Equipment (Safety)
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he has any plans to introduce safety standards to home gym and keep-fit equipment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  Work is to begin next month on the preparation of a harmonised European safety standard for fitness training equipment which will include equipment for home use. The general safety requirement under section 10 of the Consumer Protection Act 1987, which came into force on 1 October 1987, applies to equipment supplied as consumer goods.

  Soviet Union (Joint Ventures)
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what advice his Department provides for those seeking joint ventures in the Soviet Union with(a) state enterprises and (b) co-operatives.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  My Department provides advice on the opportunities, the merits and the difficulties in establishing joint ventures in the Soviet Union. Generally, the advice is cautionary because of the Soviet's shortage of hard currency, and particularly so in the case of co-operatives, about which little is known individually. Nevertheless, we are very much in favour of companies doing all they can to find mutually advantageous deals and my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Young visited one successful British joint venture in operation near Kiev last week.
  296
  The Soviet Union is mainly interested in establishing manufacturing joint ventures which have an export potential. Companies considering such joint ventures need to decide whether they wish to supply their export markets from a Soviet joint venture manufacturing base. Western companies have instead tended to prefer joint ventures which perform a service, for example, hotel construction and operation, and are therefore able to earn more easily the hard currency which is necessary to provide the western partner with a return on its investment.

  Measurement Systems
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has for the future development of the national measurement systems.

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster have, this afternoon, laid before Parliament a White Paper "Measuring up to the Competition". The White Paper describes the national measurement system and sets out the Government's policy towards this important aspect of the national infrastructure. It describes the role that Government will continue to have in providing the framework for a coherent system of measurement in the country. At the centre of the system are the national measurement standards held, principally, at the national physical laboratory (NPL), a research establishment of the Department of Trade and Industry and a candidate next steps executive agency. The NPL, is also the focus for national calibration and accreditation services.

  Our plans for the future include extending our collaboration with other European national measurement laboratories in order to ensure an efficient and harmonised system of measurement throughout Europe. We will be seeking to involve business in developing new measurement standards where it has special facilities or expertise to offer. We will also be encouraging business to provide calibration and testing services within the national framework and for it to seek voluntary accreditation through the national measurement accreditation service (Namas), a service of the NPL. A Namas accreditation can help reduce the burden of multiple assessments of a business's competence to undertake tests and calibration. The White Paper also announces a special initiative to be taken by the laboratory of the Government chemist, also a research establishment of the Department and candidate next steps agency, to improve the validity of chemical measurement in the United Kingdom and harmonise it with that in other countries within Europe.

  Chlorofluorocarbons
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what reduction there has been in the use of chlorofluorocarbons within the differing sectors of the economy since the time of the Government-sponsored international conference on the protection of the ozone layer earlier this year.

  Mr. Atkins
  This information is not available. The United Kingdom is, however, on course to meet its international commitments on overall CFC reductions well ahead of schedule. Since the conference, there is clear evidence from the CFC-using industries that they are even more aware of the need to respond effectively in achieving
  297
  CFC reductions. They and the United Kingdom CFC-producer companies are to be commended for their efforts in developing and adopting alternative substances, processes and products.

SCOTLAND

  Community Charge
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his Department's policy regarding the payment of any arrears of poll tax subsequent to a person's death.

  Mr. Lang
  The collection of the community charge is a matter for Scottish levying authorities. Where there is an amount of community charge due in respect of the period before a person's death, it will, therefore, be for the authority concerned to request payment from the deceased's estate. I am sure that authorities are aware of the need for sensitivity in such cases.

  Elderly People (Long-term Care)
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the companies with which Greater Glasgow health board is discussing the future provision of long-term care for the elderly.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  No.

  Geriatric Services
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when Greater Glasgow health board last discussed with(a) social work departments and (b) the Church of Scotland the future provision of geriatric services.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I have asked the chairman of Greater Glasgow health board to write to the hon. Gentleman.

  Geriatric Facilities, Rutherglen
  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the criteria which must be met before the sale by Greater Glasgow health board of the site proposed for a geriatric hospital in Rutherglen could proceed.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  It is for Greater Glasgow health board to decide whether the site is required for its planned development. if a site is surplus, Government policy requires health boards to dispose of land which is not required as quickly as possible having regard to the state of the market, and good marketing practice.

  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the representations he has received which support the replacement of proposed National Health Service geriatric facilities in Rutherglen with proposals for commercial provision by Takare plc.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  No representations have been received.

  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what arrangements he will make for public consultation in Cambuslang and Rutherglen regarding the proposal by Greater Glasgow health board, to contract geriatric services from Takare plc at the site in Rutherglen presently owned by Greater Glasgow health board.
  298
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Scottish Home and Health Department issued guidance to health boards in 1975 about consultation when changes are planned in the provision of services.

  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the benefits which would be achieved by replacing the provision of National Health Service geriatric services in Rutherglen with private commercial based services.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The provision of services is primarily a matter for the health board. I understand that the health board is considering how best to make good the known shortfall in the provision of services for the elderly in Rutherglen. The board is putting the interests of patients first and I welcome that.

  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consultation has taken place with Glasgow district council and Strathclyde regional council with regard to the proposal by the Greater Glasgow health board to sell land in Rutherglen for the provision of private geriatric services.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Officials from both councils have been involved in discussions about the health board's strategy for the care of the elderly. This strategy seeks to identify appropriate and cost effective ways of meeting the needs of the elderly living in the board's area. Glasgow district council, as planning authority, will be consulted on any planning issues arising.

  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has on the conditions of use which were part of the agreement when Rutherglen town council sold the site in Rutherglen now owned by Greater Glasgow health board.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I understand that there are no conditions governing use in the title to the land adjacent to Rutherglen maternity hospital, which was granted to the Western region hospital board by the then royal burgh of Rutherglen in 1972.

  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to take account of the views of Glasgow district council and Strathclyde regional council with regard to the proposal to sell land in Rutherglen for the provision of private geriatric services.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My right and learned Friend has not received any such views.

  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether any company other than Takare plc has been involved in discussions regarding the provision of commercial geriatric services at the site in Rutherglen presently owned by Greater Glasgow health board.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The provision of services is primarily a matter for the health board. I understand that discussions have taken place with a number of companies.

  Forestry
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, for forestry planting policy, he classifies Acer pseudoplatanus to be an indigenous or an alien species.
  299
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Acer pseudoplatanus is regarded as a species that is naturalised though not indigenous.

  Undergraduate Tuition Fees
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to increase the level of the home full-time undergraduate tuition fee from 1990–91; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The proposals in the consultation paper "Shifting the Balance of Public Funding of Higher Education to Fees" have been widely welcomed in Scotland; and I have decided that the tuition fee for full-time undergraduate and most other students whose fees are reimbursed under the students' allowance scheme for Scottish residents will be set at £1,675 for the academic year 1990–91. This increase matches a decision announced today by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science to increase the fees reimbursed in the scheme of mandatory awards for residents of England and Wales.

  In acknowledgment, however, of representations which have been made in response to consultations, I have decided to extend the fee increase to full-time non-degree courses in Scotland leading to qualifications for
  300
  professions supplementary to medicine and social work for which fees are reimbursed in the students' allowance scheme.

  This new level of fee will offer higher education institutions a clear incentive to attract additional students, and will thus further our policy of extending wider access to higher education. For nearly all full-time students, the higher fee will continue to be met through the schemes of student awards, so that as now there will be no cost to the student. For those students who pay their own fees—part-time students or full-time students who are ineligible for awards—we intend to maintain the level of funds available for distribution as grant to the institutions, so that there should be no pressure on the institutions to charge such students more in real terms than they are paying at present. I look to the institutions to ensure that these students are protected from the increased level of fee.

  Art Colleges
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the number of entrants to each Scottish college of art in each of the past 10 years, from(a) Scottish schools, (b) other United Kingdom schools, (c) overseas and (d) other avenues.

  Mr Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 23 June 1989]: Information is not readily available.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Chester): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Employment Legislation: ILO Criticisms
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they intend to publish their response to the criticisms of their employment legislation made by the International Labour Organisation's committee of experts.
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, as requested by the International Labour Organisation (ILO), the United Kingdom Government will be responding to some of the criticisms by November of this year for consideration by the ILO's Committee on Freedom of Association, and to all the criticisms by October 1990 for consideration by the ILO's committee of experts.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. However, is he aware—or will he deny—that the provisional record of the 76th session of the ILO shows that the committee on the application of standards has in fact criticised the Government on eight counts, for being in breach of ILO conventions? If the Government do not accept that, then the only thing the committee can do is to go to the International Court of Justice. Therefore, what are the Government going to do?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, there was, I think, a report issued in March of this year by the ILO committee of experts recording six points where it criticised the United Kingdom's employment legislation. I should say that the United Kingdom does not accept any of those criticisms, certainly not at first sight. Indeed, at least one of the six points is not even part of the United Kingdom law at present.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, I can understand the Government's reluctance to accept one or two of the criticisms of their legislation by this ILO committee. However, as regards the general question of what is called "the social dimension", would it not be more productive if, instead of denouncing the concept as a whole, the Government aimed to persuade positively our partners in the Community that, for example, in the matter of employee involvement we should follow the practices of our best companies?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me if I suggest that that proposal goes rather wide of the Question to which I am replying. As I say, the ILO committee of experts has recorded six criticisms and it is those to which we shall respond in the forums to which I referred in the main Answer.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the committee of experts expressed the view that the cumulative effect of various pieces of legislation introduced by this Government since 1988 could, by virtue of their complexity and extent, constitute an incursion upon the rights guaranteed by the constitution? In view of that fact, is it not unwise for the Government to be considering yet further incursions into the role of industrial law as has already been indicated in this Chamber?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, given the fact that we find great difficulty with the position which the ILO's committee of experts has adopted on the six points, I hope that the noble Baroness will agree that her conclusion does not therefore arise.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble friend say something about this committee of experts? For example, who are the members and in what are they expert?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, as I understand it, it is a committee of experts appointed by the ILO. However, I do not know the names of individual members. But, rather than criticise the personalities involved, we should prefer to take their criticisms on their merits and respond accordingly.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, as regards the noble Baroness's point about the Government considering further legislation in this field, is my noble friend aware that the Government would be very much at fault at present, when the country is suffering from these rail strikes, if they were not doing so?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, those of us who experienced difficulties in getting to work yesterday will, I am certain, agree with my noble friend.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, surely the noble Lord would not deny that the Government's own spokesmen, according to the report of the provisional committee, praised the work of the committee of experts? Indeed, there are three successive committees who have indicted the Government on four occasions. The Government must say, if this continues to happen, whether they will conform to those conventions, or decide that they will go outside of them and line up with such countries as Burma, Panama and Nicaragua.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, we never said that we praised all the work of the committee of experts. As I said, the criticisms which it levelled at us have caused us considerable difficulty.

West Bank: Arab Children's Education
3.6 p.m.
Lord Mayhew Lord Mayhew asked Her Majesty's Government:
What financial contribution they make through the United Nations Relief and Works Agency to the education of Arab children in the West Bank; for how long such education has been prohibited by the Israeli Government; and what action they now propose.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, our annual contribution to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, including our share of the EC donation, is approximately £8·5 million, of which the United Nations Relief and Works Agency devotes more than half its educational programme. West Bank schools have been closed, with brief exceptions, for 16 months. We have repeatedly pressed the Israeli authorities to open them and shall continue to do so.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the Government protest, but do nothing? Further, is it right at this time that we should continue the normal relationship with the Israeli Ministry of Education as though nothing was going on, and as though we approved of their conduct?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the fact is that if we were to remove this sort of support, then I think it is felt by many that it would do more harm than good.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, can the Minister say why it is that all we have heard up to this moment is an anti-Jewish argument? Why are the Israeli Government doing this? Is there not a good reason for it? Is it perhaps due to the fact that they are frightened that at the end of the day they will be stoned, have abuse hurled at them, and so on, by these people?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, that is certainly often expressed as a view. So far as concerns Israel, we are committed to its right to secure existence; but Israel's security is not enhanced by either a refusal to recognise Palestinian rights, or by the sort of actions we have seen in this case.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister persuade the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, who has undoubted influence in the Arab world, to ask them not to use children in the front line of assaults against the occupying forces, which in itself produces the fatalities which all of us in this House regret and which were referred to in yesterday's Question Time?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord will have noted my noble friend's remarks. The fact is that we deplore the actions which have prevented these schools from opening and we shall continue to do so.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, will the noble Lord agree that our gratitude is due to the British-based agencies—namely, Christian Aid and Oxfam—for the splendid work which they have done, and are continuing to try to do in this difficult area? Further, can he say whether those two agencies have made representations to Her Majesty's Government and, if so, what was the nature of those representations and what was the Government's response to them?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I certainly agree with the noble Lord that those agencies, and others, have done a great deal to try to help the situation. We have regular contact with them through the Overseas Development Administration, but I cannot say what recent representations have been made. However, I shall certainly inquire into the matter.
Lord McNair: My Lords, does the Minister agree—I am sure that he must if he has ever visited a Palestinian school—that the cruel irony of the situation is that those children, unlike some nearer home, have an avid hunger for knowledge, which means that for them exclusion from school is a real punishment?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I fully understand that point, which is why we and the 12 have made our views known on several occasions.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, is the Minister aware that not only the British Government, but the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers, have all strongly condemned the fact that those Palestinian children have been prevented from having any education for 18 months, and have equally condemned the killing, as he stated, of 90 children and the wounding of 20,000 others by shooting and beating? Does he agree that it is extraordinary that such conduct can find defenders in the House?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, on many occasions over the past few weeks I have made clear from this Dispatch Box the Government's views, and I hold to those views.

Chemical Weapons: Warsaw Pact Countries
3.11 p.m.
The Earl of Cork and Orrery The Earl of Cork and Orrery asked Her Majesty's Government:
What member states of the Warsaw Pact have, or are thought to have, a chemical warfare capacity.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the Soviet Union is the only member of the Warsaw Pact to have admitted possessing a chemical weapons capability. As published in the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1989, we have good reason to believe that, contrary to Soviet claims, the Soviet Union has stationed chemical weapons in Eastern Europe and that such weapons have also been produced by other members of the Warsaw Pact.
The Earl of Cork and Orrery: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer, clouded though it may be in a certain cautious obscurity. When it comes to securing by negotiation the destruction of chemical agents, is not the great difficulty the problem of how to secure mutual verification? How do Her Majesty's Government hope to achieve that if they do not even know where the stuff is being made?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that verification is one of the difficulties, but the United Kingdom has been active in the Geneva negotiations on a comprehensive, world-wide verifiable ban. As he says, complex issues remain, especially on the question of verification.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, have not the Geneva talks on the banning of chemical weapons now been going on for 18 years? Is any progress being made there? If there is no progress, what is the use of the talks? Is there any progress, for example, on the important issue of verification? Will the Minister enlighten the House on the present state of those talks?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, if there were no talks, I suspect that there would be even less progress. We have played a positive role as co-ordinator of the Western Group. My honourable friend the Minister of State at the Foreign Office spoke at Geneva on 15th June. He underlined our commitment to the negotiations, referred to the improved climate for arms control and gave details of the United Kingdom's work on verification issues, including our programme of trial challenge inspections at military facilities. That information may go some way towards helping my noble friend Lord Cork and Orrery.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, have the stocks been reduced since President Gorbachev came to power four years ago? NATO then estimated that there were 300,000 tonnes of chemical weapons stocked on the Eastern Front. Are the stocks still as great as that or has there been an effort to reduce them in view of the better climate under President Gorbachev?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the Soviet Union has the world's largest and most sophisticated chemical weapons capability. The Soviet stated stockpile figure, which is 50,000 tonnes of toxic agent, is several times lower than Western estimates. The figure that my noble friend gave is within the range of possibilities.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, can my noble friend throw any light on the suggestion that was made some weeks ago about a possible chemical warfare capability being produced in Libya?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the Libyan chemical weapons programme, as thought to be the case by those who made those claims, is a disturbing one, given its links with terrorism. I assure my noble
1274
friend that the United Kingdom has played a leading role in increasing awareness of that threat.
Lord Murton of Lindisfarne: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that what is produced in Libya under the present climate is more dangerous than what is produced in Russia?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, that may well be the case, which is why we have drawn attention to it.

Homelessness and the Private Rented Sector
3.15 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have any evidence that the housing measures introduced during the last session of Parliament have increased the number of houses in the private sector available for rent to people categorised as homeless.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, the measures contained in Part I of the Housing Act 1988 deregulating new private sector lettings have been in force for less than six months, and it is therefore too soon to draw any firm conclusions as to their impact. We shall carry out a detailed evaluation as soon as practicable.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer, which is the type of Answer that could have been reasonably expected. Is he aware of the figures that I quoted in Tuesday's debate in the housing section of the Local Government and Housing Bill which show that rents paid in London from public funds range from a minimum of £160 a week to £300 a week? Is that not an appallingly bad use of public funds, when for £5,500 the debt charges on a new council house could be paid? Is it not the economics of the mad-house to carry on in that manner?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, no. We want more diversity in our housing market. To date, there has been a great deal of restriction. There has been either owner occupation or council house tenancy. Many of those who have been on the waiting list have said that they want diversity, more choice and more opportunity. That is what the Act gave them.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I can confirm that the figures given by my noble friend Lord Dean of Beswick are correct. Rents for property in London are in the region of £100 to £150 a week. Bearing in mind that the Question is about how the Government's action last year will help the homeless, can the Minister tell us how the homeless are expected to find rents of £150 a week? Will he tell us a little more about how he intends to monitor the effects of last year's legislation? It is one thing to say that they intend to free the market; it is another to produce figures which convince the homeless that they are being well looked after by the legislation.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we shall not know what the true situation is until a detailed survey is done. We are considering how that can be done. We may well be able to use the OPCS 1991 survey, which is associated with the Labour Force Survey. That is something that we need to keep under review. With respect, the noble Lord's question goes wider, because homelessness is part of housing. In providing an opportunity for someone to rent which was not there before the 1988 Act, one is relieving pressure elsewhere in the system.
Lord Carter: My Lords, is the Minister aware that this is not just a problem in the inner cities? Wiltshire, where I live, is a rural area with a population of 67,000. The district council's bill for bed and breakfast accommodation five years ago was £2,000 and the bill this year is £82,000. That is because 50 per cent. of the homeless are in rural areas. What plans do the Government have to solve the housing problem in rural areas, because if they do not solve it, it will wreck the social structure of the countryside?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising that important point. As he will be aware, we are the first Government to have designed a package for rural housing. It involves changes in the Finance Act, which my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has brought forward; and it has meant changes to the planning system so that for the first time land can be set aside for low cost housing for local people. Extra funds have been made available to the housing associations to enable them to take advantage of the new climate.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that on Tuesday I quoted the fact that two-thirds of the improverished families living in bed and breakfast accommodation live in the London area. Without trying to make political capital out of it, would it not make more sense for the Government to release some of the funds to local authorities or to give permission for them to use more of the capital assets which the Government intend to diminish under the Bill at present going through Parliament? That would allow local authorities to have a substantial increase in the house building programme in conjunction with housing associations. These are only two areas of housing which could possibly cope with homelessness on the scale that we have. The private sector has neither the will nor the ability to do such a job under the Government's legislation.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am very interested in that question from the noble Lord. He said clearly that it would be the local authorities in conjunction with the housing associations. That is a major step forward, it is what we are seeking to pursue. There is a role for the local authorities which have about 4·5 million properties of their own. Many need repair; indeed, many are now receiving repair. There is due provision for the housing associations and there is the private rented sector housing. Under the Local Government Act 1988, the local authorities
1276
can help the private rented sector by giving help of between 50 and 75 per cent. No one body can solve the very difficult problem. It must be a combination of local authorities, housing associations and the private sector.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I accept that no one body can solve the problem. But will the Minister accept that all the bodies trying to solve the problem, including the Housing Corporation, have had their finances and subsidies slashed by the Government?
The Housing Corporation, for instance, had a £35 million cut between 1987 and 1989. We all know about the huge cuts in the local authority subsidised expenditure. Is it not true that government policies, of which the 1988 Act is just the latest example, have worsened an already serious housing situation? The Government can take no joy from the fact that the situation is getting worse every day and every night in London.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am glad to be able to tell the House and to reassure the noble Lord that he is wrong on this matter. Capital expenditure on housing this year, 1989–90, will be £4·2 billion. That is 12 per cent. higher than previously planned.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I must correct the Minister. My figures, or the figures from his documentation, show that the Housing Corporation was allocated £686 million in 1987. For 1988–89 it has £655 million; that is a reduction of £31 million, no matter how one adds it up.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord has taken a specific item and I am unable to check his figures from this position at the moment. Perhaps I may re-emphasise that the total capital expenditure for local authorities and housing associations is 12 per cent. higher than previously planned this year. As the noble Lord will be aware, there has been a substantial increase in funds to the Housing Corporation. By 1991–92 we expect its funds to be 60 per cent. higher than now.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, as a matter of statistical interest, what is the validity of "previously planned"? Can the Minister tell us how the figures compare with what previously happened?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the statistics that I gave show that funds have not been cut. They have been increased.

Business
3.23 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Report stage of the Electricity Bill will be adjourned at about 7 p.m. for about one hour and that during this adjournment the Cereals Marketing Act (Application to Oilseeds) Order 1989 and the Fisheries Act 1981 (Amendment) Regulations 1989 will be taken.

Religious Prosecutions (Abolition) (No. 2) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to abolish prosecution for the expression of opinion on matters of religion. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Sefton of Garston.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

International Westminster Bank Bill
3.25 p.m.
Read a third time, and passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

London Docklands Railway (Beckton) Bill
Read a third time, and passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Social Security Bill
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Skelmersdale): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the amendments for the Report stage of the Social Security Bill be marshalled and considered in the following order—

Clauses 1 to 8,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 9 to 20,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 21 and 22,

Schedule 3,

Clause 23,

Schedule 4,

Clause 24,

Schedule 5,

Clause 25,

Schedule 6,

Clauses 26 and 27,

Schedule 7,

Clauses 28 to 34,

Schedules 8 and 9.—(Lord Skelmersdale.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Consolidation Bills: Joint Committee
3.26 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Lord Renton be appointed a member of the Joint Committee in the place of the Lord Campbell of Alloway.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Water Bill
3.27 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons reasons and amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons reasons and amendments be now considered.—(The Earl of Caithness.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
MOTION AND AMENDMENT MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF
COMMONS REASONS FOR DISAGREEING TO CERTAIN LORDS AMENDMENTS, AND COMMONS AMENDMENTS IN LIEU OF ONE OF THE LORDS AMENDMENTS
[References are to HL Bill 33 as first printed by the Lords. The Commons reasons and amendments are printed in italics.]

LORDS AMENDMENTS
1 Clause 37, page 39, line 32, after "of" insert "wholesome".
2 Page 39, line 33, at end insert—
"(aa) for providing water of a standard of wholesomeness prescribed under section 38(2A) or (2B) below".
3 Clause 38, 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.".
4 The Commons disagreed to these amendments for the following reason:
Because adequate provision is made, without the amendments, for ensuring that water supplies that do not comply with EC Drinking Water Directive 80/778 will do so as quickly as possible, taking account of the practicalities, and the making of workable schemes for guaranteed customer standards would become impossible as a result of uncertainties about the effect of the amendments.
MOTION MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS REASON
4A Lord McIntosh of Haringey rose to move, That this House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 1 to 3 to which the Commons have disagreed but propose the following amendment in lieu thereof—
After Clause 80, insert the following new Clause:
"Publication of investment programmes.
—(1) The Secretary of State shall, before any date on which shares in any undertaker are to be offered for sale, publish an investment plan in respect of each such undertaker specifying the steps to be taken by that

1279
undertaker in order to secure compliance in respect of the supply of drinking water with such parameters of EC Directive 80/778 or other directives relevant to the quality of drinking water as may be specified in regulations made under this section.
(2) The Secretary of State shall before publishing any plan under subsection (1) above, consult the European Commission as to the timescale and content of the proposed investment plan.
(3) The Secretary of State shall for the purposes of subsection (1) above specify as a parameter to which this section applies any parameter of a relevant directive, a breach of which is likely, in his opinion to carry a significant risk of danger to the health of any person.".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, some Members of your Lordships' House will know that it is not my general practice to seek to overturn amendments when the Commons have overturned our own amendments. My general view is that the Commons, as the elected Chamber, ought to have the last word on these matters. However, in this case it seemed necessary to put down a further amendment in lieu, and there are specific reasons which have arisen since the matter was considered in Committee in your Lordships' House—and indeed even since the matter was considered in another place on Monday—why the amendment should be put forward.
I beg to move that this House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 1 to 3 to which the Commons have disagreed but propose in lieu thereof the new clause, which has the sub-heading, "Publication of investment programmes" as set out in the Marshalled List.
As I said, there are specific reasons since this matter was last considered which make it necessary for the House to consider the issue again. The most important perhaps arises from the visit of the Minister of State for Water and Planning, Mr. Michael Howard, to Brussels last Wednesday when he met Sr. Carlo Ripa de Meana, the European Commissioner for the Environment. When that meeting was reported by the Secretary of State in another place, he described the meeting as a constructive and fruitful discussion. He claimed that the commissioner accepted the Government's resolve in the matter.
I do not know what is meant by "accepted the Government's resolve in the matter." It is clearly a phrase designed to mean as little as possible. But whatever the Secretary of State intended, the fact of the matter is that this was a meeting at which no negotiation whatsoever took place. It was the first occasion when Mr. Howard had met the commissioner, and I have confirmed that there was no negotiation of any kind at that meeting. It was largely a formal meeting.
To claim the support of the European Commission for the removal of our amendments, as in effect the Secretary of State did, is not an adequate representation of what took place and it ran the risk of misleading honourable Members in another place about the position of the European Community in respect of drinking water quality directives.
Not only was that a non-meeting in the negotiating sense, but this has been confirmed by the fact that
1280
only yesterday the European Commission issued a decision to the British Government—not on drinking water quality on this occasion but on river water quality. The Commission decided that it would apply to the European Court of Justice, to seek compliance by the British Government with two directives: one of 1983 on cadmium and one of 1984 on hexachlorocyclohexane, or HCH, because the UK is in breach of those directives, which in the first case should have been implemented by 26th September 1985 and in the second case should have been implemented by 1st April 1986.
The note from Brussels states that the UK is in breach of the directive on various aspects. It states that the directive has been implemented by means of circulars which are not public, may be changed at any time and are not even seen to be binding for the administration. It states that the circulars do not contain some of the quality objectives required by the directive and do not require the competent authorities to fix emission standards for each individual cadmium discharge and that the UK authorities have failed to establish a report on each quality objective chosen and applied by them.
So it is clear that we are debating this in a context where, even on matters which have not been debated in this House, the British Government are still failing to meet the Commission's requirements as regards water quality in this country. The British Government forced the Commission to go further than the reasoned opinion which was debated in your Lordships' House on drinking water quality, to the final stage of the process, which is a decision to apply to the European Court of Justice. It is quite clear that there has been no effective meeting of minds between the British Government and the Commission on water quality. It is also quite clear that any claims that this legislation satisfies the Commission are very wide of the mark. That is why it is necessary to come back.
There is the additional factor that only today the accounts of the regional water authorities have been published. We have not yet had a chance to study them, and no doubt the Minister has not had a chance to study them either. However, it will be very interesting to see whether the investment expenditure of the regional water authorities shows that there is any significant progress as regards improving drinking water quality and river water quality. We shall have to seek another occasion than the passage of this Bill in order to debate that matter in your Lordships' House, but it is another example of the matters which should have been available before the passage of the Bill was sought. It is another of the aspects in which the Water Bill is clearly inadequate.
The new clause that I have tabled does not seek to reinstate the amendments to which the Commons disagreed. It is different from them in three important ways which I believe answer the points that were made by the Secretary of State in another place when the matter was debated. First of all, we are not specifying a particular date for compliance. The Secretary of State put forward the extraordinary argument that any date for compliance would be illegal because the date for compliance was 1985 and

