Sitting of 10 July 1989

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

    British Rail
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next expects to meet the chairman of British Rail; and what matters he proposes to discuss.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next intends to meet the chairman of British Rail to discuss the current state of rail services.
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Paul Channon): I am meeting the chairman of British Rail tomorrow to discuss a variety of railway matters.
    Mr. Bennett: When my right hon. Friend sees the chairman of British Rail tomorrow, will he point out that under this Government investment is at its highest level since the modernisation of the railways in the early 1960s and that the House will expect that if the Government are to provide the railways with large sums of public money from the taxpayers' pockets the least that the railways can do is to operate? Will he also tell the Leader of the Opposition to come off the fence and support the Government by calling for an end to the strike?
    Mr. Channon: My hon. Friend knows from the answer to his written question on 7 June that investment in British Rail is running at about £781 million this year and it is due to rise by a further 50 per cent. in real terms. Since I became Secretary of State for Transport just over two years ago, I have approved 12 major British Rail investment schemes with a total value of £602 million. The figures that the Leader of the Opposition gave last Thursday are wholly wrong, and totally inaccurate. His claim that investment was 25 per cent. higher under the Labour Government is completely false.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Will the Secretary of State explain to the chairman of British Rail that the strike is not political and that when the Chancellor of the Exchequer threatens investment in British Rail, which has come not from the Government but from the traveller, he is merely exercising his usual form of bigotry?
    Mr. Channon: No, I do not agree at all. The threat to increased investment comes not from the Chancellor of the Exchequer but from the strikes. That is the point that the House should understand. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer points out the facts of life. If the railways do not work reliably, people will try not to use
    666
    them and will not want to invest in them. I want to see more investment in British Rail, particularly to take