1281
therefore it should be done straight away. He is not saying that it will be done straight away; he is merely saying that a reasonable and feasible date cannot be put forward. It is obvious that that is an extraordinary argument, but it is not one that I wish to enter into now. Therefore, we have not put a date down, but we have said that before the shares are offered for sale there should be an investment plan published for each undertaker specifying the steps to be taken in respect of the supply of drinking water within the parameters of EC Directive 80/778, which was the one referred to in our earlier amendments, and other directives relevant to the quality of drinking water as may be specified in regulations.
We make two further provisions: first, that the Secretary of State shall consult the European Commission. We are not suggesting that the Secretary of State should agree with the European Commission because clearly it is not in our power to direct Secretaries of State to agree with anyone who is not in the control of the British Government. Thirdly, we are proposing in the third part of the new clause the restriction of breaches under this section to those which carry, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, a significant risk of danger to the health of any person. In other words, we are answering the point made by the Secretary of State in another place when he said that some of these water quality standards were cosmetic, and that, like manganese and iron, they affected the colour or clarity of the water but did not affect matters of health.
We are now talking about a new clause which would require an investment plan to be produced with a timetable for compliance before flotation; that that plan should be the subject of consultation with the European Commission and that it should be restricted to those matters of drinking water quality which carry a significant risk of danger to health. I cannot for the life of me think why the Government should not accept these amendments because all of the things we are asking here will have to be in the prospectus anyway. But what is necessary is that there should be other reasons apart from commercial reasons for their being in the prospectus.
No sensible investor would wish to apply for shares unless there was an accepted timetable for the improvement of drinking water quality standards, as it is clear that that has a fundamental effect on the viability of the water companies and the price of their shares. However, it does not seem to us satisfactory that that should be only in the prospectus. It seems to us necessary that Parliament should specify that the investment plan and the compliance programme should be on the face of the Bill. Only in that way can Parliament fulfil its fundamental responsibility both to water consumers and to the potential investors in the water companies.
I suggest to the House that these are improved amendments. They answer the points made by the Secretary of State in another place in rejecting our amendments, and they provide real protection to water consumers and to investors in the industry. I commend them to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 1 to 3 to which the Commons have disagreed but propose in lieu thereof the new clause (Publication of investment programmes) set out in the Marshalled List.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I have always admired the ingenuity of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, but he has excelled himself this afternoon. He began with the very proper affirmation that he did not favour this House getting into conflict with another place by a direct rejection of its views and insistence on an amendment which it had rejected. He then sought to justify this amendment in a very curious way by references to a meeting in Brussels which he himself described as a non-meeting and whose relevance to this discussion would therefore seem to be a trifle tenuous. He further suggested that what the Commission was talking about at the moment was a reason for a very last minute amendment to the Bill. The noble Lord knows perfectly well that international discussions on matters of this kind need to take time. To try, on the pretext of their relevance, to slip in a further amendment to a Bill in its final stage is a misuse of language.
If the Commission has views that it wishes to express, I am perfectly certain that my noble friend in the Government will have discussions with it. But the idea that we should in great haste, at the last minute at this stage of the Bill, slip in something which the noble Lord thinks may appease the Commission does not seem to make very practical sense.
Let us look at the amendment which the noble Lord proposes. He hastens to disassociate it from the earlier amendment which, in circumstances which your Lordships will well recall, was carried. However, it has certain basic similarities, and in particular it has the similarity that it is plainly intended at least to slow up and to hinder the process of privatisation. That of course is the real purpose—
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I notice that noble Lords opposite say "Hear, hear". I am glad to carry them with me. That was the real purpose of the earlier amendment and that is the purpose of this amendment.
If noble Lords will look at the first paragraph they will see that the Secretary of State has to publish an investment plan before any shares are offered. What is meant by "an investment plan"? That is surely one of the vaguest of matters. It makes it extremely difficult to foresee the future. It would be extremely difficult for a new company to make arrangements if an investment plan is imposed on it by the Secretary of State. If an investment plan means anything, it means the allocation of certain specified sums, year by year, although the situation may well change, though prices may well change, though needs may well change. The rigid framework of an investment plan, though designed in theory to assist in the provision of purity of water, in practice would

1283
put the new companies in a straitjacket. Nobody knows better than the noble Lord that any such provision would be at least an immense discouragement to investors who were disposed to take up the offer and buy shares in the company that is being privatised.
Then there is the extraordinary provision in paragraph 2 that the Secretary of State must consult the Commission. The noble Lord went out of his way to say that he did not intend by that that the Secretary of State should be bound by the views of the Commission, but that he should consult the Commission. No doubt there are circumstances in which the views of the Commission might be helpful, but few things are less helpful than statutory consultation of that kind. It means that an approach has to be made, and if there is disagreement that disagreement has to be published. It will become known. What useful purpose would be served by a formal consultation, ending in disagreement, and followed by publication of the disagreement, with all the ill will and difficulty that that would cause?
Then there is the extraordinary provision, barely comprehensible, referring to:
"any parameter of a relevant directive".
As I understand it, it means that, subject to the direction of the Secretary of State, the new company would have to follow any new provision, any new order or any new decision that emerges over the years. There again, nobody knows better than the noble Lord that that would be a very great discouragement to investors.
We have reached the final stages of this Bill. Your Lordships have decided, after long debate—and no one can complain that the debate has been unduly short—that the water industry shall be privatised. The only effect, and I suggest the only purpose, of the amendment is to make that process, if not impossible, at any rate a great deal more difficult. To that extent it simply echoes the purpose, though the phraseology is different, of the earlier amendment which another place rejected.
In those circumstances, I hope that your Lordships will feel that, whatever the merits for the future of discussions with the Commission and whatever the merits of the guidance which the Secretary of State can undoubtedly give to the new water companies, to impose this straitjacket on the companies at this moment would be utterly destructive of the work which your Lordships' House and another place have done in going forward with the privatisation of water.
I cannot help recalling, because it is most relevant, that this argument is a great reinforcement of the argument for privatising water. Years ago one drank tap water in this country with complete confidence. At that time one was advised very strongly when on the continent of Europe not to drink tap water but to buy expensive bottled water. Then the industry was nationalised. Under nationalisation the process has apparently been reversed and we are now in the strange position—very strange to those of us who were brought up under the older dispensation—of being told that English tap water is dangerous and
1284
European and continental water is safe. If one wants a stronger argument against nationalisation than that one will need to go a long way to find it.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, we are concerned here with the quality of drinking water. It is clear from debates in this House and the other place that there is no disagreement about the need for us as a country to conform with EC Drinking Water Directive 80/778. The only issue is the timing. When your Lordships' House previously considered this subject we concluded that a time should be set, and the time that we proposed was 1993. The other place—as is reflected in the document before us—considered that that could not be done, taking account of the practicalities, but that there are schemes in hand to bring it about at the earliest practical date. That is the issue.
The amendment which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, has put forward suggests that, in view of the fact that there is agreement that we should achieve those standards of drinking water quality and there is disagreement about the date, the prospectuses for the sale of these companies should include a clear indication about what the companies intend to do in order to achieve those standards. As a potential shareholder, if I should be so persuaded, I would want to know that. The country having committed itself to achieving those standards, I would want to know what is to be done and what measures are to be taken by the companies to achieve those standards.
I am a little surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, should oppose the amendment. All it asks for is that potential shareholders should be very clear about what, as a result of a decision of Parliament, will be required of the companies to achieve those objectives. I think that it is very fair and proper that the prospectuses should state that.
Looking at the matter quite objectively, I should say that this is a very fair amendment in view of the agreement that we have reached that water standards should achieve the levels set out in the European Commission's directive. On those grounds, I strongly support the amendment proposed.
Lord Trafford: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, on the way in which he presented the proposed new clause. I also associate the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, in those congratulations for his remarks, because they are indeed seductive. However, I prefer to address myself to the amendment and its consequences rather than to an argument about the wholesomeness of water.
I do not think that there is any noble Lord on any side of this House who does not agree that we require a certain level of wholesomeness of water in the near future. As the noble Lord said, up to a point it is a question of timing. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, suggested that in bringing forward his amendment he was in some way facilitating that process, benefitting the consumer, and also benefitting the investor who would then know what he was buying.
This is a seductive amendment because it is a wrecking amendment. If the amendment were

1285
carried and became part of the Bill, if there were to be disagreement between the Secretary of State and the European Commission and there was a public row about the contents of the so-called investment plan, at the least that would cause great delay. Incidentally, the term "investment plan" appears nowhere in the Bill. I assume that it refers to the prospectus, but I do not know because we have not been enlightened on that point. It could cause a to-ing and fro-ing both about the content—the new clause refers to the content—and the timescale, so there is delay and argument about the content.
What does that mean in effect and in practice? It means something quite different to what the noble Lords, Lord McIntosh and Lord Ezra, have argued. In effect, it means that we are asking the European Commission to decide the content of the prospectuses and, therefore, the date of the prospectuses and the price of the flotation. In other words, the amendment drives a coach and horses straight through the central core of the Bill. It takes away even from Parliament, let alone from the Secretary of State, the decision with regard—
Lord Ezra: My Lords, perhaps—
Lord Trafford: My Lords, I shall give way in a moment. It effectively takes away from the Secretary of State—that is not immediately apparent, but it is apparent if one reads carefully between the lines of the amendment—powers with regard to the price, date and timescale of water privatisation which, as my noble friend said, the House has in principle approved. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, wished to intervene.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for permitting me to speak at this stage. I should merely like to say that that is certainly not what I was saying. I was saying that if we—as two Houses of Parliament—agree that we shall attain the objectives of the directive set out in the EC regulations, it is not unreasonable that, when the companies are floated, they should indicate how they are to achieve what Parliament has decided that they should achieve.
Lord Trafford: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for those comments. I do not think that they contradict anything that I have said. I congratulated the noble Lord on the persuasiveness with which he spoke on the wholesomeness of water. I do not disagree with what he said. I am addressing the amendment. He addressed a general principle with which many might agree. He then jumped a huge intellectual step and said, "The amendment will achieve those objectives". I do not think so. That is the point of our difference. It is not with regard to the achievement of satisfactory water. I certainly do not disagree with him on that point.
I believe that, in his intervention, the noble Lord is again trying to suggest in some way that the amendment will achieve those objectives. My argument is that it will not achieve those objectives
1286
because first—I do wish to go over what I have said before—it will wreck the Bill. It is essentially a wrecking amendment. Secondly—I had not developed this point prior to the noble Lord's intervention—there are three secondary considerations. However, the most important is that the proposal drives a coach and horses through the Bill.
The Secretary of State is allowed to choose any number of parameters from the very many in the EC directives. That means that he can pick and choose whichever he likes. If the measure has to apply to the health of any person, it could in many respects make a nonsense of the situation. Perhaps I may give an example from personal experience. Many noble Lords will know that I work in the field of renal dialysis. One of the great dangers for people on renal dialysis is the high aluminium content in the blood. That is achieved because for various reasons substances which contain aluminium are given. That is in addition to the question of dialysis water and ordinary water feeding every machine. Those people are therefore peculiarly susceptible to the problem. To make the water fit for any healthy person, and particularly for those people in this group, one would need deionisers all over the country.
I know that that is not what the noble Lord was saying, but, if one puts things like that on the face of the Bill, that is what it could mean. That is how those who wish to wreck the undertaking could take advantage of the loopholes and drive a coach and horses through the Bill.
Surely the proposal would be an administrative nightmare. We cannot put forward the prospectus—I assume that that is what the investment plan means—until such time as tile European Commission has been consulted. I do not know how long that will take. I do not know what will happen if there is argy-bargy backwards and forwards between London and Brussels. I do not know what will happen if there is disagreement. I do not know how the flotation would be carried out if most or even part of the so-called investment plan were subject to disagreement.
However, despite what I call those secondary points—the administrative nightmare, people's health and innumerable other grounds from which one could pick and choose—I come back to the fundamental point that the House has already approved in principle the privatisation of water with the intention that the industry should be floated later this year. The new clause would wreck that proposal. It would wreck it in theory and in practice. Anyone who reads between the lines of the new clause will inevitably come to the conlcusion that it is a wrecking amendment. It is for that reason—not because of any disagreement about the quality of water—that I hope noble Lords will reject the amendment.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I am of the opinion that the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Trafford, to which we have just listened, is one of the most exaggerated I have heard in 35 years of political life. To describe this as so dangerous a new clause that

1287
it will smash the privatisation of the water industry is a crass absurdity.
We are not now arguing about whether water should be privatised or not; it will be privatised. The new clause proposed by my noble friend suggests that in so far as water will now be privatised and, therefore, that British water will be in private hands—Italian and Japanese as well as British—the House is of the opinion that there should be certain directives to defend the position under privatisation. In my view, it is absurd that those people will henceforth control British water, despite the fact that it droppeth from the heavens above.
However, those people should not be able to say that they can do whatever they like because they own British water. A sensible Parliament would impose certain responsibilities and restrictions. I hope that the House will look at the matter in that light. The word "privatisation" does not tell us much; it does not tell us who will ultimately be the owners of British water. The British people would like some idea of what restrictions or responsibilities—responsibilities rather than restrictions—will be placed upon them. That is the idea behind the new clause.
When the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, speaks of the last minute of a debate in Parliament, I must ask: what is wrong with the last minute? Is there something superior about the first minute and all middle minutes so that, as the debate goes on, the responsibility of the last minute diminishes? That is equally absurd. On the basis of the absurdities that we have heard from the noble Lords, Lord Boyd-Carpenter and Lord Trafford, all that I ask in support of my noble friend's amendment is that we should agree to the new clause, not for any party-political reasons whatsoever—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I have already said that I am surprised that noble Lords opposite do not agree with me that it is almost certain that water will be privatised. Do they disagree with that? What a silence! Henceforth, do they not also agree that certain responsibilities should be placed on those who will ultimately own the water and that, at the same time, it might be prudent and sensible to co-operate with the EC with regard to safety in the supply of water? On those simple grounds, I believe that people have the right to see that Parliament places responsiblities on those who will own the water. Parliament must ensure that there is sensible co-operation with other countries. On that basis—it is a very simple request—I hope that the House will agree to support my noble friend Lord McIntosh.
4 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, whether or not your Lordships agree with privatisation, I am sure that we all wish progress to be made as soon as possible when the Bill has reached the statute book. But my great fear with this amendment is that in fact it will delay matters very badly. Placing a responsibility on each of the the water undertakers in effect to obtain
1288
permission from the European Commission before its investment plan can be approved not only introduces a bureaucratic process which was not in the Bill before but is bound to lead to delays, as has been pointed out.
Quite apart from that, I must say that subsection (3) of this amendment introduces an extraordinary situation. It may not be fully realised but when it refers to parameters there are already 66 parameters—that is, detailed tests. They are contained in either EC Directive 80/778 or the other directives referred to in subsection (1). As my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter pointed out, there is no end to the number of parameters that may be added in the future.
What then shall we do? We could find that each water undertaker, for perhaps several million consumers of drinking water, would be at risk of having the whole of its investment plan and the whole of its attempts to purify its water held up because one consumer complained that there was one parameter which fitted his case that had not been met. As my noble friend said, that would be an administrative nightmare.
I hope that those noble Lords who have been tempted and perhaps seduced by the terms of the amendment, which at first sight may look as though it has something to commend it, and have been tempted and perhaps seduced by the calm way in which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, introduced it at this late stage, will realise that to accept this amendment strangely and paradoxically enough would be to defeat its own purpose. It is a self-defeating amendment.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I originally supported the amendment which was rejected by the other place. I supported it on the grounds that it would improve the standards of drinking water and that a certain standard would be met by a certain date. The amendment was not about the privatisation of water; it concerned the health of people who happen to be drinking water and the surety and safeguards that they would have for their health.
This new series of amendments has the same aim. I appreciate, as the noble Lord, Lord Trafford, said, that every now and again there appears one person who might be affected by one particular substance in the water. I would go further and expand his remarks to say that there are numerous people who might be affected by any number of substances in foods. I have a terribly bad reaction to rye in my diet but I have no intention of suing or taking anyone to court because they happen to have grown rye or allowed it to enter my food in some disguised form.
The whole emphasis of this amendment is to make sure that people will have safeguards and that there is a set standard which will be met in their drinking water supply. The European standard is one that is readily available. Moreover we are a member of the European Community. I suggest that making sure that we have some kind of plan or way of knowing when that standard will be met would not be a wholly bad thing. We should know when we are going to do things. People should know when they have to meet targets.

1289
That sort of guarantee surely will not be a drawback to privatisation. Ultimately, if people know that those standards will be met and there is some way of making sure that they are met, we shall not have to endure this kind of debate and procrastination about when investment should take place. I suggest that private companies may possibly be a little less responsible to the general public than governments have been. As has been brought out in debate after debate in this House, virtually every single government, even those way back before I was even born, have fallen down on their duty to invest in the water industry.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, in my mind there is no doubt that this is at worst a wrecking amendment and at best it is certainly a delaying amendment, as my noble friend Lord Renton said. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and his colleagues have done much to create a perception which distorts the real situation. Therefore I want to deal with some of the misinformation that has been propounded throughout the whole passage of the Bill through the House.
Indeed, there are 66 requirements of the EC directive. Of those, 19 concern aesthetic or naturally occurring substances, 24 concern substances which are undesirable in water in excessive amounts, four concern hardness or softness, 13 concern toxic substances and 6 concern bacteriological content. Most supplies in this country and in Wales comply with those requirements and the majority of non-compliance relates to colour or turbidity, which are not related to health. Indeed those requirements which are concerned with health are treated with the utmost urgency. Bacteriological and toxic requirements are probably the highest on people's list of concerns. Of those 19 requirements in that particular field, most of them are met. Indeed, in England and Wales we have always had the highest standards of bacteriological purity in water. There are only three areas—small suppliers which do not conform—and they are already being dealt with.
With reference to the toxic parameters, there are small pockets of non-compliance. For example, there are 100 people who receive water with small excess amounts of cadmium; that too is in hand and being dealt with.
The other area of concern is nitrates. All supplies currently meet medical requirements. Nevertheless some supplies, as we all know, are higher than the limits in the directive. These too are being tackled and most supplies should be up to standard by 1993; all supplies should be up to standard by 1995. So the health aspects of drinking water are well in hand.
Many of the other requirements—for example, the colour and turbidity to which I referred earlier—require wholesale replacement of pipes and apparatus. That cannot be done overnight and it is almost impossible immediately to say how long it will take. But it is also worth noting that in thousands of homes in this country there are still large quantities of lead piping. That too has to be dealt with. It is not of course under the control of either the water authorities or the water companies.
1290
The water companies will be required on every single one of those 66 requirements to negotiate with the Secretary of State. They will have to draw up a contract and that contract will be very one-sided. It will be one-sided in the sense that the water companies will have to deliver to the standards required by the contract. They will have no powers to vary the contract. In fact the only variable power will lie with the Secretary of State, who will have the power to toughen the contracts. Therefore it seems to me that that work is also well in hand. As a last resort the companies too, if they continue not to comply with the standards, can lose their licences. That is a full backstop on the part of the Secretary of State.
Finally, there is the point about shareholders. It is my view that if the shareholders want a dividend, then pressure from them, from the community and from the Government to conform to the standards will be very real. Shareholders will not wish their companies to be constantly risking financial penalty.
I believe therefore that this amendment is not acceptable. The highest priority must be given to programmes for maintaining safe water. Programmes to improve taste and colour and the other aspects which do not affect health will take longer. Programmes are in hand and are being negotiated. It is worth repeating that most of our water supplies meet all the EC requirements. The deficiencies that exist affect only some supplies, and most of these concern appearance and taste.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and his Labour colleagues, as I said earlier, have been responsible for scaremongering on this issue. They have put about this information and they have been quite successful. They ought to congratulate themselves on the fact that they have convinced the public at this time that our water is undrinkable. I support a sustained programme for improving our drinking water.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have been accused in person of scaremongering in this House. Is that in accordance with Standing Order No. 29, which relates to asperity of speech?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, as a relatively new girl I am not sure of the rules of the House. If it is not in accordance with the rules of the House, I apologise. I am saying that there has been large scale scaremongering and misinformation on this issue. Drinking water in this country is drinkable and is safe. I drink it and I have survived. There are many noble Lords a great deal older than me who have drunk our drinking water and they still survive. We should get the whole issue into context.
I support the sustained programme of improvement to meet all these standards. I believe that the systems are already in place to ensure that the companies will be required to achieve compliance in the shortest possible practical time. I shall oppose the amendment and support the Government.
4.15 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, of the 350 or so amendments that your Lordships made to the Bill, the other place have disagreed with only six covering just two groups. I am sure that your Lordships will agree that that is a clear indication of the value of our work as a revising Chamber, and of the many important modifications that your Lordships have made which will pass into legislation.
However, I indicated at Third Reading that we could well return to this group of amendments when they had been considered in the other place. I know the importance that your Lordships attach not only to meeting Community directives but also to improving the quality of our drinking water supplies. Let there be no doubt that the Government share that concern. I welcome the fact that in Amendment No. 4A the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, now also concedes that Amendments Nos. 1 to 3 would not have been the right way to achieve those improvements. Since there seems likely to be an agreement about the case for not insisting on Amendments Nos. 1 to 3, I shall say no more about them unless your Lordships would like me to do so, except for one point.
The amendments specify a date for compliance with the Community drinking water directive requirements which is later than that set in the directive. The amendments would therefore conflict with Community law. The legal duty must be to comply now, and that is what the Bill will provide once these amendments are removed.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, has shifted his ground and indeed his argument, and is concerned with the progress of our improvement programme. Your Lordships will be glad to hear that we are well advanced in our consideration of the programmes, and I can say that in all important areas we shall be able to comply well before 1993 in England and Wales. For example, the lead programme related to the directive is virtually complete now and the very few remaining areas should be dealt with in the next few months. The same can be said for any remaining microbiological problems at treatment works.
For nitrate there are only about 30 suppliers in the whole country still regularly exceeding the standard and most will comply in the next two or three years. The few remaining areas will require the installation of special denitrification equipment, and we need to be sure that this equipment is quite safe before bringing it into general use. I know that your Lordships would be the first to condemn us, and rightly so, if we did not go to those lengths to check the equipment.
For aluminium regularly exceeding the standard due to aluminium treatment, compliance should also be achieved within two or three years. Other supplies where improvements are needed relate to standards which have nothing to do with health, such as colour and iron, or which are purely precautionary, such as the pesticide standard. In most cases these standards are breached only at irregular intervals. We are still considering the timescale of these programmes.
1292
I felt that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, was keen to have another go at Britain as though we were the only country having difficulties in meeting Community directives. Let me remind the House that all member states are having difficulty in implementing the very strict standards in the drinking water directive. The Commission has started legal proceedings against all other member states except Portugal, which does not have to implement the directive until next year. France, Germany, Denmark, Italy and Belgium all have substantial problems with the nitrate standard. Germany and Italy are being proceeded against for not applying the pesticide standard properly. France, Belgium, Germany and Ireland are all alleged not to have fully incorporated the directive into national law. It would be interesting to see what would happen if the Commission had as much information about water supplies in other member states as we have provided in this country.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred to two factors in particular; cadmium and HCH. The particular case referred to concerns technical legal aspects of the means of implementation of these directives. There is no allegation—I repeat, no allegation—that Britain is failing to control pollution by these substances. Indeed, we are as assiduous as any other member state in implementing the directives in practice and a good deal more assiduous than most. We undertook some time ago to give formal legal effect to the directives and relevant provisions have been included in Part III of the Water Bill. Regulations will be brought forward shortly so any action now by the Commission would, I submit to your Lordships, be quite redundant.
It was a pity that the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, did not take part in our earlier proceedings. He would have realised that we are not privatising water; we are privatising the water industry. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, would be happy to tell him of the advantages to the French of having an industry not in the public sector.
I have listened carefully to what has been said by all your Lordships and, despite the honeyed words of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, I would say that there are difficulties with this amendment. I agree with my noble friend Lord Renton, in saying that we do not think it would be right for the Secretary of State to pick and choose among the 66 parameters in the community directives. As I have said, we are committed to a programme of compliance with all parameters as soon as possible, taking into account all the practicalities. I do not know how the Commission would take—but I would suggest to your Lordships not very kindly—to regulations that restricted investment plans to particular parameters.
The wording refers to substances which carry a significant risk of danger to the health of any person. That would mean going much further than the EC directive in respect of substances such as aluminium to cater for the needs of the very few who need water with no aluminium for kidney dialysis machines or water with no nitrates where some young babies require that in a few cases.

1293
As my noble friend Lord Trafford said, with his great experience, it is more cost effective to provide special treatment and special supplies in those circumstances, and the cost of what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is proposing is, I would submit to your Lordships, quite disproportionate to the benefits that can be achieved in other ways.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, raised the difficulty he has with rye in his diet. However, the fact is that the noble Lord can avoid rye in his diet. But I would ask him to think this amendment through. This amendment would require all water supplies to be brought up to the highest standards for any person. Thus, to continue the analogy for the noble Lord, it would mean that because the noble Lord needed to avoid rye in his diet, rye should be excluded from all food sources. That is the effect of what we are considering.
As has been mentioned by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, another effect of the amendment is to place responsibility for deciding the timing of privatisation on the European Commission. We cannot determine how long the Commission will take to consider the programmes and respond. Our experience on such matters is not good. It has taken four years to consider the much smaller drinking water programme that we put to them in 1985. I should not like to speculate on how long it will take to consider the proposed compliance programmes but we shall be sending them to the Commission shortly.
From my own experience, I was promised from the Commission in March last year that information would be given within six months; that is, by September last year. I took the opportunity to remind the Commission at the last meeting of the Council of Ministers that we were still waiting for that information.
A further reason for not supporting the new clause is the fact that the provisions already in the Bill adequately cover the subject. Programmes which are currently being discussed with the undertakers will lead to undertakings under Clause 20(5)(b) being submitted during September. Assuming that these are acceptable to the Secretary of State, he will serve a notice on the company saying that he is so satisfied. Under Clause 20(6)(b) he must publish a copy of the notice to bring it to the attention of all those affected by it. He must also serve a copy of the notice and of each undertaking on the director general, who is required to enter the undertakings in the public register. This register will be set up in September.
When we publish notices under Clause 20(6)(b) in September, I can assure your Lordships that information on all programmes will be made available. The nature and time scale of these programmes will be plain to everyone. It therefore surprised me that the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, did not seem to be aware that the prospectus is to be published later in the year and will also contain statements on the extent of the investment programmes, including those to comply with the drinking water directive. I put it to the noble Lord that his genuine concerns are already met by the conditions under the Bill.
1294
I too read through this amendment, as my noble friends have done, and its clear to me that the main reason for it is to delay flotation. That is something that I hope your Lordships will not support.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate. I am particularly grateful to noble Lords opposite, all of whose contributions have been remarkably helpful to my case. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, whom I am delighted to see intervening on the Bill—I am sorry that we have not had the pleasure of his interventions before—criticised my reference to the Brussels meeting which he correctly described as a non-meeting. I mentioned the Brussels meeting because the Secretary of State prayed that non-meeting in aid when he persuaded Members in another place that our amendments were not acceptable. If he had not raised the matter, it would have been inappropriate for me to do so, but I question whether there was not, as I said earlier, a risk of another place being misled into thinking that the European Commission was satisfied with the British Government's programme of compliance when that is most certainly not the case.
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, referred to the investment plan as a discouragement to investors. He was adequately answered by the Minister, who said that the prospectus itself will include statements on investment programmes and on compliance programmes. How can it be a discouragement to investors? The very least that investors must have is a statement of how, in what way, at what expense and in what timescale there will be compliance with the European Community directives. It is not in the interests of investors to run the risk of incurring financial penalties from the European Commission because there is non-compliance with drinking water standards.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, the noble Lord asked me a question and perhaps I can answer it. The great discouragement to investors would be this proposal, with its slow and cumbrous demand for an investment plan, totally different from what would be in the ordinary sensible prospectus either in the private or the public sector. The noble Lord knows that perfectly well.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord is making a distinction without a difference between a plan and a programme, and one which in a prospectus certainly has to be costed and has to include a timescale; otherwise it would be in breach of companies legislation.
The final point made by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, was even more helpful. He criticised the decline in drinking water standards, as he said, since water was nationalised. It was his Government in 1973 and 1983 who took control of our public sector water from the local authorities and centralised it. If he calls that "nationalising", I am delighted to see his death-bed conversion to the principle which a Conservative Government overturned of local authority control of the water supply.

1295
The noble Lord, Lord Trafford, was even more helpful. He claimed that our amendment required that we should be specifying on the face of the Bill a price, a date and a timescale. We say no such thing. As the Minister has made very clear, we have said that there should be an investment plan but that it should be confirmed by discussion and consultation with the European Commission and that it should cover only those parameters of European Commission directives which are concerned with health and where there is, in the opinion of the Secretary of State—that is the important thing to remember—a significant risk of danger to the health of any person. That does not mean every person. It does not mean that all water supplied to everybody has to be aluminium or nitrate free, and the Minister knows that as well as the noble Lord, Lord Trafford. But the requirement that the health of the general British public should be protected in accordance with European directives is not a very radical demand. It is not one which the Government might resist in any normal circumstances. They are resisting it at the moment only because they are determined to press ahead with water privatisation at any cost. The cost is to the consumers of water, to the health of the consumers of water and to the information to be provided to investors.
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, seemed to think that the amendment would mean that privatisation would be held up if one consumer complained about one parameter. The amendment does not say that and it cannot be interpreted to mean that. The Minister again has answered that point by saying what will be in the prospectus. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, when she was not descending to vulgar abuse, made the great mistake of referring specifically to cadmium. It is exactly cadmium that I referred to when I said that the British Government are not complying with European directives, have not complied with reasoned opinion and are now forcing the European Commission to go to the High Court.
The Minister had the nerve—I congratulate him on it—to repeat the claim that no deadline can be put on the improvement of our drinking water because the law states that we have to comply now. Those are his words. He went on then to say that the Bill states that we shall have to comply now. But we are not going to comply now. Everybody knows that. We shall not be complying now, by 1993 or probably even by 1995. What the Minister is saying is that the law is an ass. We are enacting a Bill which states something that the Government have no intention of complying with. That is what the Bill states and that is what will happen.
The noble Earl seems to think that by doing this we are saying that only Britain has problems with its drinking water quality. No such thing. I have referred to no other country in moving the amendment or at any other stage of the Bill. But it is Britain that we legislate for. That is why our responsibility is to protect the consumers of this country and to ensure that there is a realistic timetable for safeguarding their health by improving
1296
drinking water quality and protecting the investors by ensuring that there is a proper plan for putting things right, complying with the law and enabling the new privatised water companies to start off on a basis which is fair to the investors, fair to their shareholders and above all fair to the British public.
4.28 p.m.
On Question, That this House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 1 to 3 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree to the amendment in lieu thereof?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 114; Not-Contents, 168.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Leatherland, L.

Airedale, L.

Leicester, Bp.

Alport, L.

Listowel, E.

Amherst, E.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Ampthill, L.

Ardwick, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Attlee, E.

Lockwood, B.

Aylestone, L.

Longford, E.

Banks, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Birk, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Blease, L.

McNair, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Mais, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Mayhew, L.

Bottomley, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Mishcon, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Molloy, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Monson, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Mountevans, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Nathan, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Nicol, B.

Northfield, L.

Carter, L.

Ogmore, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Peston, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Phillips, B.

David, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Denington, B.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Rea, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Ennals, L.

Rochester, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Russell, E.

Ezra, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Falkland, V.

Scanlon, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Seear, B.

Flowers, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Foot, L.

Serota, B.

Gallacher, L.

Shackleton, L.

Galpern, L.

Shepherd, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Somers, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Soper, L.

Grimond, L.

Stallard, L.

Hampton, L.

Stedman, B.

Hanworth, V.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Henniker, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

White, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Wigoder, L.

Ilchester, E.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jay, L.

Willis, L.

Jeger, B.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Winstanley, L.

Kearton, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

1297

NOT-CONTENTS

Abercorn, D.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Abinger, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Joseph, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Kenilworth, L.

Annaly, L.

Killearn, L.

Arran, E.

Kinnaird, L.

Astor, V.

Kitchener, E.

Barber, L.

Knights, L.

Bauer, L.

Lawrence, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Layton, L.

Beloff, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Belstead, L.

Lytton, E.

Bethell, L.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Biddulph, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Birdwood, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Blake, L.

Mancroft, L.

Blatch, B.

Manton, L.

Blyth, L.

Margadale, L.

Borthwick, L.

Marley, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Merrivale, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mersey, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Caithness, E.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Camden, M.

Mottistone, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Carnock, L.

Moyne, L.

Chelmer, L.

Munster, E.

Chester, Bp.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Cockfield, L.

Nelson, E.

Coleraine, L.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Norrie, L.

Colwyn, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Crickhowell, L.

Orkney, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Daventry, V.

Pender, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

De Freyne, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Dundee, E.

Porritt, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Quinton, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Radnor, E.

Elles, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Reay, L.

Elton, L.

Reigate, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Reilly, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Renton, L.

Ferrers, E.

Renwick, L.

Fisher, L.

Rodney, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Romney, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Sackville, L.

Gainford, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Sandys, L.

Grantchester, L.

Seebohm, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Greenway, L.

Sharples, B.

Gridley, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Slim, V.

Halsbury, E.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Hanson, L.

Stockton, E.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Harvington, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Havers, L.

Hemphill, L.

Strathspey, L.

Henley, L.

Suffield, L.

Hesketh, L.

Swinton, E.

Hives, L.

Terrington, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hood, V.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Hooper, B.

Trafford, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Trefgarne, L.

Ironside, L.

Trenchard, V.

1298

Trumpington, B.

Wolfson, L.

Ullswater, V.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Wynford, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Yarborough, E.

Watkinson, V.

Young of Graffham, L.

Wise, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.
4.37 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendents Nos. 1 to 3 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 4.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 1 to 3, to which the Commons have disagreed, for the Reason numbered 4.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
5 Schedule 18, page 267, line 13 leave out from "description;" to end of line 15 and insert—
"(ii) the power conferred by virtue of sub-paragraph (1)(bb) above; and
(iii) each of the powers conferred in relation to the powers mentioned in sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii) above by virtue of sub-paragraph (1)(c) above,"
6 The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason:
Because it is inconsistent with the amendments proposed by the Commons in lieu of Lords Amendment No. 239.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 5, to which the Commons have disagreed, for the Reason numbered 6. With the leave of the House I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 9.
Schedule 18 sets out the powers under which the authority and water and sewerage undertakers are able to lay pipes and carry out associated works. Water authorities are currently generally able to exercise their pipelaying powers after serving reasonable notice on the owner and occupier of the land. As a result of Amendments Nos. 7 and 9 moved by my noble friend Lord Radnor at Third Reading which were accepted by your Lordships, the authority and undertakers would be required generally to seek the consent of tile owner and occupier of the land before exercising the powers. The power to lay pipes after serving reasonable notice should be limited to cases of emergency, cases where the undertaker is complying with a requisition to provide a main or sewer and cases where the Secretary of State determines that it would be exceptionally difficult to obtain the consent of every owner and occupier concerned.
While there may seem to be a superficial reasonableness about these provisions, the overall effect of these amendments would be severely to inhibit the ability of undertakers to meet effectively the requirements placed on them to provide the water and sewerage services that are essential to public health. That is a matter which we discussed only recently. The amendments would impose extremely cumbersome arrangements on the Secretary of State and undertakers, which would to a

1299
large extent defeat the whole object of the pipelaying powers. Far from merely limiting those powers in a sensible way the provisions would in fact undermine them.
The provisions are particularly unreasonable when considered in the context of our EC obligations. If the operational capabilities of water and sewerage undertakers are constrained in the way proposed by there amendments, there is certain to be a considerable deterioration in the pace at which we can expect to see the improvements we all want in the quality of our drinking water and standards of our bathing beaches.
I know that in retaining the existing powers of water authorities to lay pipes on notice, we would be preserving the unique position of the water industry as the only public utility with such powers. The water industry can, however, properly be regarded in a different context from other utilities. It does not generally have the operational advantages of other utilities; the route of water and sewer pipes is often determined by the need for gravitational flows, a restriction that does not apply elsewhere.
I turn to Amendment No. 8. The purpose of this amendment is to meet the concerns expressed by noble Lords from all sides at Third Reading, about the extent of these powers and the scope they offer for inconsiderate behaviour, in a way which does not jeopardise the ability of water and sewerage undertakers to meet their statutory obligations.
The amendment provides that, when exercising their powers in order to lay new pipes, undertakers would be required to give a minimum of three months' notice. A minimum of 42 days' notice would be required in the case of replacement or repair of existing pipes. The only exceptions to these arrangements would be cases of emergency and the exercise of the powers in response to a requisition to provide a main or sewer or a request to provide a service pipe when the undertaker is required to comply within a statutory time limit. These notice periods are intended to ensure that the examples of the exercise of the powers following an unreasonably short period of notice that concerned noble Lords cannot be repeated.
The amendment also contains a further measure designed to ensure reasonable behaviour by undertakers. Clause 156 provides for the director general to direct an undertaker to make a payment to a complainant if he is satisfied that an undertaker has failed to consult the owner or occupier before or during pipelaying, or by acting unreasonably has caused them to suffer loss or damage or to be inconvenienced. The clause currently specifies that the maximum payment that the director general is able to direct an undertaker to make is £1,000. The amendment provides for this sum to be increased to £5,000. This provision will help to ensure that undertakers act reasonably when exercising their powers.
Finally the amendment provides for the Secretary of State to make regulations to provide for advance payment of compensation in respect of the exercise of these powers. I am happy to repeat the
1300
undertaking given by my honourable friend the Minister for Water and Planning in another place that these regulations will be made in time to come into force on transfer date. They will follow the precedent of Section 52 of the Land Compensation Act 1973 and provide for advance payments of 90 per cent. of the agreed amount of compensation or 90 per cent. of the compensation as estimated by the undertaker. The advance payment will be made not later than three months after such a payment is requested. These provisions will meet the concerns expressed at earlier stages about the time taken to settle compensation following the exercise of these powers.
I am well aware of the concerns of your Lordships about the scope that these powers offer for arbitrary behaviour on the part of undertakers. I know that there have been occasions in the past when landowners have suffered from unreasonable actions. I make no apologies for explaining again the significant steps we have taken to protect the interest of landowners.
First, the Bill provides for the powers to be subject to a statutory code of practice to be submitted by the undertakers to the Secretary of State for approval. The code will cover all aspects of the pipelaying process. In particular it will contain provisions requiring undertakers to provide information to owners and occupiers about the works, to plan the works to cause the minimum inconvenience to landowners and to restore the land, once the work is complete, to its original condition. Undertakers will be required to act in a reasonable way at all times.
The second step we have taken is to provide in Clause 156 for the director general to direct an undertaker to make a payment to the complainant, up to a maximum of £1,000, which we propose should be increased to £5,000, if he is satisfied that an undertaker has failed to consult the owner and occupier before or during pipelaying, or by acting unreasonably has caused them to suffer loss or damage or to be inconvenienced. The director general will take into account whether there has been a breach of the code of practice in determining whether to make a direction and the amount of any payment.
Finally, the new clause after Clause 155, which was introduced by the Government in this Chamber at Committee stage places a requirement on undertakers to alter or remove a pipe in response to a reasonable request from a person with an interest in the land were the pipe is installed, or in adjacent land. This will go a long way to ensuring that the presence of undertakers' pipes on private land does not unreasonably hinder any subsequent development of that land.
I know that in accepting the amendments of my noble friend Lord Radnor at Third Reading your Lordships were greatly concerned about the powers that will be available to the water industry and the scope they offer for inconsiderate behaviour. The provisions contained in Commons Amendment No. 8 will I believe fully meet these concerns. These requirements, combined with the provisions of the code of practice and those in Clause 156 for the

1301
director general to direct an undertaker to make a payment, now up to £5,000, in cases where the undertaker has failed to consult a complainant or has acted unreasonably in exercising the powers, will I believe deal extremely effectively with the legitimate concerns of landowners.
I hope that the House will not insist on Amendments Nos. 5, 7 and 9. I commend to your Lordships Commons Amendment No. 8 in lieu of Amendment No. 7. This will improve the protection afforded to landowners while preserving the powers of undertakers to meet their statutory obligations.
Moved, That this House do not insist on their Amendment No. 5 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 6.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
7 Schedule 18, page 267, line 16, after "only" insert "except in the circumstances specified in sub-paragraph (5) below, after the consent of every owner and occupier of the land where the power is to be exercised has been given, which shall not be unreasonably withheld and any question whether such consent is or is not unreasonably withheld shall be referred to and determined by the Secretary of State; in the circumstances specified in sub-paragraph (5) below".
8 The Commons disagreed to this amendment but proposed the following amendments in lieu:
Page 156, line 26, leave out "£1,000" and insert "£5,000".
Page 267, leave out lines 11 to 20 and insert "only after reasonable notice of the proposed exercise of the power has been given to the owner and to the occupier of the land where the power is to be exercised.
(5) Subject to sub-paragraph (6) below, in relation to any exercise of the powers conferred by this paragraph for the purpose of laying or altering a relevant pipe, the minimum period that is capable of constituting reasonable notice for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) above shall be deemed—

(a) where the power is exercised for the purpose of laying a relevant pipe otherwise than in substitution for an existing pipe of the same description, to be three months; and

(b) where the power is exercised for the purpose of altering an existing pipe, to be forty-two days.

(6) Sub-paragraph (5) above shall not apply in the case of any notice given within the period of one year beginning with the transfer date or in the case of any notice given with respect to the exercise of any power in an emergency or for the purpose of—

(a) laying or altering a service pipe; or

(b) complying with a duty imposed under section 40 or 70 of this Act."

Page 268, line 38, at end insert—
"( ) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision requiring the Authority or any water undertaker or sewerage undertaker, where it is proposing or has begun to exercise any power conferred by virtue of paragraph 4 or 5 above in a prescribed case, to make advance payments on account of compensation that will become payable in respect of the exercise of that power.".
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 7 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their three amendments proposed in lieu thereof.
Moved, That this House do not insist on their Amendment No. 7 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their
1302
three amendments proposed in lieu thereof.—(The Earl of Caithness.)
4.45 p.m.
The Earl of Radnor: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for describing both the original amendment which your Lordships accepted and also for going into some detail into the amendment which the Commons have put in lieu of it. I am happy to accept the replacement by the Commons. At the same time, I should like to thank my noble friend for seeing me between the last stage of this Bill in this House and now in order to discuss the sort of compromise which we have before us. Having said that, indeed it is a compromise in that still in my heart of hearts I believe that the original amendment was tidy, concise and covered all the matters which were worrying my noble friend.
However, as he has described it, the situation is a great deal better than it was in the original Bill for the various reasons my noble friend described. To begin with there is this restrospective penalty of £5,000 instead of £1,000. That must be considered an advantage, although in a way it is quite outside the original thrust of the amendment which I put forward together with other noble Lords.
Much more important to me is that "reasonable notice" has been defined as three months for a new pipe and 42 days for the relaying of a pipe. I believe that, together with the exceptions of emergency service pipes and Clauses 40 and 70, it must be considered at least an advance because it will mean that people will not be abused in quite the same way as has happened since 1974 when "reasonable notice" could be defined by the courts as whatever they felt was correct. Noble Lords will remember from the debate that this could be as little as one month and two days.
An important point is that, by regulation, money can be paid in advance. That is of considerable importance because the parties must come together for this to happen and all kinds of matters must be discussed. Once more those ugly situations where things happen too quickly and with too little consultation may be overcome. Perhaps my disappointment is that the matter is left to regulations and is not on the face of the Bill.
I think that I have covered the matter. Compromise is sometimes quite a good way of going about things. Although I said earlier that I prefer my own amendment, I am happy to accept this amendment as it stands. I am grateful to my noble friend.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for what he has said. I appreciate that he would have liked his amendment to stay intact. Any noble Lord who had succeeded in the way that my noble friend has would not have felt any differently. I hope that the House will agree that we have been able to meet my noble friend a great part of the way, although perhaps not as far as he would have liked. We have made every effort to meet him on the points that he raised and we have

1303
also, as he so generously said, broadened the scope of the amendment. We increased the penalty.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
9 Schedule 18, page 267, line 20, at end insert—
"(5) The circumstances in which powers shall be exercised only after reasonable notice as provided in sub-paragraph (4)(a) above are—

(a) in an emergency; or

(b) when a pipe is laid in order to comply with a requisition under this Act; or

(c) where the Secretary of State determines it would be exceptionally difficult to obtain within a reasonable time the consent of every owner and occupier of the land where the power is to be exercised and so certifies.".

10 The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason:
Because it is consequential on Lords Amendment 239 in respect of which the Commons have proposed amendments in lieu.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 9 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 10.
Moved, That this House do not insist on their Amendment No. 9 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 10.—(The Earl of Caithness.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Electricity Bill
4.53 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(Baroness Hooper.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 34 [Electricity from non-fossil fuel sources]:
Lord Shepherd Lord Shepherd moved Amendment No. 76:
Page 26, line 9, at end insert—
("(4A) The Director may specify from time to time in the case of any person authorised to generate electricity under section 7(1)(a) above a proportion of his total generation that shall be from non-fossil fuel sources other than nuclear generation.
(4B) In exercising his functions under subsection (4A) above the Director shall have regard to the availability of different methods of generation and levels of use of energy from non-fossil fuel sources other than nuclear generation which may be appropriate to persons to whom subsection (4A) above applies.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is concerned with what we in this country refer to as renewable sources of energy and the Community refers to as alternatives. They range widely from wind turbine power to biomass, geothermal heat, solar and many others. Many of them are still at the
1304
early technological stage. A great deal of work has been done. Some are now in production. One is delighted to see that the Central Electricity Generating Board is now seeking to prove the feasibility of wind power with its wind farm of some 25 turbines. Denmark has gone a good deal further. There is no question that the Government have shown their interest in this field although, as Sub-committee B reported, we should have liked more funds to be available for research and development. I suppose that that is the story of all those who are interested in research and development.
In her Second Reading speech the noble Baroness said that it was the Government's intention to move an amendment to provide tranches within what was called the non-fossil fuel allocation for the generation of electricity taken by what are now the area boards. I have read with care what the noble Baroness said. I am only sorry that I was not present for her speech. My first criticism of the government amendment was that while the importance of this matter was recognised what was said was obscure. When I first saw the part of the Bill concerned with non-fossil fuel I though of nuclear. However, it is clear that that is not so. What the Government put forward to honour their agreement and undertaking to provide these tranches is to be found in the amendment which the noble Baroness proposed.
There are some difficulties with the government amendment as it now lies in the Bill. I am still unclear what is a non-fossil fuel generating station. In Clause 34(8) a non-fossil fuel generating station is described as,
"a generating station which is (or may be) fuelled or driven otherwise than by a fossil fuel".
I am not quite sure how the noble Baroness's amendments fall naturally within that definition. It is important to make clear that the renewable tranche is separate from non-fossil fuel; that is, without the nuclear element. That was one of the purposes of the amendment. I agree with the noble Baroness that it is difficult to describe renewables, although I must say to my noble friend Lord Peston that in Amendment No. 24 a side bracket referred to the "new techniques". I thought that the new techniques related to renewables but it may be an all-embracing term. That is why I was pleased to see Amendment No. 24. It seemed that the Government were undertaking their commitment to maintain research and development in alternative energy sources.
My difficulty goes a little further when I come to subsection (9). It says:
"subsections (5) to (8) above shall have effect in relation to any non-fossil fuel generating station which is driven by water, wind or solar power".
The noble Baroness will agree that that places a limitation on the renewables. There is geothermal, in respect of which the Government have most recently, and I think very wisely, given fairly substantial sums to the Institute of Mining. Biomass was referred to by the noble Baroness. I do not think it is covered in that definition, if that definition is what the Government have in mind for non-fossil fuel generating stations.
I believe that biomass has an area of development particularly in the field of small towns, and maybe also in city power supplies. I find myself in a difficult situation as to whether the Government have got it right in the way that they propose to honour their undertakings which they gave quite voluntarily concerning renewables. I ask the noble Baroness to look at subsection (9)(b), which states,
"that electricity generated outside the United Kingdom shall be treated for the purposes of subsection (5)(a) above as generated by a non-fossil fuel generating station in such circumstances and to such extent as may be prescribed".
I may be something of an innocent and I am certainly not a lawyer. I was wondering whether what is to be supplied from France has to be clearly identified by some generating station which is using renewable or alternative energy sources. At the moment that appears to be rather obscure.
The Government have gone a good way in trying to meet the concerns of Sub-committee B and many others involved in the field of the use of renewables and the easement of the greenhouse effect. Perhaps it is just as important to reduce the reliance on the imports of oil. I believe that the Government have gone a good way as regards those matter. But could they not have done so in a better way, one that would have shown the importance of this particular industry? If the noble Baroness appreciates that, I shall be happy to withdraw this amendment. It is a new industry and there is in it a great deal of enthusiasm and potential. If this subject were more closely identified within the Bill, as opposed to being part of the obscure nature of the way in which the parliamentary draftsman has provided it for the Minister, that would be welcome.
I believe it was my noble friend Lord Peston who raised the question of the change being made by order. Whether it is done by an order or through the framework of the amendment that I and other noble Lords have tabled, there may be some similarity. The amendment that I am moving will at least give the impetus that the provision would not be lost in the morass of a very large Bill. Such an order would create a degree of priority in the minds of those who advise Ministers when they are making up their strategic policies. Above all else, it would remind them of their commitment to the community which they have undertaken as regards the reduction of the reliance on imported oil. I do not believe there is anything between myself and the Minister as to what the Government have in mind here. It is the complexity and obscurity of it which I believe is unnecessary, and I do not believe it is right in what I call the public interest. I beg to move.
5 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, as a member of Sub-committee B and having had the honour to serve under the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, I support his amendments. I do so because we spent a great deal of time on the whole question of renewable sources of energy. It is quite clear that these sources of energy, which have considerable environmental benefit, are at a relatively early stage of development. If they are to be developed further they need
1306
encouragement. This Bill provides the opportunity to give such encouragement.
However, as the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has said, the encouragement is given in a way that is not obvious to the normal reader of the Bill. Combined heat and power, of which I am a great supporter, has many environmental benefits. Yesterday I had occasion to make virtually the same point. On everything that she has said about combined heat and power, the noble Baroness has shown that she is substantially in support of it as a form of energy with its big environmental advantages. The Government are in support of it. Nevertheless, it is very difficult to discern that support in the wording of the Bill as it now stands. Not only has the parliamentary draftsman disguised the fact that any reference is being made to combined heat and power—though we are told that the wording used in the Government's amendment means that—it is put in a way that suggests that the Government are much less supportive than they really are.
I believe that this is an opportunity for the noble Baroness to accept this amendment or to propose something similar in order to indicate clearly to us all that the Government favour the non-fossil fuel element other than nuclear (which is known as the renewable element), and that they consider that it should be encouraged. As I understand it, the Government intend to continue to support with financial contributions research into the development of these forms of energy. The Government consider that they are desirable. We should have it clearly stated in the Bill that that is the Government's position. Therefore I very much support the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I do not wish to take issue with the principles that have been spelt out by either the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, or the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, because I believe we all agree that support for alternative sources of energy is very important and that in the future they will have a vital part to play. We must get the situation into perspective. My understanding is that the total contribution of all alternative sources of energy to power generation at the present moment is somewhere in the region of 8 per cent. That is a very small percentage indeed. With all the best endeavours it is going to be many years before that percentage is increased substantially.
We spend a great deal of our time in this House looking at Bills and revising them, trying to ensure that we do not write into them that which is not absolutely necessary. I do not altogether agree with the noble Lords, Lord Shepherd, and Lord Ezra, when they suggest that in order to emphasise the importance of alternative sources of energy it is necessary to introduce this amendment into the Bill. I suggest to my noble friend who will reply that she thinks very carefully as to whether or not it is desirable to accept this amendment. I personally believe it is unnecessary.
When the generators come to consider the sources of generation that they are going to use, there will be the sources which are available to them at the

1307
present time. When the time comes for those to be extended and expanded, the generators will make their decisions in due course according to availability. The second part of the noble Lords' amendment; namely, subsection (4B), spells out how they should proceed. There will be plenty of time for consideration to be given to the matter. That consideration will take place in any case if those alternative sources provide an adequate and attractive source of supply. While I am not taking issue with what the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said, I believe it is unnecessary to write such an amendment into the Bill.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I should like to take up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin, and contradict it. In doing so I should like to support the noble Lords, Lord Ezra and Lord Shepherd, in their introduction, but I would go further than either of them. I want the Minister to come clean and direct on this matter. As she knows, I have been raising it every since consideration of the Bill began.
First, with regard to what the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin, said, it is simply not the case that renewable sources of energy are going to take a long time to be put into effect, particularly if combined with conservation. Certainly they will take a much shorter time to come into effect than would the building of nuclear power stations, which takes six years at a minimum.
I should like to put this straight to the noble Baroness. The Government have been pussy-footing around ever since the issue of renewable energy sources and conservation was introduced. They have been making noises about the necessity for diversification and for giving some support to the research and development of alternative sources of energy. But the issue is clear. The Government and the nuclear industry have been using the taxpayers' money for a large number of advertisements, maintaining that the answer to the greenhouse effect is to increase nuclear energy. It is not. I am not the only one who is saying that. Yesterday over 100 British scientists, including two Nobel lawyers, put their names to this very issue: that it is not the case that the greenhouse effect can be reduced by the use of nuclear energy. The greenhouse effect will be worsened by an increase in nuclear power because the resources that are put into nuclear power will divert resources and attention from the real attack on the greenhouse effect. The real attack must come from energy conservation and from renewable sources, but both cannot operate at the same time.
Unless the Government are prepared to recognise what we are saying to them and what many British scientists are saying, and what was said to the Prime Minister in No. 10 Downing Street six weeks ago, there is no question but that the greenhouse effect will continue to endanger our planet. Renewable sources and conservation can be introduced much more quickly than can the building of new nuclear power stations. Unless the Government are prepared to look at the case for scrapping their plans for the building of four new PWRs and diverting those
1308
resources to the real attack on the greenhouse effect, they are not seriously taking into account what is now becoming widely known as the greenhouse menace to our society. I have told the noble Baroness several times during the passage of the Bill that it is now established that conservation and renewable sources are seven times as efficient as nuclear energy.
I would add one further point which I raised during the Committee stage, though I did not come back on it because I did not have the actual evidence to hand. When I asked the noble Baroness whether she was taking into account the health effects and the health costs of nuclear energy, in addition to the whole paraphernalia of the disposal of waste and that threat, and mentioned the connection between leukaemia and nuclear installations, two Members of the House said that there was no connection, and the noble Baroness agreed with them. Has she read the Black Report of 1984 concerning Sellafield? Has she read the study of the Scottish health services in relation to Dounreay? Has she read about the research going on today about the likely effect?
All I said to the noble Baroness was that it was quite apparent today that there may be a connection between the two, and a great deal more research is needed on this issue. The cost of that research is a cost as against the nuclear industry. It is not sufficient to say, as she has done before, "We are going to diversify; we are going to give consideration to renewable sources and to conservation". I want her to say quite bluntly whether the Government seriously consider that the building of new nuclear power stations may increase the greenhouse effect and be a danger to the health of our society, and whether they will at least consider what they are being told by so many scientists, that by putting their resources into the building of new nuclear power stations they are reducing the opportunity for tackling the causes of the greenhouse effect.
I hope that the noble Baroness will answer that argument this afternoon and tell the House whether the Government have sufficient openness of mind to listen to the scientists. I am not asking her to make up her mind this afternoon but to listen to the scientists and to consider whether this is not a case which should at least be referred to an expert committee as to how the future energy policy of this country should be run. In my view it should be by cancelling the four PWRs, running down the other nuclear power stations and mobilising all the resources available, including those that are now going into nuclear energy, into conservation and into renewable sources.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Kearton: My Lords, I should like to speak to the amendment to which I have put my name. As a member of Sub-Committee B I should like to support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, which he moved so eloquently and, if I may say so, so reasonably—so reasonably in fact that I cannot imagine that any responsible Minister could possibly disagree with the case that he put.
As the noble Lord said, exactly what is required must be made clear. Sub-Committee B took a lot of evidence; it was converted in some cases, and its

1309
mind was made up at the end that the course suggested by the noble Lord was the sensible one to take.
I should like to commend the Government and the Minister for the way in which they have responded so constructively to many of the comments and suggestions made during the course of this complicated Bill. We are putting a great deal of onus in the Bill on the director. I do not have the privilege of knowing the director but I know the young lady who has recently been appointed as the deputy director. I can only say that it is an inspired appointment and I congratulate the Minister on it.
The director and the deputy director are going to have a monumental task, which in some ways will be greater than that already carried out by the Department of Energy. Anything which we can do to make their task simpler, more direct and more closely specified would be a great advantage. That is the purpose of the noble Lord's amendment.
The case made by the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin, reinforces the case for the amendment, because non-fossil fuel sources are relatively small at the moment and they require very active and positive encouragement to make the contribution which they can make in the future. I hope that the Minister will find it possible to accept the amendment.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, I do not wish to take up too much of the time of the House, but I think that one really must reply to some extent to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Hatch. We agree on one point, and one point only; namely, that the way forward, avoiding the greenhouse effect, is undoubtedly energy conservation. There is nothing on the scene at present as regards alternative energy, however hard we try—apart from tidal power which could have an effect and wind power which would have a small effect—that would get us out of this difficulty. We are therefore left with nuclear and coal.
No one in their senses would say that going nuclear to the maximum possible extent will completely solve the greenhouse effect. However, to argue against nuclear on the grounds that people will be deterred from continuing research into alternative forms of energy is just fairyland.
The last comment I should like to make concerns another point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch about health grounds and nuclear. We know the dangers of nuclear. But, my gosh, what has been happening as regards coal—I shall not go into detail, because I do not wish to keep the House too long—it is far greater than anything, Chernobyl included, which has happened or is likely to happen from nuclear.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am happy to give the House the assurance that the Government certainly believe that renewables have a significant contribution to make to diversity in generation. Moreover, that will be increasingly true in the future as many of the developing renewable technologies
1310
are able to prove themselves as attractive options. That is exactly why we are creating the possibility for renewable tranches within the non-fossil fuel obligation which I announced on 15th June.
In doing so I referred to the fact that, as originally drafted, the Bill allowed the order to specify that the capacity should be only from non-fossil stations. In order to make it absolutely clear we introduced the amendment which allows the alternative of specifying that it must be from non-fossil stations of a particular description. The Secretary of State will therefore be able to set orders specifying that they can only be met by capacity from renewable generators. In fact, it will be made clear in the orders that additional tranches will apply to non-nuclear, non-fossil sources. The provision in the Bill is, after all, an enabling provision.
Renewable projects will of course be able to contribute to the initial obligation in any event through contracts signed before the end of this year. That will cover existing capacity and capacity which is on the point of production. The Secretary of State will be setting the obligation with that very much in mind to encourage the distribution companies to contract for all practical and economic propositions that are available. We fully expect a number of competitive projects to be in position to contract by then. Those projects will be included in that initial overall obligation.
We believe that the additional renewable tranches which will be introduced through the. 1990s, and to which I referred in Committee on 15th June, will provide a considerable boost to the prospects for increased generation of renewable forms of energy in the United Kingdom. They will provide a guaranteed premium market into which renewables can sell as soon as they become competitive.
The system will have the added benefit of flexibility. Before setting the size of each tranche, we will consider the progress which the developing technologies have made and the lead times necessary to build new stations. If any particular renewable technology becomes competitive earlier than seems likely at present, we will, of course, be able to review the size of the relevant tranche.
The important thing is that in doing this we must be careful in fixing the level, since the obligation rests upon the suppliers who cannot be expected to cope with any unreasonable obligation. They run the risk, among other matters, of criminal proceedings if they do not fulfil their obligations. Therefore we feel that to look carefully at the level of the obligation is important. That is why the flexibility has been left as it stands.
Further, as I said before, the figure set is a minimum one and there is nothing to prevent suppliers going higher. We believe—and here I must agree with my noble friend Lord Gray of Contin—that this amendment is unnecessary. I say that because the Bill as currently drafted meets the aims of the amendment, as the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, explained it. The non-fossil fuel obligation is designed to meet the vital strategic need for diversity in generation. This is a matter of national policy and therefore we also believe that it is rightly a matter for the Secretary of State to decide.

1311
The director has a more limited role in this respect. His work and that of his team will be guided by the duties set down in the legislation. It would therefore not be appropriate for the director to have the power to set that obligation. I must say that I am happy about the welcome to the appointments given by the noble Lord, Lord Kearton. We agree, of course, that the director will have a considerable knowledge of the industry which will be very valuable in assessing at what level the non-fossil obligations should be set. That is why the obligation can be set only after the Secretary of State has consulted the director. Moreover, he will also be consulting the public electricity supply companies.
It will also be to the director that the public electricity supply companies have to present the evidence to show that they have met their obligations under Clause 34. Therefore he will be involved in the procedure. We believe that the Secretary of State has all the resources of the Civil Service to assess this, as well as an extensive research and development and demonstration programme. He also has an excellent network of contacts within the industry by which to judge what the potential is. Clearly only one person should be responsible for deciding the proper level for renewables. Further, given the importance that we all recognise renewables have in the longer term, we feel that it is appropriate that that person should be the Secretary of State. I hope that noble Lords will feel able to agree with that conclusion.
The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, asked whether renewables cover geothermal or biomass. The answer is that renewables do cover these energy sources. They will be able to contribute towards the initial obligation and the future exclusively renewable tranches. Clause 34(9)(a) is designed purely to ensure that the intermittent renewable resources—that is why they are specifically referred to—are given a fair capacity rating. However, geothermal and biomass are not intermittent and can be relied upon to generate when needed.
The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, also asked about imports having to be related specifically to capacity from non-fossil stations. It is precisely because it is not possible to specify what the contracts for imports should say that Clause 34(9)(b) is needed. Regulations will ensure that imports are treated fairly and in line with domestic electricity.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, does that mean that the imported electricity, to be covered by the provision for renewables, will have to be identified by renewable generation plants, shall we say, in France?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, yes. To contribute to the obligation it will have to be positively identified as from a non-fossil or renewable source within the non-fossil obligation.
We all know the view held by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, about nuclear power. I always aim to give straight answers. I rather resent the implication of his remarks in that respect. His return to the subject of health risk is unwarranted after the
1312
comments that were made when he raised the issue on a previous occasion. There is no way that the risk he suggests exists has been established. We see no one solution to the greenhouse effect. A package is needed, which we believe we are providing with the various measures in the Bill, which will allow for a variety of sources of energy, in addition to energy efficiency measures. The Government believe that the nuclear programme is part of that package. I believe that I have made that clear and given straight answers on a number of occasions.
With regard to the noble Lord's solution to the future of nuclear power, I point to recommendation 4.1 of the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology which endorsed the Government's views and policy in that respect.
The Government are at one with the noble Lord who tabled the amendment in attaching great importance to renewables and, in particular, to their long-term contribution to diversity. However, we believe, as I hope I have sufficiently explained, that the provisions in the Bill achieve that aim and that the amendment would add nothing. I therefore trust that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, I am grateful to those who have taken part in the debate, especially the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and my noble friend Lord Kearton. I am sorry that the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, is not present, because we were together when we successfully moved the amendment which is now Clause 3. We were then described in one responsible newspaper as a group of rebel Tories. I do not know about the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, or my noble friend Lord Kearton, but some of my friends may have said, because of my Right wing views, that I may be close to being a Tory, but they have not yet described me as a rebel.
There is one thing that the Minister can bear in mind—of course the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin, does not have the slightest hope of ever being a rebel. It must have been the years that he spent in the Whips Office in another place. I am pleased that the Minister corrected him in respect of his intervention which was clearly in support of the Government. Alternative energy sources, or renewables as we call them in this country, play a significant part, and will increasingly do so in the coming years.
I listened carefully to what the Minister said. With due respect, I do not believe that she added much to what she said in Committee. She did not meet the point to which most of us on this side of the House attach importance, which is to draw attention within the Bill to the importance of what the Government propose and the powers that they intend to take, and whether it was possible to redraft what the Government have in mind so that that is made much clearer.
When they looked at the Bill a number of my noble friends could not find renewables. I would have been in my place when the Minister moved the amendment if I had known that it was about renewables. I have an interest in renewables and

1313
energy, but if that is my reaction and the reaction of others, is the reaction of the general public and the industry likely to be very different?
I find it, in a sense, rather distasteful, because there is nothing between the Minister and myself in intention, purpose and expectation, but I do not believe that she has met the point central to what we have been discussing today—the importance of alternatives or renewables and the need for that to appear on the face of the Bill with infinitely greater clarity than it now does. Therefore I should like to test the opinion of the House in regard to the amendment. The amendments which I have tabled in no way conflict with the purposes or intentions of the Government.
5.36 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 76) shall be agreed to?
Their House divided: Contents, 81; Not-Contents, 110.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Airedale, L.

Alport, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Amherst, E.

Lockwood, B.

Ardwick, L.

Longford, E.

Aylestone, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Banks, L.

Lytton, E.

Blackstone, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

McNair, L.

Bottomley, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Molloy, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Monson, L.

Caldecote, V.

Mountevans, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Mulley, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Nicol, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Northfield, L.

David, B.

Peston, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Phillips, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Ennals, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Ezra, L. [Teller.]

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Rochester, L.

Fitt, L.

Russell, E.

Foot, L.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Gallacher, L.

Scanlon, L.

Galpern, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Serota, B.

Gregson, L.

Shepherd, L.

Grey, E.

Sherfield, L.

Halsbury, E.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hanworth, V.

Tordoff, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

White, B.

Jay, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jeger, B.

Willis, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Kearton, L.

Lawrence, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Listowel, E.

Young of Dartington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Arran, E.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Auckland, L.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Bauer, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

1314

Beloff, L.

Manton, L.

Belstead, L.

Margadale, L.

Biddulph, L.

Marley, L.

Birdwood, L.

Merrivale, L.

Blatch, B.

Mersey, V.

Borthwick, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mottistone, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Munster, E.

Caithness, E.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Camden, M.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Norrie, L.

Carnock, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Chelmer, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Colnbrook, L.

Orkney, E,

Cork and Orrery, E.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Craigavon, V.

Pender, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Daventry, V.

Prior, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Pym, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Quinton, L.

Dundee, E.

Radnor, E.

Dunrossil, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Reigate, L.

Elles, B.

Renton, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Rodney, L.

Fisher, L.

Romney, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Saint Albans, D.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Gridley, L.

Stockton, E.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Strathspey, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Suffield, L.

Hemphill, L.

Swansea, L.

Henley, L.

Swinton, E.

Hesketh, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hives, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Trafford, L.

Hood, V.

Trefgarne, L.

Hooper, B.

Trenchard, V.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Trumpington, B.

Killearn, L.

Ullswater, V.

Kitchener, E.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Layton, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Watkinson, V.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Young of Graffham, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.44 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 77:
Page 26, line 26, at end insert—
("(6A) The aggregate amount of the non-fossil fuel generating capacity which shall be specified by the Secretary of State shall be the minimum which is required to ensure the security of electricity supply to electricity consumers. The Secretary of State shall, in specifying the aggregate amount, demonstrate that no other means exist for ensuring the security of supply to electricity consumers which are more economic and less distorting of competition.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this amendment standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Peston. A similar amendment was tabled at Committee stage in which the aim was to eliminate the non-fossil fuel quota and ensure security of supply by other means. In the event, there was no discussion of any significance on that subject, but on Report we believe that it is right to try to approach the problem slightly differently. This time

1315
our amendment addresses itself to the level at which the NFFQ—if I may use that rather ugly series of initials—is to be allowed to ensure security of supply and no higher than that.
In the amendment we attempt to link the non-fossil fuel quota to security of supply, but there is a caveat that the Secretary of State has to demonstrate that there is no other way in which to achieve that security which is cheaper or less distorting of competition. As I understand it, the amendment achieves what the Government wants—in other words security of supply. But it imposes certain limitations on the non-fossil fuel quota in order to make quite certain that the Secretary of State shall pay attention to all other means of conserving and saving electricity while being bound to the provisions on security of supply. I beg to move.
Viscount Hood: My Lords, I think that the amendment is unnecessary and complicated. It relates the fossil fuel capacity to the security of supply, but the security of supply will be met by numerous forms of generation—notably coal—for the foreseeable future. Moreover, the amount required for security is a matter of opinion. In the past, although it has been estimated to the best of our ability, the estimates have not been very accurate. My noble friend Lord Nelson may recall the period in the 1950s when it was decided to build two nuclear stations a year. The estimations were wrong. That was reduced to one; and then it was reduced to none, to the great inconvenience of the plant manufacturers.
I also think that a very strict relationship to the economic factors is unwise. It could well be that a private company might be prepared, if necessary, to put up a wind station, although the Secretary of State could not possibly demonstrate at that time that it was most economic. It might be most economic to import marginal power from France. On all those grounds, I think that the amendment is unnecessary and should be resisted.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we believe that the amendment challenges the Government's policy of maintaining security of supply and is therefore unacceptable for reasons which I hope to be able to demonstrate.
I remind your Lordships that over the last two decades the energy market has been marked by considerable turbulence. There were the very rapid oil price rises of 1973 which so nearly led to petrol rationing, and again in 1978. Then there was the miners' strike in 1984. These are experiences which should not quickly or lightly be forgotten. It is quite often the role of this House to remind the Government of the lessons which history and experience have to teach; but on this occasion I think that the lessons have quite clearly already been learnt.
With that in mind, I should like to look first at the second part of the amendment before us. It states that the Secretary of State will have to demonstrate, when he sets the non-fossil fuel obligation, that there
1316
was no other means of protecting security of supply which would be more economic or less distorting to competition. I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Hood. How can the Secretary of State possibly know? How could anyone have predicted in advance the cost which the miners' strike imposed on this country? How could anyone have predicted the economic effect which the quadrupling of oil prices had on the British economy?
With the greatest of respect to the profession of the noble Lord, Lord Peston—who is unfortunately not in his seat at the moment—I am afraid that these decisions are, by their nature, beyond the realms in which economics can do more than inform the debate rather than decide it. No doubt it could be said that economists can carry out sensitivity analyses based on different scenarios. But how do we know which scenarios to take and what probability to ascribe to each one?
At the beginning of the 1970s economists suggested that a quadrupling of the oil price and a year-long miners' strike were unlikely outcomes and yet that is what happened within 15 years. It is precisely because we are in the realm of such uncertainty that we need the insurance which we believe the non-fossil fuel obligation offers. I am afraid that decisions of this nature are bound to be broad strategic decisions. It will not be possible to demonstrate down to the last penny that the same security of supply could not have been achieved more cheaply.
As regards the distortion of competition, that is even more difficult to quantify. This will, of course, be a factor which the Secretary of State will consider when he makes a judgment about the level of the obligation. However, it would be quite wrong to constrain his decision in the way this amendment suggests. I do not feel I need to go into the questions of to whom the Secretary of State must demonstrate this, by what method, or what would happen if the two criteria mentioned in the amendment were in conflict.
The first part of the amendment tries to prevent the Secretary of State setting an obligation which is higher than the minimum required for security of supply. That, too, is quite unacceptable. As we have just discussed, there is the possibility of extra tranches to the non-fossil fuel obligation as the 1990s progress. These extra tranches will be exclusively for renewables. As I made clear when I originally announced them, and earlier this afternoon, the Government believe that renewables have a significant contribution to make to diversity in generation in the longer term. However, it would be difficult to argue that these extra tranches, which we estimate will total 600 megawatts, are part of the minimum required to secure security of supply at the moment.
The amendment would quite probably make it impossible for the Secretary of State to set these extra tranches, which we believe would give a considerable boost to the commercial prospects for renewables. I am sure that that is not what the noble Lord, Lord Williams, has in mind. More broadly though, this part of the amendment seems to suggest that the

1317
Secretary of State will want to use the non-fossil obligation for some purpose other than achieving security of supply through having diversity in generation. That is not the case. As Ministers have repeatedly pointed out, we intend to set the obligation so that it maintains roughly the level of diversity which we have at the moment. I hope, on the basis of what I have said, that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. The question of who shall make what estimates of demand in order to ensure security of supply is one which has vexed governments and the Electricity Council over the years. Nevertheless, they have to be made. One cannot simply shrug them off and say they do not have to be made. So there must be some clear estimate. Indeed the Electricity Council has in the past made estimates which, as it turned out, were way above the total level of demand for electricity. Therefore, we should like to see some rather more sophisticated statistical mechanism—which must exist—in order to ensure that demand is not overestimated.
Further, the noble Baroness said that this amendment would in some way cut down the emphasis on renewables. I am afraid I totally failed to follow her argument on that point. I could not see any reason why this amendment would exclude that. Further, I do not believe that the decisions as regards what will be nuclear and the level of the non-fossil fuel quota are going to be economic decisions; I believe that they will be political. That is the essence of what this Bill is about in the clauses we are discussing at the moment. These are political decisions to go in for and continue with a certain programme. That may have stemmed from good political decisions or bad political decisions. I shall not argue that point at the moment. However, the decisions are not based on the economic facts as we know them at the moment. That is why I come back to this amendment and why I state that it is economics which should decide the matter rather than politics.
A current theme of my noble friend Lord Peston, myself and my honourable friend in another place, Mr. Blair, is that if it can be shown that the economics are right, we would be prepared to go along with whatever is economically satisfactory. If the economics are not right, there must be some reasonable political view as to why we should have a non-economic situation. However, having gone through that argument today—no doubt the argument will continue for a number of days yet—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Shepherd Lord Shepherd moved Amendment No. 78:
Page 26, line 35, at end insert—
("(7A) No non-fossil fuel generating station shall be rated in such a way as to discriminate unfairly against it in comparison with other types of generating station.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I move this amendment with the feeling that the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin, would stand foursquare with
1318
me if it were necessary to go through the Division Lobbies. The amendment seeks to allow or to ensure that the rating parity between small and large generators should be the same; in other words, there should be no unfair discrimination through the rating system against private, small operators.
In evidence presented to Sub-Committee B, it was quite clear that this was an inhibiting factor in a number of projects, particularly in the field of renewables. A question was put to Mr. Michael Spicer on 10th March with regard to the adverse disparity as regards the small operator. Mr. Spicer replied:
"The Department of the Environment are very much aware of that, and they are reviewing this matter very seriously in terms of the 1990 commitment to a new rating structure, and certainly we believe that it is right that the obstacles and the distortions which exist in the market against certain new forms of generation and a variety of size rates should be removed".
There was therefore a commitment given by Mr. Spicer in regard to legislation. I was told not so long ago that the Government had already dealt with this matter. I was not aware of that, and I have not been able to find out whether or not that is correct. But if it has not been dealt with, I should think it would be right, with the passage of this Bill, that we should ensure that operators and generators, whether they are private, big or small, be treated as my amendment suggests. My amendment suggests that:
"No non-fossil fuel generating station shall be rated in such a way as to discriminate unfairly against it in comparison with other types of generating station".
This is an important point in terms of the passage of this Bill. If the matter has not been dealt with by earlier legislation, the commitment that has been given is a very open-ended one which could adversely affect small operators. I cannot believe that that is the intention of Her Majesty's Government. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am sure your Lordships would agree that we do not legislate as a rule, especially in detail, in a way to prevent the unthinkable from happening. To me it is absolutely unthinkable that there might be discrimination—
Lord Shepherd: There is!
Lord Renton: My Lords, I do not think there could be discrimination against fossil fuel generating stations once this Bill is passed. We have so much in the way of provisions here to encourage and require them to be given a proper run and a fair crack of the whip, that to add this point as well seems to me to be quite unnecessary.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I find the point about rates very strange. I know that the electricity industry has always been unhappy with the present rating system. However, under the new rating system there will continue to be a right of appeal. If one is discriminated against, one therefore has a right of appeal. I do not understand the amendment.
6 p.m.
Lord Kearton: My Lords, I support the amendment. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, that Sub-Committee B received evidence from small producers that the cost of electricity was doubled by the anomalies of the rating system. Despite what the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said, the present situation has meant that small producers are very unfairly discriminated against. The sole purpose of the amendment is to ensure that that does not happen in the future.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I was somewhat puzzled by the amendment. I thought that it might refer to rating in the sense that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has explained, but it could equally have applied to capacity rating, which we discussed earlier, on the basis of intermittent sources.
The Government have agreed in principle—and an announcement was made by the Secretary of State—that private generators exporting electricity to the electricity supply distribution network should be rated on a comparable basis to the rest of the electricity supply industry. That means that small generators and private generators will be on the same footing as others.
Although Section 34 of the General Rate Act provides for the extension, by order, to other generators of electricity of the formula contained in Schedule 7 to the General Rate Act 1967, which provides for the rating of electricity boards, that formula is not in a form which can be applied to independent electricity suppliers. The same is true of the existing formula for Scotland. The Government have put in hand a revaluation of all non-domestic property and, as a part of that revaluation, are reviewing the statutory rating formula for England, Scotland and Wales. That review will take account of the need for a more broadly applicable basis of assessment in respect of electricity generation. The outcome of the review will be new rateable values to be brought into effect from 1st April 1990 together with the new valuation lists.
At that time it is intended that any new electricity generator or combined heat and power scheme which has the capability to export electricity to the electricity supply industry's distribution network will have its rateable value assessed on a comparable basis. While the review of formula rating is progressing it is obviously not possible to say what that basis will be.
That is the position as it stands, but I think that it goes some way to meeting the anxieties expressed by the noble Lord.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, will she explain what would be the rateable situation of those generators which do not export electricity but which could be quite sizeable, supplying the internal requirements of industrial activities?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, if I may, I shall write to the noble Lord to clarify the position. It is my
1320
understanding that the same basis as I have described will apply.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, I am not very sure how far the noble Baroness has taken me down the road, or the lane, in this respect. It is a serious matter, and despite what the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and the noble Baroness have said, my noble friend Lord Kearton is quite right. Clear evidence was put before the Committee. It was accepted by Mr. Spicer, the Minister within the Department of Energy, that that was the case.
I cannot say that the reply was satisfactory, but I appreciate that the noble Baroness did not understand the purpose of the amendment. Therefore it would be unfair to be too critical. However, the noble Baroness had better get a new and improved departmental brief in this respect before Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Shepherd Lord Shepherd moved Amendment No. 79:
Page 27, line 18, at end insert—
("(9A) The Secretary of State may by order establish an authority which shall promote and supervise the generation of electricity from tidal power.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a probing amendment. The amendment is very much in line with the inquiry which is presently being undertaken with regard to the Severn barrage and the Mersey barrage. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin, will welcome this.
If the Severn barrage were in existence it would produce electricity to the order of 7 per cent. of present electricity production. That in itself is significant. The difficulty is that, apart from planning permission matters, the barrage would cost approximately £13.5 billion. On the other hand, if the barrage were built it would have an operating life of at least 120 years. With inflation and the changing value of money, I am not sure what the relationship between 120 years and £13.5 billion is. At the end of the day it may prove competitive with other investment decisions.
A project of that order is clearly beyond the capacity of even the new generating organisation, but we must recognise that it may one day be in the public interest for the Severn barrage, or the Mersey barrage, to be implemented. The question therefore is, if such a project were undertaken it would need to be undertaken by the Government, or by the Government in conjunction with private industry. I would prefer the latter to a purely state-funded project. If that were so, how could that be achieved? Would it be limited by the provisions of the Bill, or would it require new legislation or amendments to this Bill in regard to competition with the established generating companies?
This is very much a probing amendment to see whether the Government have considered this aspect. However, I know that they are awaiting a report at the end of this year. I understand that they are awaiting it with interest and a good deal of sympathy. I shall be interested to hear the response of the Government. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am sure that all noble Lords are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for raising this important question of generation by tidal power. I should have thought that the Bill probably enables the Secretary of State to take steps to see that somebody does this if public money is provided. As the noble Lord says, it is a huge sum. I do not think that it would come from private sources.
I shall be very interested in the Government's reply. I say in passing that it is only a probing amendment. I should not wish to see a separate authority established. I doubt whether that would be necessary.
Viscount Hood: My Lords, I think that this amendment is unnecessary and could conceivably be harmful. As the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said, a report is pending. It is being funded partly by Government, partly by the CEGB, and partly by private interests, one of which is George Wimpey Ltd, of which I am a director and therefore declare an interest.
The barrage is an enormous project and if at some point it becomes practical it will be carried out by private enterprise because the industry will have been privatised. This is where the amendment could conceivably be harmful. If a private entity proposed to enter such an enterprise I do not believe that it would want there to be in existence an authority which could complicate the business. I therefore suggest that, at this point in time, it would be better not to pass the amendment.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, the amendment uses the word "may". It does not state that such an authority must be established. I should like to make just two points. One must consider the viability of those long-term projects over their lifetime which may be 100 years or more in the case of a tidal barrage. In my view, it will never be promoted entirely by private enterprise. That is not to say that, if the Government gave a certain amount of help or some guarantees, it could not be brought about. That is an important point to bear in mind. If I am right that it cannot be initiated solely by private enterprise, it is a good thing to incorporate the amendment in the Bill because it is merely permissive.
Lord Somers: My Lords, I am entirely in favour of the amendment, but I wish that the noble Lord had inserted two words at the end. I wish that he had inserted the words "or wind" after the word "tidal". Wind power is certainly a possibility. I saw a film on television not long ago which demonstrated to me quite convincingly that wind power was a possible source of electricity. Although, during the past few days, one may have wondered what has happened to the wind, there is no doubt that it still blows up in the north. I therefore think that it would be a possibility to carry out experiments with wind power.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I should like to support what the noble Lord, Lord Somers, has said
1322
about wind and wave power. Perhaps I may add my own probing to that of my noble friend Lord Shepherd. Perhaps the Minister will tell us, first, whether it is the case that, some months ago, the Government either gave up or drastically reduced their research subsidy to the examination of wave power. Secondly, has she seen the statement that was made yesterday by the north-west region that 14 per cent. of the energy needs of the region could be met by wind and wave power? That 14 per cent. is not to be taken simply as 14 per cent. of the 100 per cent. Presumably, it is 14 per cent. of the 20 per cent. that is allocated to non-fossil fuels.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, the point that we must bear in mind is that my noble friend Lord Shepherd said that this was a probing amendment. He is trying to find things out. There is therefore little point in delving too deeply into the wording of his amendment.
I support the amendment in general terms. I should like to see the Severn barrage promoted and producing electricity. I do not care whether the work is done with public or private money so long as it is done with some money. It may not be done with private money, but it should be done by someone. I make no ideological distinction between private and public money so long as money is spent on that project.
I should like to go a little further and remind the House that this is not merely a matter of the Severn barrage or the Mersey barrage. Work on tidal power is being done in Queen's University in Belfast, for example, on a wholly different prospect. Professor Salter at Edinburgh has made proposals which I think are somewhat fanciful, but there may well be something in them in the long run. It is a little sad that the principles behind the work that is being done in Belfast have already been adopted by the authorities in Norway. We are being outflanked in that area where we might have been to the fore.
I support in general terms the ideas that underlie my noble friend's amendment. I should like to end by uttering a cautionary word about wind power. It is clearly desirable that we should utilise every source of energy that we can find. In that respect, I am entirely in support of the Government's generalised policy of finding as many sources of power as possible—tidal and wind among them. However, not long ago, I made a comparison related to Pembroke power station which is a 2,000 MW station. I worked out that, in order to replace it by windmills, one would require a windmill every 100 metres round the Welsh coast from Cardiff to Liverpool. That is an interesting prospect and I am sure chat the Welsh deserve it, but environmentalists would perhaps raise a query as to whether it was the right thing to do. I am sure that there is something to be found from wind power, but on the domestic rather than the industrial scale. At all events, I mention wind power here because I think that it should be kept out of my noble friend's amendment.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the Government certainly accept that tidal power has the potential to

1323
make a contribution to generation in the longer term. Indeed, the Department of Energy's "Energy Paper 55" suggested that, of the technical potential of 54 TWh, up to 28 TWh might possibly be commercially exploitable by the year 2025.
The Government are already doing a significant amount to identify the commercial prospects for tidal energy. Feasibility studies are under way with consortia for the Severn and Merseyside estuaries and a number are planned or under way for smaller estuaries. But as the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, pointed out, all forms of energy generation have environmental consequences. We must recognise that some of the difficulties that have been raised in relation to those studies are in respect of the environmental impact of those schemes. However, the consortia which are dealing with those arrangements consist of a mixture of public and private sector investors at present. We believe that they are already doing the job of the kind of tidal quango that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, proposes in his amendment.
As has been recognised, one of the objects of the extra tranches for renewables is to give a considerable boost to the commercial prospects for early tidal schemes. I specifically mentioned that we shall take into account the lead times of the different types of renewable plant. Tidal power has lead times of seven to 10 years. In Clause 34(9), we have provided the ability by regulations to allow tidal power to make its contribution to the non-fossil fuel obligation in the way that I explained earlier.
However, our aim goes wider than tidal power. We want to encourage all competitive and environmentally acceptable renewable technologies. The wind research programme is well advanced with a collaborative programme with industry spending £5 million a year. We expect that the contribution from wind power will be made via the manufacturing and electricity industry without the need for a separate authority to promote it.
Concerning wave power, research on large-scale off-shore wave power was curtailed in the early 1980s after a £17 million research programme had shown that it was unlikely to contribute at an economic rate. Research into smaller scale wave energy which shows more promise continues, including the work by Belfast University to which the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, referred. As to his reference to Norway's wave device, I understood that in fact it fell down last Christmas. However, I am quite aware that the technology of Norway is progressing in this respect.
The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, asked specifically whether the Bill would prevent a Severn barrage being built or if new legislation would be required. Whoever it may be when the time comes, the operator would need a generator's licence, but the Bill would not prohibit the construction of a barrage. However, the application for, and obtaining of, a licence is a preliminary step that would have to be taken. A private Bill might well be needed to enable the promoters to acquire land and carry out works; otherwise, there is nothing in the Bill which would prevent a potential Severn or Mersey barrage.
1324
Indeed, we believe that the renewable tranches would give a boost to it.
So, in suggesting the setting up of an authority specifically to promote tidal power, I believe that the best promoters and supervisors are the companies which intend to harness and operate that power. We are assisting those companies with joint funding of the studies and through the proposals in the Bill. Indeed, our aim in privatising the electricity industry and creating scope for competition is to remove the generation of electricity from government interference, not add to it. Therefore I cannot accept the noble Lord's amendment. I hope that he will decide to withdraw it.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, this was a probing amendment. I agree with the noble Lords, Lord Howie of Troon and Lord Somers, that wind power has the same problems although perhaps in a less degree than tidal power generating stations and barrages because of the long period of pay-back. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Howie, that wind power and wind farms of any great size on land are unlikely to become a practical issue, although I am advised that cattle and sheep happily graze between the stanchions of the turbines. However, the noble Lord is right; there is a long pay-back. I am sure that in the future wind farms, if they do come into being, will be offshore, and the costs will be infinitely higher than if they were put on the land.
As for the noble Viscount, Lord Hood, I do not think that there is anything between us. I used the word "authority". I did not know what other word to use. I could have put "company" or "plc" or many other things, but I used the word "authority" to ascertain whether there was some body or some organisation which would fit into the terms of the amendment. I am influenced neither one way nor the other as to whether this is financed by government, private industry or a mix of both.
The noble Lord is confident that this will be financed by the private sector. We must wait and see when the issue arises. I doubt it, unless there is some clearer undertaking of continuity in taking off the supply. If 7 per cent. of present-day energy resources suddenly became available through the barrage, it would create a massive over-supply to the great detriment of the generating companies set up under this Bill.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her remarks. I shall read them with care. I do not think that I shall come back on this point; however, I fear that I shall do so in respect of the other amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 80:
Page 27, line 23, at end insert—
("(11) That all applications for major capital projects planned as a result of this section should be subject to the outcome of a planning inquiry held in public.
(12) That the provisions of this section and the orders arising from it shall be discounted as evidence for the purpose of any public inquiry under subsection (11) above.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is connected with Clause 34 which concerns electricity

1325
from non-fossil fuel sources. It is intended largely to deal with nuclear energy and how to protect it. First, I should like to make one general remark about the clause as a whole. Despite what is intended by this clause, I and my noble friends regard the Bill as a whole as more threatening to the British nuclear power industry and as placing it in greater peril than anything that the anti-nuclear groups have ever done.
I notice that my noble friend Lord Hatch of Lusby is in the Chamber and perhaps I may therefore be slightly mischievous at this point. If he is really anti-nuclear, this is the Bill that he ought to support. I say that in terms. In my view, this section of the Bill would not reassure anybody who felt that nuclear power was an important part of our future energy supply.
Partly, the purpose of this amendment is to enable us to go further into certain matters dealt with earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson. I should like more assurance. I have not yet mentioned what I think he said; I should like to remind him of it. He said that all planning applications, even those coming under this heading, would be subject to the normal planning laws. I am fairly sure that he said that, and I should like to have it clarified to make absolutely certain that there is no doubt that the non-fossil fuel protection clause (if I may call it that) does not, and could not, get round the general question of planning law. I am fairly sure that he reassured me on that point, but I should like to pursue it.
Beyond that point, and perhaps more importantly, the amendment seeks further clarification about how such a planning inquiry would be undertaken; that is to say, if a nuclear station is being examined in a planning inquiry, whether it could be argued that almost everything that would normally be raised in such an inquiry has to be set on one side. It can be raised but it has to be set on one side simply because the nuclear station is required to meet the purposes of Clause 34 about electricity from non-fossil fuel sources.
In other words, we argue in our amendment that whatever view one takes of non-fossil fuel sources and nuclear energy per se surely it cannot be the purpose of this Bill, or this Government, not to scrutinise any such power station in the normal, if extremely complex and convoluted, way. Those who would be applying to build such a station could not, as it were, seek more or less to ride roughshod over the normal planning processes by saying, "Look, we have to meet this non-fossil fuel requirement and you just have to let us build this power station whether you like it or not".
So the two parts of the amendment have different but related purposes. I should like to hear what the Minister has to say on those matters. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, in supporting the amendment of my noble friend, I ask the noble Baroness when replying to answer questions which I put to her together backed by some evidence that there is a growing disquiet among the public in places
1326
where power stations are being built about both the nature and the conditions of public inquiries. It is widely thought that the public inquiries that are being held and are likely to be held, are being limited in their scope compared with what has happened previously at such places as Sizewell and Hinkley.
Although it has taken many months for the CEGB to prepare its planning applications, the public—laymen—are being given at the maximum a matter of three months to organise in detail their objections to these power stations on planning applications which have taken the CEGB many months to prepare. In particular, for many organisations that meet only once every quarter, it is limiting public inquiries to such an extent as to distort the right of the public to express their views.
I have referred the noble Baroness to both the proposed inquiries at Sizewell over Sizewell C and to the inquiry at Wylfa over Wylfa B. I know from personal experience that in both these areas there is very wide public disquiet about both the limitation of the terms of reference of the inquiry and even more so, about the limitation of time during which the public are being allowed to submit their objections. I therefore hope that the noble Baroness will take the opportunity of at least expressing some consideration for what the public are demanding.
Those demands are for free inquiries into the necessity for the building of these power stations; and for at least double the period of three months so that the public have the opportunity of mobilising their arguments, co-ordinating their opposition and examining the documents in such a way that their view can be put in a coherent way, which will express the very grave disquiet that is being, shown in all these areas.
Lord Renton: My Lords, there are two words in these amendments that give rise to a great deal of trouble and ambiguity. In the new subsection (11)—which incidentally I do not think is necessary anyway, because I think that all major capital projects will be, and always have been, the subject of planning inquiries—the words "outcome of a planning inquiry" are a little ambiguous. Does that phrase mean the inspector's recommendation? Does that mean the Secretary of State's decision, or, if it is a matter that does not go to the Secretary of State but to the local authority, is it its decision? What is the "outcome"? That is my first point.
In subsection (12)—to which I am personally opposed—the word "discounted" appears. Does that mean that the evidence shall be inadmissible, or that it shall be admissible but disregarded% In any event, it is a very strange thing that we should legislate and then say that some of the provisions of our legislation shall be dicounted for the purpose of the public inquiry—ignored. It is a very strange way to legislate and a very strange outcome of legislation.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I hope that the Government will treat this amendment with the utmost possible caution. My experience of large scale construction over the past generation or so is that public inquiries have changed their nature. At one time they were inquiries into the need for

1327
constructions. They have long since ceased to be anything of that kind. They are now methods by which construction can be at best delayed or possibly stopped altogether.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: That is democracy.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, it may well be democracy, but democracy means doing things as well as stopping them. I think we must be careful about this.
My noble friend Lord Hatch of Lusby—who keeps interrupting me from his seat—asks for a longer period than three months. I wonder why? If one considers the progress of the most recent notorious public inquiries, what happens is that a travelling circus moves from inquiry to inquiry bringing the same information which was produced at the last inquiry. They do not need three months for it. They do not need ten minutes; they have it already.
I am not saying that we should not have inquiries. Obviously, we should. But we should revert to the situation where inquiries were treated as inquiries and not as obstacles over which necessary construction had to leap.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I feel that the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, has answered adequately the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby. At Question Time recently I answered very carefully similar questions that he raises now. The Secretary of State is required to allow a minimum of 21 days in which objections to a power station application can be made to him. However, in the cases of Wylfa B and Sizewell C, to which the noble Lord referred, the Secretary of State is allowed three months for any objections to be made for registration.
Having said that, I certainly give the noble Lord, Lord Peston, the confirmation that he seeks of his understanding that all the normal regular planning procedures will have to be fulfilled and that the provisions of the Bill are additional.
Perhaps I may refer again to the provisions of Clause 37 of the Bill. They require any operator wishing to construct, extend or operate any generating station over 50 megawatts to seek a consent from the Secretary of State. Clause 37 will provide a unified procedure for all electricity operators and will draw together the current provisions under the Electric Lighting Act 1909, the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 and the Energy Act 1983.
Planning permission will also be required. Where a consent under Clause 37 is needed, paragraph 7 of Schedule 8 continues the present practice of enabling the Secretary of State—when he gives the consent—also to direct that planning permission shall be deemed to be granted. Before making an application to the Secretary of State for a nuclear station or a station of 300 megawatts or greater thermal capacity, the company will be required to undertake an environmental impact assessment of their proposals, under the new regulations made to implement the European Community's
1328
environmental assessment directive. In addition, the company will be required to consult the local planning authority to ascertain if it has any objections.
As noble Lords know, if the local planning authority has made objections which are not withdrawn, then under paragraph 2 of Schedule 8, the Secretary of State is obliged to hold a public inquiry before reaching his decision, unless he imposes conditions or modifications to meet those objections. Under paragraph 3 of Schedule 8, he may also hold an inquiry after consideration of objections made to him by other interested parties or to meet his own concerns. A station under 50 megawatts will not require consent under Clause 37, but will require normal planning permission.
I believe that these controls are sufficient to ensure that no power station is constructed until there has been the opportunity for all concerns to be aired. The new provisions in the Bill will simply continue the current procedure. As has been said, a public inquiry was recently held into the application for the Sizewell B nuclear station and an inquiry is currently under way to consider the application for the Hinkley C station. After privatisation, public inquiries will continue to be held in the say way for two further planned PWRs and any other capacity that is planned.
As to the second part of the noble Lord's amendment, I believe that it would be totally unacceptable for the requirements of Clause 34 and any orders under the clause to be discounted as evidence at an inquiry, whatever that may mean. As my noble friend Lord Renton has asked, the Secretary of State should and will have to consider all the relevant evidence concerning the application. If a generating station is proposed to be built as a result of contracts signed in pursuance of the statutory non-fossil fuel obligation on a public electricity supplier, that is a relevant fact to be considered by the Secretary of State. To do otherwise would place the applicant at a severe and unfair disadvantage.
However, it will not be the case that a generator will only have to show that a station would contribute to the non-fossil fuel obligation to receive a consent. The obligation will have to be met, but it is up to the industry to decide how it chooses to do this. Each application will be considered on its own merits, and if a public inquiry is held into such an application, all the relevant implications of the proposal will be considered in the same way as they would be in any other inquiry. It would be entirely possible for the Secretary of State to refuse a particular application and the public electricity supplier concerned would then have to consider how the obligation could be met in another way.
I also believe that the amendment is ill-conceived. In the past the CEGB has had a statutory duty to provide bulk supplies of electricity and it has been able to argue that duty in support of applications for new power stations. In future the CEGB's successor generating companies will have no such statutory duty. It will have to base its arguments for new stations, whether fossil or non-fossil, on a need to meet contractual commitments entered into in order

1329
to supply electricity. The statutory duties both in relation to supply and the non-fossil fuel obligation will rest with the public electricity supply companies. It will be for them to argue the need for new capacity.
It would be just as wrong to exclude from their arguments the statutory duty in respect of the non-fossil fuel obligation as it would be to exclude the obligation to supply. Both are relevant to applications for new non-fossil capacity. I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, the question I asked was not how long the Secretary of State has to give nor how long he has given. I knew those answers and repeated them. I asked the noble Baroness whether she would consider extending the length of time from three months to six months.
In the case of Sizewell C and Wylfa B, to take the two current examples, will she tell the House whether she has been petitioned by a substantial number of the local residents to increase the time for objections to be sent to the Secretary of State and perhaps also to increase the time for local authorities which have been given only eight weeks? If such a demand is made by the local residents will she at least consider it?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, of course I shall look with interest at all the contributions to the debate. However, I believe that the point raised by the noble Lord is not relevant to the amendment now before the House.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her answer to the first part of my amendment. With due respect to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, its meaning is perfectly obvious. It means what I said: that the normal planning procedures will apply. The noble Baroness has said that that is so—
Lord Renton: My Lords, that is what I said. In every major capital construction there would be a planning inquiry.
Lord Peston: My Lords, there is no difference between us on that matter. However, in a Bill as complicated as this there is no harm in obtaining reassurance from the Government that that is still the case. I say to my noble friend Lord Howie of Troon, with whom I have rarely, if ever, disagreed, that I was not happy with what he said. I regard myself to be at least as much as a technocrat as any Member of your Lordships' House. As regards major planning issues, I certainly believe that the community, both in the small and the large, has the right to make its views felt. In dealing with the big battalions of technocrats like me, it also has the right to receive such assistance as it can so that its views can be put forward. I hate to disagree with my noble friend but I did not care for what I thought he said—so he is about to say some more.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, this is the second time within minutes that my noble friend has been
1330
shown to be wrong. He was wrong in replying to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and was wrong again in replying to me. I hope that he gets it right before the end of the debate. He knows that I have nothing against the small man. I have no objection to people having their objections. I objected to the circus which is entirely different.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I do not agree with that either. Okay, I have made my point and so much for that. My real concern is with the second part of the Minister's answer. I feared that she would give that answer and I was sorry to hear it. She is almost certainly right that it follows inevitably and logically from this clause that the kind of considerations of the commitment to the non-fossil fuel quota must weigh in the balance in a public inquiry. Therefore, it could happen that a power station which was regarded as being most unsatisfactory on environmental and community grounds and might even be unsatisfactory on normal cost benefit grounds would, nonetheless, have weighed in its favour the argument that there is a commitment to non-fossil fuel sources; in this case, nuclear. The noble Baroness said that it could weight in the balance and would not be decisive on its own. I am glad that she said that because that is my reading of what the Bill must state. My view is that it is not a satisfactory state of affairs. In a sense I have discovered what I wanted to discover and I have said what I wanted to say. I am now perfectly happy to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.45 p.m.
Clause 35 [Fossil fuel levy]:
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 81:
Page 27, line 36, at end insert—
("(1A) The amount of any payment which is required by regulations under this section to be made by any person in respect of the levy shall be calculated by such method as may be specified by the regulations.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 82. They are related amendments which are required to make clear on the face of the Bill what the fossil fuel regulations will cover. As a result of our discussions on this topic in Committee I realised that noble Lords have a strong interest in the matter.
The substantive amendment is No. 82. It sets out in a little more detail the mechanics of certain operational aspects of the fossil fuel levy. Perhaps it would be helpful if I explained what effect the amendment will have.
The Director General of Electricity Supply—as the person who is to be prescribed for these purposes by regulations under subsection (1)(b) and (c)—will be responsible for the calculation, collection and redistribution of the levy and he will, of course, need to be able to enforce the levy as well as supervise its smooth operation. The provisions of regulations referred to in this amendment will place a duty on licence holders to provide whatever information or facilities may be necessary to allow the director general to carry out these functions.
Secondly, the regulations will specify when levy payments—whether made by all licensed suppliers in respect of the levy, or to public electricity suppliers out of these payments—have to be made. There will of course be a regular schedule of payments as we go through the year to make sure that no one can get too far behind in their levy payments.
Thirdly, the regulations will provide a mechanism for adjusting any under or over-payments of the levy which might arise. That is necessary because in any one year the calculation of the levy will have to be based on forecast information. As part of that, there will be a forecast of the extra costs which the public electricity suppliers are likely to incur in the year as a result of the obligation. That will be based on assumptions about what, for example, the availability of the nuclear stations is likely to be in the year.
It may be that the nuclear stations turn in a particularly good performance in that year and as a result the prices which the public electricity suppliers pay for each unit of nuclear may be lower than expected. The levy based on a forecast may therefore lead to too much money being collected. That over collection will be used to reduce the levy in the following year.
Amendment No. 81 is simply a consequential amendment which follows on from Amendment No. 82, although it precedes it. That merely transfers some of the wording of subsection (5)(a) to a new subsection. Those amendments make no change in policy but simply make clear on the face of the Bill what regulations may include on these important matters. I beg to move.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her clarification of the amendments. As I understand it, it will remain the case that fossil fuel levy will be borne entirely by the customers of the electricity industry. Therefore, there is no change of substance there.
Perhaps I may ask one question in terms of the drafting as to whether it has any significance. Subsection (5) states:
"Regulations under this section shall",
and they are replaced by a form of words which in the end amount to:
"Regulations under this section may".
Since the words "may" and "shall" do not have the same meaning in our language, I ask whether any significance is to be attached to the fact that "shall" has been replaced by "may". As the noble Baroness said that nothing of substance has changed, I ask whether or not that is possibly a typographical error.
Lord Renton: My Lords, my noble friend can answer much better than I: but as I see it the answer is this. Formerly, subsection (5) as drafted said that the regulations under this section "shall", and then it sets out several things which are now to be left out.
However, it now says that the regulations "may" do the various things set out in Amendment No. 82. That is not inconsistent with what follows when we find the words:
1332
"and the Secretary of State shall exercise the powers conferred by this section in the manner which he considers is best calculated to secure that the sums realised by the levy are sufficient".
There is nothing inconsistent between the word "may" to be introduced by the amendment, and the word "shall" which binds the Secretary of State as to the way in which he exercises his discretion.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I come to the support of my noble friend on the Front Bench. There is no point in saying that there is no difference between the word "may" and "shall", and that there is no change in removing "shall" and inserting "may". We have been debating this matter since time immemorial, and no doubt the debate will go on forever. However, there is no point in saying that there is no change because there is a change and the Government should admit that.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I did not say that there was no change, but I said that there was no change of substance. I cannot add anything to the explanation given by my noble friend Lord Renton.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 82:
Page 28, line 11, leave out from ("section") to first ("the") line 17 and insert ("may—

(a) impose requirements (whether as to the furnishing of records or other information or the affording of facilities for the examination and testing of meters or otherwise) on persons authorised by a licence to supply, transmit or generate electricity;

(b) make provision as to the times at which payments falling to be made in pursance of the regulations (whether payments by way of levy or payments to public electricity suppliers) are to be so made; and

(c) require the amount of any overpayment or underpayment which is made by or to any person (whether it arises because an estimate turns out to be wrong or otherwise) to be set off against or added to any subsequent liability or entitlement of that person.

(5A)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 37 [Provisions supplementary to section 36]:
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 83:
Page 30, line 16, at end insert—
("(3A) The Secretary of State shall lay before each House of Parliament a copy of every direction given under section 36 above or this section unless he is of the opinion that disclosure of the direction is against the interests of national security.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 83 relates to Clause 37 in which the Secretary of State gives or may give directions of a particular kind. The question one raises is largely to do with general anxieties about parliamentary control which my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel has raised on many occasions in this and similar Bills. Ignoring the obvious point on national security where we should never be in disagreement, should there not be a necessity to lay before your Lordships' House and the other place a copy of every direction which the Secretary of State laid under this clause?
I ask the question; but it may be that it is simply taken for granted that he will do that willy nilly, or it would just happen. In speaking to this amendment, I may be merely revealing my lack of knowledge of

1333
how aspects of the system work. However, in my reading of Clause 37 I cannot see where the Secretary of State must lay copies of these directions before both Houses of Parliament. I have looked elsewhere in the Bill and I cannot find that kind of consideration there at all.
Curiously—and I believe that noble Lords are well aware of this—in what was Clause 95 that kind of provision appears. I have not checked whether it is still Clause 95 because I discovered to my horror today that several clause numbers have changed and I have only just caught up with certain aspects of the renumbering. However, it is not obvious to me that what is said there carries back to this clause, but logically I cannot see the difference. I raise this matter because I am interested to know the nature of the relevant argument. I should like to see whether there is anything I have missed which I can do something about. I beg to move.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, it seems plain that the directions which the Secretary of State may give under Clauses 36 and 37 may be of very considerable consequence. Therefore, it seems to me reasonable that he should be required to lay a copy of any such directions before Parliament.
7 p.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sanderson of Bowden): My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Peston, raised the question of the mirroring of what he saw in Clause 95 in the amendment that he proposes. It seems to me that Clauses 35 and 37 are directed to different circumstances. Therefore, it may be helpful if I attempt to outline why the provisions in these clauses have been framed in the way in which they have. Ensuring the security of supply to electricity consumers in times of disruption to fuel supplies continues to be of importance to the privatised industry and to the nation.
In framing our proposals we have taken the necessary steps to ensure a continuing security of supply. These are steps which any prudent Government would take. The powers in Clause 36 allow directions to be given to the operators of power stations about the level of stocks that they must hold and also, should circumstances warrant it, allow directions to be given about the use of stocks and the operation of those power stations.
As I explained in Committee, complementary powers over the National Grid company have also been taken in Clause 37 to reflect the importance we attach to the special partnership that will be necessary between generators and the transmission company in times of fuel shortage to ensure the continuity of supplies. These powers have to be flexible to be capable of coping with a wide range of possibilities. Far-sighted we may be, but we obviously cannot foresee the exact circumstances that might disrupt electricity supplies to consumers.
That said, I remind the House that these powers are very different from the more general powers we are taking in Clause 95. The latter is directed at combating national emergencies. The powers in
1334
Clauses 36 and 37 are essentially operational ones for the electricity supply industry. They are directed necessarily only at the specific parties involved—the generators and the National Grid company upon which we will rely to ensure that at times of fuel shortage electricity supplies continue to reach the consumer. Their effort is therefore limited to the industry alone and, within that, to the production and transmission of electricity. They cannot be used to restrict the consumption of electricity by the public at large. Moreover, there will be no secret about the directions themselves. We envisage that the stocking directions that will come into force, probably on vesting, will be seen merely as part of the whole regime in which the industry has to operate.
I take seriously what the noble Lord, Lord Peston, said. I see some merit in what he is proposing and in what the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, said about this matter. In the circumstances, I should like to take the amendment away. It does not quite meet what the Government would wish to see, but I guarantee to bring forward proposals at Third Reading to take account of this matter. An element in this may need to be addressed to satisfy the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Rochester.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his answer. I assure him that nothing I have said should be interpreted to mean that I am opposed to what we find in Clause 36. I feel strongly that we must have a clause by which the Secretary of State can take such matters as the national interest fully into account and act accordingly. I take his other point that this would not be a secret. It would be fairly obvious that demands would be made for copies of such orders. I am grateful for the noble Lord's sympathetic response and for his willingness to look at the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned until 8.5 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Royal Assent
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Alport): 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:

Control of Pollution (Amendment) Act,

Water Act,

Wesleyan Assurance Society Act.

Cereals Marketing Act (Application to Oilseeds) Order 1989
7.3 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 7th June be approved. [22nd Report from the Joint Committee.]
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I propose to describe briefly the background to this order, which was discussed in another place yesterday, and then to outline its main points.
As your Lordships will know, the Government are currently implementing their decision to withdraw from what is known as "near market" research and development work. We believe it right that such work, from which industry derives direct benefit, should be funded by industry, although government funding of basic research in areas of environmental concern and the public good will of course continue.
In keeping with this approach, the Government will be withdrawing from the near market research and development work which they currently undertake into oilseeds. At present the Government spend between £500,000 and £600,000 per year on such work.
It is for oilseeds producers to decide whether to take over funding of this type of research, if they believe that it is of direct benefit to industry. At the request of the farming unions, the Government therefore conducted a poll of oilseeds producers earlier this year to establish their views on possible future funding arrangements for research of this kind. The results of the poll indicated overwhelming support by producers for the setting up of a levy scheme which would enable them to fund research and development work in this sector.
The Government recognise the need to provide the industry with an appropriate mechanism for raising funds for this purpose. Following wide consultations, we have concluded that the best way to achieve this is by extending the functions of the Home Grown Cereals Authority (HGCA) to allow it to operate a levy scheme for oilseed crops for research and development purposes. The levy would be paid by oilseed producers and be collected at the first point of sale of the crop.
As a first step, before the HGCA can establish an oilseeds R&D levy scheme, it is necessary to extend the remit of the authority by statute to include the various oilseed crops. Such an extension is provided for under Sections 6(1) and 6(4) of the Agriculture Act 1986, which gives agriculture Ministers powers to amend the Cereals Marketing Act 1965.
There are two main elements in the order now before the House. First, the order amends Section 24 of the Cereals Marketing Act 1965 by extending the definition of "home-grown cereals", as covered by the remit of the HGCA, to include the oilseed crops of rapeseed, linseed, soya bean and sunflower seed. This will allow the HGCA to start work on a levy scheme for oilseeds. Secondly, it further amends Section 24 of the Cereals Marketing Act by changing
1336
the definition of "year" from a period of 12 months beginning on 1st August in any calendar year, to one beginning on 1st July. The purpose of this is to bring the HGCA's present financial year into line with the EC marketing years for cereals and oilseeds.
I should like to make it clear that the present instrument does not itself set up the levy scheme. If this order is given parliamentary approval, the HGCA will then be able to undertake the necessary consultation on, and preparation of, a draft levy scheme, which it will put to agriculture Ministers for consideration. That scheme will then come before Parliament. The Government would hope to be in a position to present that order early next year so that the levy scheme may come into operation in time for the 1990 oilseed harvest.
Oilseeds producers have demonstrated overwhelming support for the proposal to extend the HGCA's remit to oilseeds. This shows their readiness to support near market research and development in this important sector. I commend this measure to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 7th June be approved [22nd Report from the Joint Committee]—(Baroness Trumpington.)
7.9 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister for her explanation of the order and declare an interest at the outset as a rapeseed grower, a director of a major oilseeds co-operative, one who voted "yes" in the recent grower poll and one who wrote in the agricultural press and urged other farmers to vote "yes".
It gives me particular and personal pleasure to speak on this order. In the mid-1970s I was one of the prime movers of a plan to set up an oilseeds development council. It was supported by the then Minister, Mr. John Silkin. We were on the verge of conducting the producer poll that was required, using the Ministery computer at Guildford. The computer broke down, the 1979 election intervened, and with the change of Government the whole idea of the oilseeds development council was definitely out.
The purpose of the proposed council was to set up a mechanism to allow for the collection of a compulsory levy for research and development into oilseeds. This proposal was turned down by the new Minister, Mr. Peter Walker, in 1979. Now here we are, some 10 years later, considering the preliminary and parliamentary mechanisms needed to bring in just such a compulsory levy. As the French say, the more things change the more they are the same.
As I understand the order, to bring in the levy scheme it is necessary to turn oil seeds into cereals. Judging by the report of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, MAFF has got itself into a fair old muddle in its attempts to bring about this statutory transmogrification. The Minister will know that the dictionary defines "transmogrification" as meaning to transform in a magical and surprising manner. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's comments on the searching criticisms in the report of the joint committee on the magical and surprising manner in which this order has been drafted,

1337
including the quite magisterial rebuke in the final sentence. The committee found the memorandum persuasive in that there is recognition of the need for caution in amending primary legislation by order.
I have some specific questions as regards the order itself. When the levy scheme comes forward, can the Minister ensure that the money raised by the levy on oilseed will be ring-fenced and used only for oilseed research and development, and that it will not be allowed to leak away into other areas of HGCA activity? Can the Minister also say what control there will be over the administration charge that will be made by the HGCA in connection with the levy? The final question on which the Minister may wish to write to me is why Evening Primrose has been left out of the list of oilseeds?
As regards the turning of oilseeds into cereals for the purposes of the 1986 Act, can we be quite sure that this will not bring oilseeds into the scope of any EC restrictions that may be placed on proper cereals in the future? For example, I refer to the possibility of quotas and the like. Can the Minister say whether oilseeds will be affected by anything that the EC does with cereals? I repeat my thanks to the Minister. We are pleased to support this order from these Benches.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, I have had occasion to use Evening Primrose oil for medicinal purposes. Like the noble Lord, Lord Carter, I wonder why it was not included in this order.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am most grateful to both noble Lords. I shall first deal with the original points made by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and finish with the joint question raised by both noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, referred to the criticisms of the terms of the order by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. I assure him that the officials in my department are indeed capable and skilled at distinguishing between cereals and oilseeds. Moreover, they are absolutely brilliant at differentiating between different types of cereal and different types of oilseeds. Perhaps I may tuck in at this stage the joint point made by both noble Lords; namely, that Evening Primrose is not considered an oilseed.
Lord Carter: My Lords, it is a seed that produces oil.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, it is a primrose by any other name. I understand why the joint committee raised questions about the wording of the draft order. There are many ways of drafting an order. The joint committee suggested two possible versions. However, I am satisfied that the order as drafted by the department falls within the terms of the enabling powers. In drafting the order the department was concerned to achieve maximum clarity of style while being needful of the desire for caution in amending primary legislation by order.
I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Carter, that the moneys raised from the levy will be spent solely on oilseeds research and development, apart from a
1338
small proportion that will go to the HGCA's administrative costs. As regards the question of bearing the cost of collecting the levy, it will be collected at the point of first sale. The first buyers deduct the levy from the price they paid to growers for the seed. I understand that the first buyers will not require a fee for collection of the levy but will make payments to the HGCA at six-monthly intervals although possibly at four-monthly intervals in the first year. The interest accrued during this time will go towards the administrative costs incurred by first buyers in handling the levy.
I am very well aware that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, is a pioneer in this matter and that he has a keen interest in the oilseed industry. I am grateful for his "yes" vote. I assure your Lordships that this order, together with the levy scheme to follow, are of considerable importance to the oilseeds industry. They should help to ensure the continued funding of research and development in this sector and thus play a part in the long-term viability of the industry.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Fisheries Act 1981 (Amendment) Regulations 1989
7.17 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House, on 6th June be approved [21st Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, these regulations are necessary to correct a technical breach (albeit an important one) in our Community obligations in relation to a levy imposed by the Sea Fish Industry Authority. The instrument is therefore made under Section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972, and amends the Fisheries Act 1981 which established the Sea Fish Industry Authority.
Under the 1981 Act the authority has a general duty to promote the efficiency of the sea fish industries by carrying out certain activities. These include carrying out research and development, giving advice, providing training and promoting the marketing and consumption of sea fish and sea fish products. For the purpose of financing these activities the Act provides for the authority to impose a levy on persons engaged in the sea fish industry. The levy is raised by weight on first-hand sale of sea fish or sea fish products landed in the UK (including imports) or transhipped within British fishery limits.
We are obliged to make the amendment because the EC Commission considers that the 1981 Act, as presently drafted, does not ensure that exporters from other member states, including fishermen who land their catches here, receive benefits from the SFIA's activities commensurate with the amount of levy they pay. It appears to the Commission that under the terms of the 1981 Act the receipts from the levies could be allocated only towards work which would be of direct benefit to the UK industry.
I should stress that the Commission agrees with us that the levy arrangements do not in practice

1339
discriminate against other member states who land fish here. That is why I referred to a technical breach in my opening remarks. Nevertheless the maintenance in force of the present wording contravenes the obligation on all member states not to expose imports from other member states to any form of financial burden in excess of that imposed on similar domestic products.
The amendments proposed are set out in regulation 2 of the draft instrument and concern Sections 2, 3 and 14 of the Act. Section 2 is to be amended to provide for the sea fish industries of member states other than the Untied Kingdom to receive benefit commensurate with any burden borne by them in consequence of the levy—the proposed new regulation 2A.
Section 3 is to be amended to ensure that the requirement to recover fees in respect of services provided to persons connected with the sea fish industry other than in the United Kingdom shall not apply to services provided for such persons in other member states.
Finally, a slight consequential amendment is required to Section 14 concerning the definition of the sea fish industry. These amendments have been cleared with the Sea Fish Industry Authority who do not anticipate any difficulty in complying with them.
Although the proposed changes are perhaps in the nature of a cosmetic exercise they will nonetheless help ensure the continued approval of the Commission to the authority's levy as a legitimate state aid. A successful challenge of the levy arrangements by the Commission in the European Court, albeit on technical points, could threaten the funding and therefore the future of the authority's vital work on behalf of the whole sea fish industry. The proposed amendments would avoid such a step. I commend these regulations to your Lordships and seek approval of them. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 6th June be approved [21st Report from the Joint Committee]—(Baroness Trumpington.)
Lord Carter: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Baroness for explaining the regulations. Perhaps I may repeat the comment made in another place when the order was discussed: is this a case of Mr. Delors strikes again?
I understand that the regulations are required for technical reasons and to bring the Fisheries Act 1981 into line with Community requirements, but I have two questions. Can the Minister explain how it is proposed to achieve the equity with other member states that is envisaged as a result of the operation of the Sea Fish Industry Authority levy, and how will this be done in practice? Secondly, is it correct that non-members of the European Community, for example Norway and Iceland, will not be covered by the regulations?
We appreciate the need for the regulations and support them from this side of the House.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, in this case I feel like a fish out of water. I shall therefore content myself
1340
with saying that on these Benches we have no objection at all to the regulations.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I should like to thank both noble Lords very much for their welcome to this small but necessary step. To answer the two questions of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, the Commission accepts that the existing levy arrangements do not in practice discriminate against other member states' fish landed here. In giving approval to the SFIA development programme 1984–89, the Commission accepted the authority's guarantee that SFIA marketing and advertising activity does not feature the country of origin of fish; the results of all R&D are available to other member states; all SFIA training activities are available to nationals of member states; the SFIA does not employ levy funds to promote the export of fish from the UK to the detriment of other member states; and the authority does not employ levy funds to finance wholly or partly schemes of financial assistance to which only United Kingdom interests are entitled.
On the other point, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, is perfectly correct. Third countries do not receive any direct benefits. I am most grateful to both noble Lords.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until five minutes past eight.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.25 until 8.5 p.m.]

Electricity Bill
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Clause 38 [Consent required for construction etc. of generating stations]:
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 84:
Page 31, line 5, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I wish to speak very briefly to this amendment. I wish simply to ask about subsection (4). The clause as a whole refers to consents which are required. Then we are given a reasonable and specific statement in subsection (2) about exemptions, and a possible modification of that under subsection (3). But, in addition to that, and almost as if none of the rest had been written, we read a statement that the Secretary of State can make any other exemption he wishes. One is therefore slightly suspicious as to why we need this catch-all subsection, or, to put it the other way around, why we need the two explicit subsections if this one is relevant.
It may be that the Government have in mind one or two other matters which may have gone into specific clauses but which they now think are covered by subsection (4). The easiest way to flush that out is to suggest that we do not need subsection (4). I beg to move.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Peston, for raising this issue. It was of course raised in Committee. First, perhaps I may make two general points and then give the noble Lord an example of a situation where what he calls a "catch-all" subsection is needed.
I should like to stress once again that any kind of power station development exempted from the need for the Secretary of State's consent will still be subject to all the requirements of the planning Acts—indeed, I think that we discussed that matter before the dinner break—and to the amenity obligation contained in Schedule 9. That will apply to any exemptions which may result from orders made under subsection (4), in just the same way as it will apply to exemptions for developments which are below the threshold in subsection (2).
The other point I should like to make relates to the concern previously expressed that the Government may be taking on powers, through an enabling provision, which would not be subject to further reference to Parliament. That is not, however, the case because the exemptions may only be made through orders which must be placed before Parliament, which will have the opportunity to express a view on them.
The noble Lord may wish to hear an example of the sort of situation we have in mind which this particular subsection could deal with. The provision will enable any generating station on offshore oil and gas installations, which generate for the operators' own use, to be exempted from the consent requirement. There are some installations—one example is the Magnus field—which have a generating station of greater capacity than the 50 megawatts threshold above which consent will be necessary.
As such installations are fully regulated under offshore legislation, we do not think that it is desirable to introduce this additional control over them. I hope therefore that the noble Lord will see that we have definite constraints on this matter, but that there are definite reasons why we wish to retain the subsection.
Lord Peston: My Lords, it is kind of the Minister to give such a clear and cogent example. I still believe that logically what is in subsections (2) and (3) could be construed to be covered by subsection (4), and so in drafting terms I believe that I am still right. Having said that, I entirely accept what the Minister said and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 8 [Consents under sections 38 and 39]:
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 85:
Page 103, line 33, at end insert ("and, if not, what objections have been raised").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not intend to delay your Lordships long. Paragraph 1(2)(b) provides that the application must state whether all necessary wayleaves have been agreed with owners
1342
and so on. I do not need to trouble your Lordships with the exact words. The sub-paragraph concludes:
"and shall be supplemented, if the Secretary of State so directs, by such additional information as may be specified in the direction".
I should like some comment on the point, which I would expect to be the case, that the Secretary of State when providing any such additional information would be bound to say a word or two about objections and their nature. He would find it hard to get away with not doing that. I should like to hear a word or two as to whether I am right that where it says "such additional information" it is possible, if not necessary, that the objection that my noble friend and I raise could come under that heading.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I do not believe that there is a necessity for the amendment because adequate provision has been made in paragraph 6 of Schedule 8 for cases where wayleaves have not been agreed. This provides for the Secretary of State to tell the applicant that he will not proceed with the application for his consent for the line until the applicant has applied to him under Schedule 4 paragraph 5 to acquire a necessary wayleave. Alternatively, the Secretary of State may grant consent for the line but subject to the condition that work may not proceed until he gives permission as appears in Schedule 8 paragraph 6(1)(b). In deciding whether to give such permission he will take into account the extent to which the necessary wayleaves have been granted by that time. He will also ensure that permission will be given to proceed with any work on part of the line only where that can be done without prejudicing the outcome of unresolved wayleave problems on another part of the line.
It might be helpful if I point out that paragraph 5 of Schedule 4 sets out the procedure where a wayleave has not been agreed voluntarily and application for a necessary wayleave is made to the Secretary of State. Under the paragraph the Secretary of State may not grant such a necessary wayleave without affording the owners and occupiers of the land an opportunity to be heard by a person appointed by him. I hope that with that explanation the noble Lord will see fit to withdraw the amendment.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, again I than the Minister for enlightening me on what this complex schedule means. He is right that the worry my noble friend and I have will be dealt with by later clauses. I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 86.
Page 104, line 37, after ("shall,") insert ("in such circumstances as may be prescribed by the regulations or").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I shall speak also to a rather large group of amendments which consists of Amendments Nos. 87, 89 and 91 to 105 inclusive. They are all government amendments, with the exception of Amendments Nos. 90 and 93 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, and

1343
Amendment No. 95, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Williams of Elvel and Lord Peston. I referred briefly yesterday to the package of amendments to Schedules 8 and 9 which the Government have now proposed following careful consideration of the concerns expressed to us and the consultations that we have held on the subject.
The amendment to Schedule 8 gives effect to the undertaking that I gave way back on 16th May to allow the regulations to be made under Schedule 8 to provide that an application for consent under Clauses 38 and 39 should be notified to the NCC if it relates to SSSIs or national nature reserves.
I turn to the amendments to Schedule 9. The Government have considered carefully all the environmental amendments which were tabled at an earlier stage. We have tried to have regard—if I may use those words—to the spirit of what was proposed while also bearing in mind the need for amendments capable of practical implementation.
I shall speak first to the second amendment to Schedule 9 which inserts the word "archaeological" in line 40 and takes up suggestions made in the amendments tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Williams of Elvel and Lord Peston. It is a helpful clarification.
Yesterday in response to the amendment to Clause 4 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, I undertook to take the amendment back and to return to the House on Third Reading with an amendment to the clause which would embody, so far as possible, the spirit of the amendment but which would correct its technical defects. I hope that, together with that undertaking, the Government's amendments to Schedules 8 and 9 will be seen as evidence of our wish to accommodate the main concerns of the environmental bodies, taking account of the new structure for the industry and the need to consider the practicalities of implementation. There are of course equivalent amendments to the parts of Schedule 9 affecting Scotland.
As I have reminded the House previously, the Bill's environmental provisions should not be seen in isolation. There are 15 Acts of Parliament and 14 European Community directives which bear on the industry's reaction to the environment. Taking account also of Schedule 9, as the Government now propose to amend it, the industry will be subject to explicit and strong duties. The Secretary of State will have a responsible and important role to play. I therefore commend the government amendments to the House.
I turn to Amendments Nos. 90 and 93. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, for suggesting the amendments, but I do not believe that any further elaboration of the already wide coverage of Schedule 9 is necessary. One of the Government's amendments to Schedule 9 will, as I have said, add the word "archaeological". That addition provides a useful clarification and, arguably, fills a gap in the chronological range of its coverage. I now consider that coverage to be comprehensive and I doubt whether any court would take the view that a burial ground or a bridge, for
1344
example, would slip through the net on the argument that it was neither a building nor another object.
In addition to natural features, flora and fauna, Schedule 9 now encompasses buildings and other objects of archaeological, architectural or historic interest. It is difficult to envisage a structure or feature which does not now fall within that ambit. If a structure or building is of no architectural or historic interest but of interest only to an engineer, it is perhaps not of sufficient general importance to be included within the scope of Schedule 9. Of course, if something is of interest because of its key position in the development of technology, it would also hold a specific historic interest. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able not to press his amendments for those reasons.
Similarly with Amendment No. 95, the first part is unnecessary. Under Schedule 9, as the Government propose it should be amended, there will be a duty on those seeking consents under Clause 39 to have regard to the desirability of preserving natural beauty and to do what they reasonably can to mitigate the effects of their proposals on the natural beauty of the countryside. That will necessarily involve consideration of whether lines should be put underground, if the location is a sensitive one.
Clearly the applicant must also have regard to the cost of putting a line underground, since the cost ranges from 1.5 to 18 times as expensive as overhead lines, depending on voltage. There are other considerations too, such as the greater cost of locating and rectifying faults and the risk of cables being damaged in arable fields.
That brings me to the second part of the amendment and the second reason for my being unable to accept it. If there is an objective which on the face of it seems eminently desirable but which costs money, it is a natural temptation to look to the Government to pay. However, the Government in this sense means the taxpayer. I see no logic in requiring the taxpayer to contribute to the cost of putting lines underground. Putting lines underground for environmental reasons is as much a part of the cost of supplying electricity as modifying the design or layout of a proposed power station, to make it visually more acceptable, or indeed of fitting flue gas desulphurisation equipment in order to reduce the emission of sulphur dioxide.
It is not at all clear why one should distinguish between different kinds of environmental costs and require taxpayers in some cases to contribute and in others not to do so. For these reasons, I am unable to accept the amendment, although I acknowledge the intentions behind it.
I think it would be wrong to end on a negative note. I mentioned in Committee the good work which some boards have done in this field and perhaps I can given another example, this time from South Wales. It is a pity that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, is not present to hear this. In the past three years, in order to cater for the extension of supplies, the South Wales Board installed 620 kilometres of underground cable while dismantling only 135 kilometres of underground cable. Over the same period a greater length of overhead lines was

1345
dismantled—that is, about 65 kilometres—than was erected. Looking at the area boards as a whole, in 1987–88 they commissioned over 6,000 kilometres of lines, of which 4,000 were underground.
I believe that we should commend the industry for doing what it is already achieving in the field and acknowledge that underground lines are already an important consideration in their operations. As a result of the amendment that we are proposing in the Bill, we believe that this will continue to be such a consideration. I beg to move.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I apologise to the House for returning to this matter so soon after we have debated the Water Bill at some length. We came to some rather unsatisfactory conclusions, but at least they were conclusions. The fault is not mine but that of the Government that the Electricity Bill followed so soon after the Water Bill.
I have been carrying out an educational process in which I have been trying to convince the Government Front Bench that engineering and architecture are not the same and not interchangeable, and that matters which are of engineering interest should not be referred to as if they were of architectural interest. They are not quite the same.
The House will know that I hold the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, in high regard, but I must confess that my devotion trembled just for a moment when she seemed to me to say that engineering was not of great importance. I know that she did not mean quite that, but it was odd and, I think, significant that it could be said. Engineering is of great importance. There are objects, artefacts, amenities and things which are worth preserving and worth looking at, which have nothing to do with architecture at all. They are engineering objects and that is why I put "engineering interest" in my amendment.
Perhaps I may give an analogy which has nothing whatever to do with the Bill before us but which will simply and locally illustrate what I mean. The building where we are this evening is of architectural rather than engineering interest and possibly historic interest—who can tell?—although the Victoria Tower is of engineering interest because it was the first skyscraper. Waterloo Bridge is of engineering interest, not architectural interest. The only architecture in it is wholly false: it pretends to be an arch when it is actually a beam. Never mind that. I am saying that architectural interest is a good thing, it should be supported; engineering interest is something else and ought at least to be recognised in this House and by the Government.
I am only interested in Amendments Nos. 90 and 93 which are mine and Nos. 91 and 100 in the name of the noble Baroness. I know that I ought to have repeated my amendments in relation to paragraph 2, but I did not do so in order not to clutter up the Marshalled List by putting in two sets of identical amendments.
I have taken the amendment which was already accepted under the Water Bill—that is my Amendment No. 90—and added to it the words
1346
"structures" and "engineering" because I fancied them from my own point of view. The noble Baroness has put down an amendment which adds "historic or archaeological". If she will not go all the way with me, surely she could go at least the length of adding "sites or other objects of archaeological, architectural or historic interest". At least she could go that far; it is as far as the Water Bill has gone. It would be quite absurd if the restrictions laid upon the companies under the Water Bill were different from those laid on the companies under the Electricity Bill. To that extent I think that the noble Baroness must agree with me.
I shall now throw her a lifeline, because I am like that. In the recent Water Bill and under the Copyright Act when it was a Bill 18 months ago, we redefined the word "buildings" to include "structures". It was a lawyers' device, a typical Whitehall device, because it allowed my "structures" in without saying so in the sense of putting the word "engineering" on the face of the Bill. I should be happy if the Government would bring back my Amendment No. 90 at the next stage without the words "structures" or "engineering" and if they would also bring in an amendment which redefined "buildings" to include "structure". They would then recognise a difference between buildings and structures. That would make me happy, and I am sure they worry a little bit about that. They would also be following the precedent of the Copyright Act and the Water Bill.
I throw them this lifeline because I am by nature a kindly fellow. I see the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, sitting on the Front Bench. He was present during the debate on the Copyright Act so he will be able to explain the importance of all this and the semi-satisfactory compromise which was eventually reached. As a man who believes in compromise, I shall not press my amendments, important, useful and good though they are. However, I am willing to accept the notion that the Government could come back with something along the lines which I have indicated. I hope to receive such an assurance.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Norrie: My Lords, I shall speak to government Amendments Nos. 89, 91, 92, 94 and 96 to 105. I start by congratulating my noble friend the Minister on her commitment last night to introducing an environmental amendment to Clause 4 of the Bill on Third Reading.
The Minister knows from our almost continuous dialogue that Clause 4 had become a sticking point. It therefore came as an unexpected, though thoroughly welcome, surprise when she announced to the House that she would bring forward an amendment of her own. I thank the "green Baroness" as the noble Baroness was aptly nicknamed last night. I look forward to seeing the wording of that amendment at Third Reading. Incidentally, I hope the wording I offered in the debate last night will prove a helpful starting point.
I turn now to the amendments which the Government had previously tabled to Schedule 9. As I said yesterday, I am glad to welcome these.

1347
Amendments Nos. 89, 92 and 94 strengthen the operations of the environmental duty by clarifying the roles of the licence holders and the Secretary of State. The latter will have a duty to ensure that the licence holders have taken the environment into account. This is very welcome in principle, and I trust it will also bite in practice. I assume that this means that the Secretary of State will feel fully justified in refusing consent for power stations and other proposals which do not meet the criteria of this schedule, and that this will happen in practice. To the best of my knowledge such a thing has never happened in over 100 power station applications since the 1940s. I hope the Minister can reassure me that these duties are sufficiently strong and that she is confident herself that this is an entirely possible outcome. As ever, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating.
Amendment No. 90, standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, and Amendment No. 91, standing in the name of my noble friend the Minister, make the welcome addition of archaeology to the scope of the environmental duty. This addresses a point which a number of noble Lords on this side and on the other side of the House raised during earlier discussions. I hope that my noble friend does not think I am nitpicking, but the only point I wish to make is that archaeological objects are very narrowly defined. That term suggests particular objects like burial chambers or standing stones. I believe the amendment ought ideally to refer to archaeological areas, to incorporate the site itself and its surroundings, as well as recognising the importance of historic landscapes and areas of land over which archaeological remains are scattered. I believe this is one of the points that the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, is endeavouring to make.
I note, too, the extension of the duty to the changes in the operation of power stations. This will pick up new practices and changes in operating standards, and will ensure that the environmental implications of these matters are properly taken into account. I particularly welcome the new proposed environmental statements which must be approved by the Nature Conservancy Council and the Countryside Commission and which will apply to all licence holders.
The new Schedule 9 will, if accepted by the House, be a considerable improvement on the old one. However, I must register a small twinge of regret that the Government have not been able to beef up the words "have regard to" when mentioning the environment. I still believe these words to be less than ideal. Nor have the Government been able to incorporate a reference to energy conservation in this schedule, in acknowledgement of the key role which energy conservation plays in fulfilling environmental objectives. I hope, however, that one effect of the Government's amendment to Clause 4 will be to emphasise the importance of energy efficiency and conservation in meeting environmental objectives.
Having said that, I welcome the Government's proposals. I believe that in conjunction with the very welcome promise by my noble friend the Minister,
1348
made in relation to Clause 4 last night, we have a Bill that has become a very much better Bill for the environment than it was when we received it a few weeks go.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I, too, certainly wish to congratulate the noble Baroness on bringing in these most welcome amendments. I think she has gone a considerable way to meet the concerns of those in your Lordships' House who have worried about these matters. I refer not only to noble Lords but also to interested people outside. Therefore, I hope the noble Baroness will not think me churlish if I add one or two critical remarks, and also at least speak to my own amendment and say why I still think it is a good amendment. However, I do not wish the noble Baroness to misunderstand my remarks. I think she has done a great deal as regards moving in the right direction.
Before I speak to my own amendment, I wish to say a few words on Amendment No. 90, standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Howie of Troon. I support that amendment very strongly, for precisely the reasons that my noble friend supports it. I have underlined in particular the word "engineering". In this country we tend to underestimate the value of what one might almost call engineering antiquity as regards certain buildings, sites and structures. I am not referring now to the standard piece of British manufacturing industry which some of us tend to regard as an example of archaeology anyway, but, more seriously, our successors will wonder why very little is preserved so they can see the real thing rather than pictures.
I think my noble friend is right to emphasise engineering in particular. My noble friend was looking for a compromise, but I wonder whether there may be a verbal way out. We have included the word "archaeology", but there is a very well-defined discipline nowadays called "industrial archaeology". The noble Baroness may feel able to tell us that the term "archaeology" subsumes all forms of archaeology, including industrial archaeology. If that term includes industrial archaeology, it meets the engineering point, at least to some degree. I should prefer to have the word "engineering", but the term "archaeology" may include that. I wish to draw your Lordships' attention, although I know this is not necessary, to the fact that part of our history is a history of engineering structures and objects and it is well worth preserving to some degree.
Amendment No. 95 is included in this grouping, although there are so many amendments it is difficult to keep track of them. The amendment which my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel and the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, have put down does somewhat bring out the difference between the two sides of your Lordships' House. I join with the noble Baroness in commending the industry. In saying that environmental matters must be considered, none of us is saying that the industry is totally uninterested in the environment. If for no other reason than good public relations, or, less cynically, as good citizens, the people in the industry will want to take the environment into account to some degree. The

1349
example that the noble Baroness mentioned was a very good instance of that.
Let us assume that the industry will do a certain amount in this regard. The industry has done that in the past, and I see no reason why it should not continue to do so. Let us assume that the argument will be put forward with respect to national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty and conservation areas that more lines ought to go underground.
There can be no doubt that what we are discussing here will involve expenses. There is no argument as regards that process involving costs. However, the point we are making is that it is reasonable that the Secretary of State, in representing public opinion, might on some occasions say that he would like to have more of the lines running underground because that is what the public wants. It is by no means obvious to me that the Secretary of State, in representing that opinion in the national interest, should ask the industry to meet the cost of that operation when the industry has done what it feels it can do in that regard. We feel it would be unreasonable of him to ask the industry to meet the cost.
Further, it is not obvious to me that the industry's consumers, as it were, should meet the cost. If we are talking about something that affects the general state of the environment, the exact word that the noble Baroness used applies. She talked about the taxpayer. We are talking about the taxpayer meeting the cost of something which is in the national interest. From Adam Smith to the present day, the fundamental proposition of taxation is that we tax in order to pay for things which are in the national interest. That is why we have a tax system in the first place.
We disagree with the noble Baroness, not in saying that no attention will be paid to the environment by the industry; but we believe that it would be reasonable for the Secretary of State to intervene on such occasions to say that, for very good reasons, he would like more line to go underground. However, we believe that the industry should then be able to say that if such a procedure is in the national interest the nation must pay for it. That is what our amendment states.
From the way the noble Baroness has spoken she will not agree with what I have said. However, she ought to know that there is a very strong logical case, which has a pedigree of at least 200 years, explaining why one would use the tax system to finance matters of national interest, of which this is one.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I must apologise for not having been present when my noble friend Baroness Hooper moved the amendments. I welcome them, especially those which amend Schedule 9. I cannot refrain from being nostalgic because paragraph 1 of Schedule 9 is taken word for word from Section 37 of the 1957 Act. That is a section which I moved at the Report stage in another place in that year. I am glad to see that the concept which we put forward then has stood the test of time and is now being embellished and strengthened.
I particularly welcome Amendment No. 103. I should point out that that fastens responsibility upon
1350
the Secretary of State for ensuring that the environmental provisions are properly applied by those concerned and gives him certain powers if they are not properly applied. That is a very important way of strengthening the protection for the environment.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am most grateful for the welcome which has generally been given to the government amendments. I have noted the criticisms that have also been advanced, and am happy to note that they are very few. Many of them have been answered in previous debates and so I shall not respond specifically. However, it is my understanding that archaeology includes industrial archaeology, and that "historic" covers engineering history. As I said earlier, I believe that the situation is covered. Nevertheless, it would be churlish of me to refuse the lifeline thrown out by the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon. In view of the wide scope of the amendments which we have already conceded, I shall consider whether there is any way in which we can take his arguments into account.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
8.45 p.m.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 87:
Page 104, line 38, after second ("be") insert ("so prescribed or, as the case may be,").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 39 [Consent required for overhead lines]:
[Amendment No. 88 not moved.]
Schedule 9 [Preservation of amenity and fisheries]:
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I should like to move Amendments Nos. 89 to 92 en bloc.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Grantchester): The noble Baroness cannot do so.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 89:
Page 107, line 34, leave out from ("formulating") to end of line 36 and insert ("any relevant proposals, a licence holder or a person authorised by an exemption to generate or supply electricity").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, if Amendment No. 90 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 91.
Lord Howie of Troon Lord Howie of Troon had given in notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 90:
Page 107, line 39, leave out from ("buildings") to ("and") in line 40 and insert ("structures, sites or other objects of archaeological, architectural, engineering or historic interest;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I wish the noble Baroness had moved the amendments en bloc. It seemed a very good idea at the time. However, I can see why she did not do so.
I greatly appreciate her reception of my comments. However, archaeology does not include industrial archaeology. I leave it at that. The noble Baroness said, as has been said to me before, that history would include the history of engineering. I must

1351
remind the House that the Bill includes architecture. History would include architecture. It is not proper to separate architecture from the history of architecture and yet assume that history includes the history of engineering. What is good enough for the architect ought to be good enough for the engineer. Having said that, I shall not move Amendment No. 90 or Amendment No. 93 when the time comes. However, I hope that the Government Front Bench will pay close attention to what I have said and come back at Third Reading with something that is mid-way between our two positions. I doubt whether it will be nearer my position than theirs, but I shall be content with something in between.
[Amendment No. 90 not moved.)
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendments Nos. 91 and 92:
Page 107, line 40, leave out ("or historic") and insert ("historic or archaeological").
Page 107, line 41, leave out ("take into account") and insert ("do what he reasonably can to mitigate").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 93 not moved.]
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 94:
Page 107, line 43, at end insert—
("(1A) In considering any relevant proposals for which his consent is required under section 38 or 39 of this Act, the Secretary of State shall have regard to—

(a) the desirability of the matters mentioned in paragraph (a) of sub-paragraph (1) above; and

(b) the extent to which the person by whom the proposals were formulated has complied with his duty under paragraph (b) of that sub-paragraph,").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 95 not moved.]
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendments Nos. 96 to 105:
Page 107, line 45, leave out from beginning to end of line 6 on page 108 and insert ("means any proposals—

(a) for the construction or extension of a generating station of a capacity not less than 10 megawatts, or for the operation of such a station in a different manner;

(b) for the installation (whether above or below ground) of an electric line; or

(c) for the execution of any other works for or in connection with the transmission or supply of electricity.").

Page 108, line 10, leave out ("extends") and insert ("and paragraph 1A below extend").
Page 108, line 10, at end insert—
("1A.—(1) A licence holder shall within twelve months from the grant of his licence prepare, and from time to time modify, a statement setting out the manner in which he proposes to perform his duty under paragraph 1(1) above, including in particular the consultation procedures which he intends to follow.
(2) Before preparing or modifying a statement under this paragraph, a licence holder shall consult with the Countryside Commission, the Nature Conservency Council and—

(a) where the activities which he is authorised by his licence to carry on include activities in England, the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England; and

(b) where those activities include activities in Wales, the Historic Buildings Council for Wales.

(3) As soon as practicable after preparing or modifying a statement under this paragraph, the licence holder shall publish
1352
the statement as so prepared or so modifed in such manner as he considers appropriate.").
Page 108, line 12, leave out from ("formulating") to end of line 15 and insert ("any relevant proposals, a licence holder or a person authorised by an exemption to generate or supply electricity").
Page 108, line 19, leave out ("or historic") and insert ("historic or archaeological").
Page 108, line 19, at end insert ("and").
Page 108, line 20, leave out ("take into account") and insert ("do what he reasonably can to mitigate").
Page 108, line 22, leave out from ("objects") to ("shall") in line 23 and insert—
("(1A) In considering any relevant proposals for which his consent is required under section 38 or 39 of this Act, the Secretary of State shall have regard to—

(a) the desirability of the matters mentioned in paragraph (a) of sub-paragraph (1) above; and

(b) the extent to which the person by whom the proposals were formulated has complied with his duty under paragraph (b) of that sub-paragraph.

(1B) Without prejudice to sub-paragraphs (1) and (1A) above, in exercising any relevant functions each of the following, namely, a licence holder, a person authorised by an exemption to generate or supply electricity and the Secretary of State").
Page 108, line 33, leave out ("paragraph 3") and insert ("paragraphs 2A and 3").
Page 108, line 33, at end insert—
("2A.—(1) A licence holder shall within twelve months from the grant of his licence prepare, and from time to time modify, a statement setting out the manner in which he proposes to perform his duty under paragraph 2(1) above, including in particular the consultation procedures which he intends to follow.
(2) Before preparing or modifying a statement under this paragraph, a licence holder shall consult with the Countryside Commission for Scotland, the Nature Conservancy Council, the Ancient Monuments Board for Scotland and the Historic Buildings Council for Scotland.
(3) As soon as practicable after preparing or modifying a statement under this paragraph, the licence holder shall publish the statement as so prepared or so modified in such manner as he considers appropriate.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, I should have pointed out that there is a printing error in the Marshalled List concerning Amendment No. 105. "Nature Conservancy Commission" should read "Nature Conservancy Council".
Clause 41 [Standards of performance in individual cases]:
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 106:
Page 32, line 17, leave out ("domestic premises") and insert ("tariff customers").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall also speak to Amendment No. 108. In Committee we undertook to consider the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, to widen the application of the guaranteed standards scheme which the director will create under Clause 41 of the Bill.
It has always been the Government's intention that the new system of compensation for consumers when a public electricity supplier fails to meet guaranteed standards of service should apply to those customers who may not be able to benefit directly from the choice of supplier which larger business

1353
consumers may expect to enjoy after privatisation. We intend that those consumers who will be faced with a single monopoly supplier for the foreseeable future should have the additional protection of guaranteed standards of performance from their supplier.
The majority of consumers who fall into this category will of course be domestic consumers, and indeed the Government's primary aim has always been that it is primarily the householder who should benefit from the new rights. However, we have considerable sympathy with the view, expressed in many quarters, that there may be categories of customer who, although not qualifying as domestic customers, will nonetheless find themselves restricted for all practical purposes to a single supplier—for example, small business customers and farmers. The amendment before the House therefore provides that such categories of consumer may be included within the scope of the guaranteed standards scheme.
I am sure that noble Lords will agree that the amendment meets the concerns that they have expressed. I commend it to the House. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes moved Amendment No. 107:
Page 32, line 18, at end insert—
("( ) Without prejudice to the generality of sub-section 1 above, in making regulations under this section the Director shall have regard to the following aspects of service quality:

(a) the maximum number, if any of unplanned or planned interruptions of electricity supply;

(b) the maximum duration of any interruptions permitted under (a) above;

(c) the minimum notice required for planned interruptions of supply;

(d) the maximum variation allowable in voltage and frequence of supply, including transient variations;

(e) the maximum time allowable for the connection of new customers to an existing supply; and

(f) the restoration of a supply to customers where the supply has been terminated in error.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, some aspects of the quality of electricity are covered in other parts of the Bill. This amendment adds a new subsection to Clause 41 which gives the director powers to define standards which would, if breached, automatically trigger the compensation that is already provided for in subsection (3) of Clause 41. That subsection allows compensation for failure to meet individual standards.
The new subsection defines those standards. They cover a number of things which are obvious in the amendment, for example, interruption of supply and minimum notice required for planned interruption of supply. Many noble Lords will know of examples of consumers who have perhaps gone away at Christmas and not received a notification that there will be an interruption of supply. Their pipes have been frozen, serious damage has occurred to their homes and they have not had any compensation as a result.
There are a number of other definitions here, including the maximum duration of interruption and the restoration of supply when termination has occurred by error or by accident. All of those things come within the power of the director. He may define them. This is a purely permissive amendment but, in giving him those powers, it also gives consumers the opportunity to obtain automatic compensation and redress in those circumstances.
In allowing the director to define the causes for compensation, it would greatly facilitate all methods of redress. The measure is long overdue. Under the present system consumers have suffered for many years from disconnections and other matters that are due to negligence, and they have not been compensated. They will benefit and the whole industry will benefit because it discourage negligence. It will make people more careful—dare I say it?—about their engineering as well as about other matters and will thus raise standards throughout. I hope that that will therefore commend it to my noble friend the Minister.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, am grateful to my noble friend for drawing attention to the importance of Clause 41.
The making of regulations under this clause, prescribing guaranteed standards of service, will be a matter for the Director General of Electricity Supply. We do not feel that it would be right to restrict his discretion by setting out in advance precisely what he should or should not include in these regulations. The Bill already provides for a thorough consultation process in that the director will be required to consult the public electricity suppliers and persons and bodies representative of the consumer before making regulations under the clause. He will also need to seek the consent of the Secretary of State to the regulations that he proposes to make.
My noble friend seeks to ensure that the regulations will cover a range of specific areas of service quality. I should first make it clear that many of those areas may indeed feature in the regulations that the director will eventually make. Naturally, the question of whether they should cover matters already dealt with by other provisions in the Bill, licences or the supply regulations, is one that the director will wish to consider. However, as I have made clear, the Government wish neither to restrict his decisions in advance, nor to pre-empt the consultation process to which I have alluded.
Nonetheless, I understand my noble friend's concern. It might therefore be helpful if I dealt with each of these in turn, so that she is not under the impression that the Government feel that they are unimportant.
With regard to the maximum number and maximum duration of unplanned or planned interruptions of electricity supply, I must say that I do not think that what is suggested would be suitable in the form it is drafted for individual standards of performance. This sounds rather more like an area that the director might wish to consider for the standards of overall performance to be set up under Clause 42. I must say, however, that I could foresee

1355
practical difficulties in forecasting unplanned interruptions which, by their very nature, must be difficult to plan for.
Turning to the notice required for planned interruptions of supply and the maximum variation allowable in voltage and frequency of supply, both those areas are covered by the electricity supply regulations. Breach of those regulations constitutes a criminal offence and the consumer is therefore well protected in that area.
Turning to the maximum time allowable for the connection of new customers to an existing supply, I must say that I think it would be difficult to make such a prescription, given the variations which will inevitably occur in individual circumstances.
In any case the Bill already provides a remedy in that area. Under Clause 18, a customer requiring a supply may specify the day on which the supply is to commence. If the supplier nominates an alternative date, which is not acceptable to the customer, then the matter can be referred to the director for the exercise of his powers to determine disputes under Clause 25. Any failure to meet the determined timescale would be a breach of the obligation under Clause 18 and, accordingly, a matter for the director's enforcement powers.
Finally, the restoration of a supply terminated in error is already covered by the more general obligation to provide a supply.
I hope that I have demonstrated that the Government take those areas of supply service seriously. As I have also indicated, the director will be free to deal with those or similar areas when making his regulations. I do not think that it is necessary or desirable to list such areas in the Bill. I hope that in the light of what I have said my noble friend might feel able not to press her amendment.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, my noble friend the Minister has given a full and thoughtful answer for which I am extremely grateful. I shall study it carefully in relation to those parts of the Bill which he mentioned and which, obviously, one has not had time to study at this moment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 108:
Page 33. leave out lines 6 and 7.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 43 [Information with respect to levels of performance]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 109:
Page 33, line 19, leave out ("from time to time") and insert ("regularly").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we are dealing here with the duties of a director to collect information. The expression in the Bill as drafted is "from time to time". That seems to us to be an expression which may extend to a period of weeks, months or years. A regular collection of information
1356
would be the right formula. This is not an amendment of great significance, but I believe that it is something to which the Government should pay attention. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am not sure that the noble Lord's amendment serves his purpose because "regularly" could mean, for example, one a year and "from time to time" could mean four or five times in the course of a year, but at irregular intervals. I am not sure which way he would rather have it.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the phrase "from time to time" could mean every five years.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, for putting forward his amendment. Under Clause 43(2) the public electricity suppliers are required to provide the director with specific information once a year about the number of cases in which compensation has been made under Clause 41, the aggregate value of that compensation and such information as the director may require about the overall performance achieved in respect of each standard determined under Clause 42.
Your Lordships may be concerned that the director will not publish information on a regular basis.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, what is "regular"?
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, if the noble Lord will be patient for a moment I shall come to the all-important distinction between "regular" and "from time to time". I shall take my time about it.
I should draw your Lordships' attention to Clause 43(4) which provides that the director must arrange for the publication of the information at least once a year. I am sure that your Lordships will agree that it is the publication of the information, not its collection, which is important; it really makes no difference at all to customers whether the director collects the information "regularly" or "from time to time" provided that the information is published at least once a year.
9 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, obviously it does not make a great deal of difference. If the information is collected from time to time it could be wildly out of date when the director makes his regular report.
The Earl of Dundee: The director, my Lords, is required to publish the information at least once in every year, so that customers or potential customers will be aware of their suppliers' performance. In this way, the consumer will be provided with information, as never before, about his local electricity supplier and will know that there are pressures operating on him to improve his performance. And the supplier will seek to improve his performance in competition with the other suppliers.

1357
Taking the difference between collection and publication, there is a duty to report to the director at least once a year. If there is that duty and there is also a duty imposed on the director to publish once a year, I do not think that it matters whether the collection is at a regular interval or from time to time. The relevant consideration is that the publication occurs. That publication cannot be neglected by the director and it has to occur at least once a year.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I hope that the noble Earl will look carefully at what has been said in this discussion. It seems to me odd that the director should from time to time collect information which he shall then publish regularly. He can from time to time collect information and by the time he regularly publishes it it may be wildly out of date.
Again, this is not a very important factor but perhaps the noble Earl will write to me about it. I shall enjoy reading whatever he does write.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I always look at everything that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, says in a very regular way, not just from time to time.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Earl. He has a very regular mind and not a mind that functions from time to time. I hope that in the context he will explain to me how this will operate. If the director is to report regularly, he has to collect information regularly; otherwise he will have out-of-date information on which he is reporting. However, in the light of the noble Earl's time to time response I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 110:
Page 33, line 23, leave out ("overall").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment which stands in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, it may be for the convenience of the House if I also speak to Amendment No. 111. Again, this is a probing amendment. I am quite uncertain about the meaning of "overall" in this context. I beg to move.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, this clause and Clauses 41 and 42 need to be seen as a whole. Clause 43 provides for the director to collect and publish information about the compensation in respect of standards of performance in individual cases under Clause 41 and the levels of overall performance achieved under Clause 42.
The word "overall" as used in Clauses 42 and 43 simply distinguishes the Clause 41 standards from the Clause 42 standards. The former will relate to the service experienced by individual consumers. By contrast the Clause 42 standards will provide indicators of the supply companies' overall performance and might include, for example, the
1358
expectation that the supply companies would respond to 100 per cent. of certain types of written inquiry within a set number of days, or that 95 per cent. of certain types of supply failure should be dealt with within a set period of time.
This category of standard is complementary to, but distinct from, the guaranteed standards of service to be set by the director under Clause 41. It will be up to the director which aspects of customer service it is appropriate to deal with in each of the two schemes, and there is no reason why there should not be some areas which are dealt with under both schemes.
The guaranteed standard scheme and the standards of overall performance will deal with different aspects of the supply company's performance. I hope that in the light of that further explanation the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, as always I am grateful to the noble Earl. However, I did not receive an answer to my question: what does 'overall" really mean? He said that there will be standards of overall performance. What are those standards? What are the standards to be set? I do not wish to pursue this argument but if the noble Earl could help me a little as to what "overall" means, I should be more than grateful.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I hope it is in order for me to intervene at this stage. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, is on to a point which requires explanation. If it cannot be given today, I hope that perhaps it might be given at Third Reading.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, the noble Lord asked me perhaps to be more precise in defining "overall". I think that the best way in which I can define it is to say that it does not mean individual.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I express my gratitude for the noble Earl's overall performance but I am no further on than I was when we started this debate. I hope that he will take up the suggestion of his noble friend Lord Renton and perhaps I may receive another letter from the noble Earl explaining what the Government mean by "overall". If we do not like it, perhaps we shall return to it at Third Reading.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, of course it is always important through the lengthy discussions that we are having on this long Bill to be absolutely sure that we are all informed in the way that we should like to be informed. I shall be very happy to write to the noble Earl about this matter.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am most grateful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 111 not moved.]
Clause 44 [Functions with respect to competition]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 112:
Page 34, line 12, after ("Act") insert ("jointly with the Director").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment stands in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Peston. It may be for the convenience of the House if I also speak to Amendments Nos. 113 and 114.
We are dealing here with the function with regard to competition. The Director General of Fair Trading, as I understand it, has a role and the director in the terms of the Bill also has a role. The Fair Trading Act lays down the rules under which the Director General of Fair Trading operates. It would be detrimental to the concept of competition policy if there were to be any serious derogation of the rights of the Director General of Fair Trading simply because there is something written into a Bill that deals with a particular industry.
The Director General of Fair Trading has a writ which runs right across industry. The amendment I am moving and those to which I am speaking try to ensure that the role of the Director General of Fair Trading is properly respected in that he is, under the Fair Trading Act, the person who initiates action on anti-competitive issues.
I would hate it if the Government were to say "The Director General of Fair Trading can in some way not be involved", or in some way can be side-tracked in competition issues of this nature. It is for that reason that I beg to move the amendment.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, under Clause 44 the Director General of Electricity Supply and the Director General of Fair Trading will exercise powers concurrently—the point about which we have to talk is the meaning of concurrent and joint—in relation to electricity, and certain of the latter's functions under the monopoly provisions of the Fair Trading Act 1973, and the anticompetitive practice provisions of the Competition Act 1980. One director or the other will need to take the lead role depending on the nature of the case at issue. Broadly, the Government envisage that if the case turns primarily on the generation, transmission or supply of electricity the DGES would normally take the lead whereas the DGFT would do so if the case concerned more than that one industry or market.
The Bill cannot anticipate where the balance will lie in any particular case. That is why it provides for concurrent jurisdiction and for consultation between the two directors before either exercises that jurisdiction. The two directors will be able to decide the best practical approach in the light of these broad principles and the circumstances of the individual case.
Perhaps I can give examples which might help the noble Lord. The Director General of Electricity Supply would normally take the lead only where the case primarily concerned the performance of the electricity industry alone. If, for example, a licensee engaged in predatory pricing practices which distorted competition in some part of the electricity
1360
market, the director could take action under competition law if he felt that a more appropriate route in the circumstances than the licence enforcement and modification procedures. On the other hand, the DGFT might take the lead where the case concerned more than one, or a separate, industry or market. If, for example, a supplier engaged in anti-competitive pricing practices with regard to the sale of electric household appliances, that might be a case where the DGFT could be expected to take the lead role.
These are perhaps simple examples. It will not always be clear which director should take the lead. That is why this clause provides for consultation between the two directors before either exercises his power. The two directors will be able together to decide the best approach in the light of the broad principles which I have outlined.
Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, that certainly the Fair Trading Act 1973 and the powers of the DGFT are in no way cut down by the provisions in this Bill.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, perhaps I may correct a mistaken impression given inadvertently by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. The Director General of Fair Trading has no power to do anything in relation to a public sector industry. It is only after the passage of this Bill that the Director General of Fair Trading will be able to intervene for the first time. He was able to intervene to a limited extent if references were made under the Competition Act. I should like to clarify that point.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am always grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, for instructing me on the duties of the Director General of Fair Trading. The fact is that we are dealing with a Bill which is privatising companies and we are discussing what will happen post-privatisation. I made no assertions at all about what the director general can or cannot do under existing circumstances. He is governed by the 1973 Act which is complemented by the 1980 Act.
Turning to the amendment which the noble Lord and I were discussing, it seems odd that there should be a joint or concurrent responsibility and not merely a clear responsibility for the Director General of Fair Trading. As I understand it, and as the noble Lord has explained, the Bill arrogates to the director a right to exercise competition or to institute competition policies. In some way he is involved in what is properly the right of the Director General of Fair Trading.
I find that a curious construction. Perhaps the construction is sensible but I have yet to understand how that is so. As far as I know the provision does not appear in the British Telecom privatisation Act. It does not appear in the Gas Act, unless the noble Lord can point me to those sections in which the Director General of Fair Trading has a joint or concurrent responsibility with Ofgas. As far as I know it does not operate in British Steel. I am interested to note that it has suddenly appeared in this Bill. I shall be happier if the noble Lord can help.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I say with respect that the noble Lord's amendment seeks to insert the word "jointly" in place of the word "concurrently" and that that is the issue which concerns him. Our understanding of the word "jointly" is that everything is done jointly—as Siamese twins, for instance—in respect of every single issue which arises. We believe that the word "concurrent" allows each to take the lead in the area in which he has responsibility. However, in no way does that infringe or impinge on the power of the Director General of Fair Trading in relation to the Act.
I do not believe that there is anything between us as regards what we are trying to achieve in the rights of the Director General of Fair Trading. However, we believe that in this context the word "concurrent" is much better than the word "jointly". We do not want any matter to fall down between the two; nor do we want them to do everything as though they were Siamese twins.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. The expression "jointly" means that either side has a veto on what happens. That preserves the authority of the Director General of Fair Trading. Ultimately he will decide whether jointly such and such an action is to be taken. The word "concurrently" means that at a certain point in time things happen. Nevertheless, we have had an interesting debate. I am sure that the noble Lord will read what has been said, as will I. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 113 and 114 not moved.]
Clause 45 [Fixing of maximum charges for reselling electricity]:
[Amendment No. 115 not moved.]
Clause 48 [General functions]:
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 116:
Page 37, line 5, leave out from ("activities") to second ("and") in line 6 and insert ("to which this subsection applies").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I should like also to speak to Amendments Nos. 118 and 119. Yesterday we discussed combined heat and power and touched upon the government Amendments Nos. 116 and 118. The purpose of the two amendments is to ensure that, in carrying out his functions to keep under review the carrying on both in Great Britain and elsewhere of activities connected with the generation, transmission and supply of electricity, the director should also keep under review in particular activities connected with the supply to any premises of heat produced in association with electricity and steam produced from, and air and water heated by, such heat. I understand that that is the correct description of the process known as CHP. I understand that these amendments are reasonably welcome.
I now turn to Amendment No. 119. In this respect, I have no difficulty in agreeing with the intention behind this amendment. However, there are two practical difficulties created by it.
First, it refers specifically to activities which have the effect of increasing the overall efficiency of power stations. But measures which increase the output of electricity from a given amount of fuel may not be compatible with increasing the overall efficiency with which fuel is burnt. The operation of CHP plant is a case in point. Some efficiency of electrical output has to be sacrificed in order for there to be a constant and marketable supply of heat. Thus, the efficiency of power generation may be lower; but of course the CHP plant has greatly increased the efficiency of fuel use. The amendment could therefore give rise to confusion on behalf of the director. It may, unintentionally, give CHP a lower priority than electricity generation pure and simple. I am sure this is not what is intended by the movers of the amendment.
Secondly, the director is already under a primary duty in Clause 4 to promote competition in the generation of electricity. In discharging that duty he will have to take account of the efficiency of different power stations and the different ways in which electricity can be produced. The more efficient stations will naturally be the more competitive. And those which make the best use overall of the way fuel is burnt—for example, through CHP—will be at a considerable competitive advantage.
I hope therefore that the House will accept that this amendment, though well intended, might set back rather than advance the cause of CHP. I beg to move Amendment No. 116.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am in some confusion about the amendments which we are discussing. The noble Baroness moved Amendment No. 116. She has also spoken to Amendment No. 118 and to an amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, and myself, which is an amendment to Amendment No. 118. I ask for guidance from the noble Lord on the Woolsack. Are we discussing the whole lot together, are we to move Amendment No. 119, or how are we to treat this matter?
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Strabolgi): My Lords, the noble Baroness, as I understood her, was merely speaking to Amendments Nos. 118 and 119. What I was intending to do was having called Amendment No. 118, the noble Baroness having put it, I would then put the Question. Then I was going to immediately call Amendment No. 119 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Williams.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, in that case, if the House agrees, we should speak to Amendment No. 119 as an amendment to Amendment No. 118 although the noble Baroness has only moved Amendment No. 116. She has anticipated the arguments which were to be put forward in support of Amendment No. 119. Am I correct in my assumption?
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, noble Lords are entitled to speak to any amendments they wish, but they are only allowed to move one at a time.
Lord Renton: My Lords, assuming that we are taking Amendments Nos. 116, 118 and 119 together for discussion, although they may have to be moved separately—and we know that they do—I wonder whether, without causing him any embarrassment and without trying myself to seem the least bit clever, I should invite the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, to the fact that in Amendment No. 119 he refers to the:
"overall efficiency of power stations",
having complained quite recently of the use by the Government two pages earlier of the expression "of overall performance", which, I must say, puzzled me a little.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for pointing that out. The amendment was drafted by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, whose name appears at its head. The noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, who alas is not in his place, and I simply supported the amendment without going into the complications of what "overall" might mean.
Lord Renton: My Lords, if we are to accept the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, it is important that we should know the implication of the use of the word "overall" in relation to the efficiency of power stations. Does it mean the efficiency of all power stations throughout the country, or of all power stations to which this clause refers? What is the difference between "efficiency" and "overall efficiency"?
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Ezra I feel that I must elucidate. As I am not in the difficulty of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, in defining the word "overall". I can perhaps have a shot at it without offending anybody. Perhaps I shall also be able to help the Minister in answering the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. It is self-evident to anyone but a lawyer what is meant by "overall" in this respect. It means the efficiency of power stations in general and in particular. That is what the amendment is intended to convey.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may point out to him that referring to power stations in the plural inevitably means that we are not referring to particular power stations but to power stations in general.
Lord Peston: My Lords, it is with some trepidation that I join this debate. I had better ensure that we are talking about Amendments Nos. 116, 118 and 119. I have no problem with Amendment No.116. I believe that Amendment No. 118 is intended to take us on with combined heat and power and is meant to be the Government's response to pleas in that direction. I hope that I am right in that assumption. The only minor matter between us concerns Amendment No. 119. My name is not attached to
1364
it, and I therefore have no responsibility for the wording.
I had assumed that this was an elucidatory amendment to point out that we wanted to interpret the contribution in terms of system efficiency. What matters is the explicit recognition by the Government of combined heat and power as being the relevant matter, a point made yesterday by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, which I strongly supported. If we ignore the precise wording of the amendment—I shall not add to the insults to lawyers—I believe that a clarification of this kind might be helpful. However, that is not the central issue. What is important is to welcome the Government's recognition of the contribution of this kind of technology in this area.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil moved Amendment No. 117:
Page 37, line 8, leave out from ("on") to end of line 11.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in asking your Lordships to look at this amendment I begin by saying that I am full of genuine sympathy for Professor Littlechild, who will doubtless be scanning this Bill night after night in order to understand clearly what his duties will be. Clause 48(1) states,
"It shall be the duty of the Director, so far as it appears to him practicable from time to time to do so—

(a) to keep under review the carrying on both in Great Britain and elsewhere of activities …

(b) to collect information with respect to those activities, and the persons by whom they are carried on"—

I daresay that so far those words will have been of use and guidance to Professor Littlechild. He will then continue, looking at these words,
"with a view to his becoming aware of, and ascertaining the circumstances relating to, matters with respect to which any of his functions under this Part are exercisable".
I wonder when your Lordships' House will reach the conclusion that somewhere, sometime and somehow, there must be a limit to the amount of rubbish that is allowed to creep on to the statute book with the authority of your Lordships. After the minor exhilaration and shock that I experienced last night when the Government accepted one of my amendments, I do not entirely despair that they might even see fit, in their own interests and not to gratify any passing whim of mine, to omit these meaningless and useless words.
On the other hand, if one of my noble friends is able to rise to her or to his feet, whichever may be appropriate, and say that these words have proved to be of immense value to Professor Littlechild in facing his onerous duties, then I shall happily withdraw the amendment and apologise for having moved it. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, whether my noble friend withdraws the amendment or not, I hope that he will not apologise for having moved it. I believe he has done a valuable service in doing so and I support him. When we enact laws we assume that they are laws that have to be obeyed and that can be enforced. I do not know how we can ever be sure. I did not

1365
know of this gentleman's name until my noble friend mentioned it.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, it has emerged very quietly and in a very low-profile fashion during the currency of these debates that Professor Littlechild—poor man‡—is to be the individual saddled with the fate of being the Director General of Electricity Supply.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend because he has mentioned something that has escaped me. I wonder how we can be sure that he has made himself aware of the matters that are contained in the words that my noble friend wishes to have omitted. How can those words possibly be enforced? They are not fit for law-making and, that being so, as he said, they should be taken out.
Lord Peston: My Lords, again I rise with slight trepidation in support of this amendment. If the Government do not accept it I hope that this is an occasion when a little exercise through the Division Lobbies might be appropriate. However, that is a matter for the noble Lord, Lord Peyton. Ending the relevant sentence at the point where the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, wishes it to be ended is to raise the question: for what other reason would the director wish to collect this information? In other words, the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, is entirely right. The sentence can stop exactly where he wants it to, because that is obviously—I underline the word "obviously"—where the sentence should stop. I make that point of agreement with him and hope very much that the Government will see the point of what he has said.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I am grateful to your Lordships and to my noble friend Lord Peyton. I have listened carefully to the arguments. I do not wish to delay the House. I will agree to take this hack without commitment and reconsider the matter.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, this is the second shock. I very much doubt whether I have the constitution required to take these shocks, but I shall do my best and face them with such courage and resources as I can muster.
I am grateful to my noble friend, and I hope that at Third Reading he will come up with a clear determintion to delete this horrible—I will not use the noun that occurred to me. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 118:
Page 37, line 11, at end insert ("and this subsection applies to any activities connected with the generation, transmission and supply of electricity, including in particular activities connected with the supply to any premises of heat produced in association with electricity and steam produced from and air and water heated by such heat.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, as an amendment to Amendment No. 118 I now call Amendment No. 119.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, the amendment is not moved.
[Amendment No. 119 not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 118 agreed to.
Clause 51 [Annual and other reports]:
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes moved Amendment No. 120:
Page 38, line 39, leave out ("and").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 120 and to speak to Amendments Nos. 121 and 124.
During the Committee stage of the Bill I moved an amendment on behalf of the National Consumer Council urging the Government to accept that consumers of monopoly utilities, especially electricity, need national representation as well as the very welcome local representation which the Bill provides for in the regional consumer committees. That amendment did not entirely find favour with my noble friend the Minister.
These amendments have the same objective but in a somewhat altered form. The effect of the amendments is to create in addition to the regional consumer committees a national consumers consultative committee known as the NCCC, with a remit to keep under review matters affecting the interests of electricity consumers generally, including the important issue of prices. It would also facilitiate the exchange of information relating to such matters between the director and the regional consumer committees. It would be chaired by the director and would consist of the chairmen of each of the RCCs, who would become members of the NCCC by virtue of their appointment as chairmen of the RCCs.
This is a formal structure which would be created for the discussion and exchange of information relating to national policy for electricity consumers. This is crucial to the director's ability to carry out his role successfully. Comparisons could he made between the different performances of the regional committees in relation to consumers and, indeed, between the performances of the regional companies themselves. Some are bound to be more successful than others, just as some of the regional companies are bound to be better than others. I hope that at the regular meetings the chairmen would compete with one another in bringing there stories of their own successes.
We believe that this information, discussed and analysed at national level, will be vital to the director when he sets national policy and when he negotiates with the local companies. It will enable him to discern which is the highest common denominator and not the lowest that is acceptable in terms of national policy. At the same time, he will have collated invaluable information to use when negotiating important issues such as prices and considering incidences of bad practice and poor performance.
As things are, without these amendments the terms of reference for each of the regional committees are drawn up exclusively to deal with the supply of electricity in its own geographical area. There is no provision for them to consider at national level issues which have to be resolved at that level by the director. These amendments remedy that omission.
The consequential amendments, Amendments Nos. 120 and 121 to Clause 51, would ensure that the director had a duty in his annual report to report in the form of a general survey on the activities of the new NCCC, in addition of course to the general survey in which he must already include the activities of the regional committees.
I spoke at length in Committee about the need for such a body, about its role and about how the structure of consumer protection in the gas industry is so admirable. If the Government accept these amendments tonight, then the newly-privatised electricity industry will be off to a flying start with a good structure for consumer protection; indeed, possibly a better structure than in any of the other privatised industries—certainly a far better structure than that which exists at present.
I urge my noble friend the Minister to look kindly upon the comparative modesty of these amendments and to accept their great importance to electricity consumers. I beg to move
Lord Renton: My Lords, I think that my noble friend has raised a most important matter and made a very valuable suggestion. I do not remember there being a statutory central users' consultancy council for electricity, but there was a body which we in the department, when I was there, used to know as "the electric women". They were, I think, called the Women's National Electricity Council. They were really representatives of housewives using electricity.
Of course, what is proposed here is something different. However, it is useful to have a central body in order to compare the performance in each region, and so on. I do not know quite what answer my noble friends on the Front Bench will give, but I think that is is a good suggestion, one which deserves serious consideration.
Lord Peston: My Lords, in rising to speak to this amendment I am of course aware of the position in the consumer world of the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes. Indeed, she has vast experience in this area, and I think, therefore, that noble Lords would do well to listen carefully to the advice which she is offering.
In a way, the two main amendments are not necessarily interlinked, although they are related to one another. Perhaps I may speak briefly on Amendment No. 121. It seems to me that such a general survey of consumer activities during the year would be intrinsically valuable, whatever else we may say. I strongly support the proposal, in particular because I believe that such surveys attract public attention; they raise the general profile of consumerism; and they are educative so far as concerns the public in such matters.
1368
As regards the council itself, let me say briefly that I entirely agree with the noble Baroness. I think that this would again raise the standards of consumer representation in the industry. I always make the point, on this and on all other matters, that all industries exist for the consumers; that is why they operate, and that is what they are there for. Therefore, to have direct consumer input is at least one way of seeing that the consumer will get, to some degree, what he or she should have. Therefore I am totally with the noble Baroness on this proposal. She referred to the fact that this would be a kind of highest common factor, and I think that that is very good.
I entirely agree with the noble Baroness—and I do not say this in a mean spirit—about the existing consumer council in the electricity industry; but this would be something of a far higher order of magnitude and is therefore to be welcomed from that point of view. Moreover, I think that the noble Baroness is almost certainly right when she says that if the Government will move in this direction then they will give a stronger consumer voice in this area than has occurred in any of the other privatisation issues. However, I shall certainly not at this time of night start another debate on privatisation. Nonetheless, if we are going down that road, what the noble Baroness offers is a proposal which the Government should take seriously. Either in this form or in a form brought forward by the Government, I assure the Minister that she would receive complete support from this side of your Lordships' House.
9.45 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Glenarthur made clear in Committee, we have given considerable thought to whether a new national body is needed in the privatised industry. As your Lordships will be aware, the Select Committee on Energy of another place recommended to the Government that there was no need for such a body. The Government accepted that view in their formal response to the committee's report. We felt that consumer interests would best be served by local consumer committees serving grass roots needs.
Nonetheless, we have always believed—here we agree with my noble friend Lady OppenheimBarnes—that national co-ordination of the activities of the new consumers' committees would be a vital part of the new arrangement. It is clearly important that the experience of the various committees at local level should be pooled and exchanged so that they can benefit from one another's experience and national lessons drawn where appropriate. To that end the Bill gives the Director General of Electricity Supply, who will have the ultimate statutory duty to protect consumers' interests, a duty under Clause 48 to make arrangements for the provision of information to consumers' committees and the facilitating of the exchange of information among them.
We feel that the amendments will supplement such provision by formalising arrangements for regular meetings at national level in the way described by

1369
my noble friend. Like noble Lords who support the amendment, we believe that that will be beneficial. I am happy therefore to accept that the amendments will achieve the national co-ordination of consumer representation in the privatised electricity supply industry which my noble friend has advocated. I accept the amendment.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, my emotion is not one of shock but of great gratitude to my noble friend the Minister for the generous way in which she has accepted the amendment. She has demonstrated in the best possible way her, and the Government's, commitment to ensuring that consumers are adequately protected after privatisation. I am sure that consumers will benefit and that they share my gratitude. I thank my noble friend.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes moved Amendment No. 121:
Page 38, line 42, at end insert ("; and
("(e) include a general survey of the activities during the year of the National Consumers' Consultative Committee.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 53 [Periodical and other reports]:
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 122:
Page 39, line 33, after second ("time") insert ("but not less than once a year").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I speak with a growing sense of grievance. As we have been going through the Bill, noble Lords have occasionally found their amendments accepted by the Government. I am the only person left who has not had an amendment accepted. I find that most unacceptable, especially as I feel that I am doing as much work on the Bill as any other noble Lord.
This is a good, simple amendment: the Government might decide to humour me by accepting it. With regard to the mini-consumer committees, as opposed to what will now be the Oppenheim-Barnes grand committee, the amendment merely says that "from time to time" is somewhat weak and that they should meet not less than once a year. I cannot imagine that anyone would think that they should meet less than once a year. If the Government are inclined to put me into a better mood, this is an amendment they should accept. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, it would indeed be shocking if we did not try to humour the noble Lord, Lord Peston, after his appeal. The present wording of the Bill requires the consumers' committees to report to the director from time to time. We believe that it is important that the committees should be able to report to the director freely at any time, as it is likely that they will make several reports in every year, either on their activities or at the request of the director, or on a matter which they may wish to draw to the director's attention.
1370
I therefore have some sympathy with the concern expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, to ensure that the director receives a report from each committee on its activities at least once a year. I am therefore very happy to say that the Government will accept the spirit of the amendment. But perhaps we may consider the precise wording and drafting so as to retain consistency with similar provisions elsewhere in the Bill, in particular Clause 43(4).
If it is agreeable to the noble Lord, in terms of a pleasant surprise or shock which this may bring him, the Government will be willing to bring forward an amendment at Third Reading in order to achieve the noble Lord's aim.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness. The fact that the Government will improve on the wording is even more pleasant for me to hear. Therefore, for the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 123 not moved.]
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes moved Amendment No. 124:
After Clause 53, insert the following new clause—
("National Consumers' Consultative Committee
.—(1) There shall be a committee, to be known as the National Consumers' Consultative Committee, of which the Director shall be chairman and the ordinary members shall be the persons who for the time being hold office as chairmen of consumers' committees.
(2) the committee shall meet at least four times a year and shall be under a duty—

(a) to keep under review matters affecting the interests of consumers of electricity generally; and

(b) to facilitate the exchange of information relating to such matters between the Director, the ordinary members and their respective consumers' committees.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 57 [General restrictions on disclosure of information]:
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 125:
Page 41, line 47, leave out ("or") and insert—
("(gg) For the purpose of facilitating the conduct of collective bargaining between appropriate representatives of employees and any particular business;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps with this amendment I may also speak to Amendment No. 126. This section of the Bill is headed "Miscellaneous", and Clause 57 is an interesting clause to do with the disclosure of information. I agree that it is a matter of some delicacy because, after all, we are discussing the plcs as they will be. There are always problems as to what information ought to be in the public domain and what ought not. Essentially the clause starts with the negative part of no information etc. Then it says that it does not apply to a variety of matters.
I, with my noble friends and the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, and the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, have no disagreement with that. It is a question of whether or not there ought to be two further exemptions. Perhaps noble Lords will permit me to take them in reverse order.
The second one is important in the sense that this industry, in terms of its operations and all the levels of generation, transmission and supply, will and ought to be subject to public scrutiny. It would be a most unsatisfactory state of affairs if, in connection with the operations of the industry and the awarding of licences, relevant information were limited. In other words, there are those who have every reason to possess information in order to scrutinise the industry and, for all the arguments we have heard about competition and the role of the director, general public scrutiny remains of importance. It seems to me, to say the least, that it would be a pity if there were any encouragement to limit the availability of information.
Looking at the clause, I myself am not at all clear that it is drafted as well as it might be to cover the meaning that I have in mind. I believe that I have explained what I have in mind here. I am not of the extremist school of thought which says that all information ought to be in the public domain, but I am of the school of thought that believes that information is one of the great protectors, not only of the national interest but of the private interests of consumers.
The other point I wish to raise is an important matter. It is curious that in discussing this Bill—we are now coming to the end of it—we have had very little debate on the employees of this industry. The Bill will affect them to a very large degree, but I accept that in another way the Bill is not about them. I suppose that is one of the reasons why we have said very little about them. Nevertheless, the employees are part of the industry and the industry will not operate without them. Despite certain comments I hear as I sit in your Lordships' House about the current state of collective bargaining in this country, I assume we shall still have an economy where collective bargaining is the characteristic method of determining wages and conditions in industry. We are obliged to do that by our commitments to the ILO, and we shall be further obliged to do that by all kinds of developments in the EC.
It would be a pity if information that would facilitate the conduct of collective bargaining were not available. By "facilitate", I do not mean producing strikes and bad industrial relations, but rather producing agreements and good industrial relations. It would be a pity if there were not a general propensity, obligation—perhaps "obligation" is going too far—or tendency to disclose information that would be conducive to collective bargaining. I commend both amendments to your Lordships and, perhaps more to the point, I commend to your Lordships the kind of thinking which lies behind the amendments. I appreciate it is a little late to say to the Government that we should have thought about some of these matters a little earlier, but I shall be interested to hear the Government's response on these two amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I believe the noble Lord, Lord Peston, wishes to ensure that
1372
associated with industrial relations or health and safety matters. In Committee the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, sought assurances that Clause 57, as presently drafted, did not prevent the normal flows of information associated with industrial relations or health and safety matters. He received an assurance from my noble friend Lady Hooper that it did not.
The provisions in Clause 57 will ensure that commercially sensitive information which has to be given to the Secretary of State or the director by licensees or others under any provision in Part I of the Bill will not fall into the hands of a competitor, or otherwise be disclosed. This clause does not in any way restrict the normal flows of information connected with health and safety at work matters between employer and employee. I hope that the noble Lord will see that point.
The Secretary of State and the director both have a duty, under Clause 4(3)(d), to secure the establishment of health and safety machinery for employees in the industry. This duty has been translated into conditions contained in all the licences which place a duty on the licensee to act together with other licensees to consult with representatives of their employees for the purpose of establishing an appropriate machinery.
Here I come to the important point in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Peston. We have always made it clear that the existing national machinery for negotiations between the unions and management would be carried over into the privatised industry. The Bill therefore provides that each of the new companies will become an individual party to any national negotiating machinery, and that each of the parties must give 12 months' notice of withdrawal to the other parties.
Aside from their duties to secure the establishment of health and safety machinery for employees in the industry which I have mentioned, neither the Secretary of State nor the director will play any part in the conduct of industrial relations in the privatised industry, whether it be collective bargaining or any other form of negotiating machinery. There are no provisions in the Bill for either the Secretary of State or the director to obtain such information. It would be entirely wrong for them to do so. These are matters which are purely for the successor companies and their workforces to arrange themselves.
I hope that with that explanation of what the Government have in mind the fears of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, are put at rest.
10 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. I am most encouraged by his remarks in relation to health and safety. I am pleased to hear what he had to say.
I am slightly more fearful than he is about the general climate of industrial relations. On the whole, I have always been one of those who would prefer collective bargaining to go ahead and to persuade both sides of industry to sort matters out themselves. I am afraid that in our society, as we have learnt recently to our cost, that does not always work as

1373
well as we should like. That is why we have fall-back powers, either for Secretaries of State or other bodies.
I take what the noble Lord said. It seems to be a valid point of view even if it is one with which I disagree. I thank him for what he has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 126 not moved.]
Clause 58 [Directions restricting the use of certain information.]:
[Amendment No. 127 not moved.]
Clause 60 [Powers to make regulations.]
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil moved Amendment No. 128:
Page 44, line 24, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I make no apology to your Lordships for reminding the House, even at this late hour of the night, of the wording which it is on the brink of inserting on to the statute book. It would be a pity too if those ardent readers of the Official Report did not also have a chance of studying them. Clause 60(3) states:
"Regulations made under any provision of this Part may—

" (a) provide for anything falling to be determined under the regulations to be determined by such persons, in accordance with such procedure and by reference to such matters and to the opinion of such persons as may be prescribed by the regulations;

"(b) make different provision for different cases, including different provision in relation to different persons, circumstances or localities".

I have three solemn and serious questions to ask whichever of my noble friends is going to reply. First, what does he want those words to mean? Secondly, what does he think they mean? Thirdly, what do they mean?
I venture this observation in conclusion. The answer to the third question will be very difficult for him but very easy for me, and indeed for the rest of your Lordships. We shall, all of us, I am sure have no difficulty in concluding that those words mean nothing. Gobbledygook is quite a polite and civil description of this kind of garbage. I hope very much that the Government will have second thoughts and not allow it to soil the pages of the statute book.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I should normally wish to support the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, on an amendment of this kind. However, I must follow the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter. I have always assumed that paragraphs of this kind were written into the Bill as a kind of outdoor relief for the legal profession. Although to the rest of us this does not seem to mean anything and seems to be gobbledygook, I thought that that was how the legal profession earned its living. Given the pressures the profession is under from other quarters, one is loath to suggest anything that might lower their standard of living at this time. Therefore, although my natural inclination is to support the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, I believe that these clauses are included
1374
for a very definite, productive, almost Keynesian, purpose.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, the House owes a great debt of gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, both for the amendment that he moved and for the manner in which he moved it. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Peston, I have no inhibition in supporting him.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, we have come a long way since the last stage of the Bill because I seem to have obtained recognition from the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that there is some purpose in this subsection. I notice that his view differs from that of his noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel who at that time called the subsection "unconstitutional". I suppose that it could be said that consistency exists in that the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, called the whole thing "monstrous" at the last stage while my noble friend Lord Peyton described the subsection as "just horrid".
The noble Lord has suggested that Clause 60(3) would not easily be understood. Clause 60 as a whole is there to support the other regulation-making powers in Part I of the Bill. It will be of great importance to those who draft the regulations in defining the limits of the powers and to those who wish to scrutinise the regulations who will know that they have been drafted within the powers. The clause may also be important to the courts should they ever be called upon to adjudicate on the lawfulness of any regulations made under Part I. The clause is a highly technical provision which will be of interest to lawyers and others concerned with the drafting and lawfulness of subordinate legislation. Whether or not it will be of direct interest to consumers is arguable. They will of course be interested in many of the regulations to be made under Part I; for example, those establishing the guaranteed standards scheme. We shall do our best to ensure that the regulations are clearly drafted in the awareness that those who scrutinise subordinate legislation will want before them provisions which are not obscure.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Peston, am aware of the professional background of my noble friend and I have no doubt that legislation loomed large in his mind when he was at the Inner Temple. I have taken seriously his concerns about the drafting of Clause 60. I must therefore say to him that, if he will agree to withdraw the amendment, I shall undertake, without any commitment, to ask that the draftsman looks closely at the terms of the clause with a view to establishing whether any improvement can be effected. However, I must say to my noble friend that that improvement will not be in the substance of what we are trying to achieve; it will be purely in the drafting.
To pick up what my noble friend said, he appears to be getting at the fact that the word "different" is mentioned four times in one subsection and the words "determined" or "determination" in another subsection. I undertake that the draftsman may have to burn the midnight oil but I am sure that, if my noble friend's strong feelings are to be judged correctly, that might not be wasted.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I am almost drowning in gratification. But one good turn deserves another. Since my noble friend has taken such a gracious and generous view of this modest amendment, I shall not press him to answer the three questions that I asked; namely, what does he want those words to mean, what does he think they mean, and what do they mean? I must tell him that I shall enjoy asking those questions should that unfortunately be necessary at a later stage of the Bill when he tells us of the conclusions that he has reached. I hope very much that the outcome will be profitable and positive. On that basis I have great pleasure in asking permission to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 64 [Interpretation etc. of Part I]:
[Amendment No. 129 not moved.]
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at ten minutes past ten o'clock.

  PERMANENT COMMISSION OF EUROCONTROL: MEETING
  PERMANENT COMMISSION OF EUROCONTROL: MEETING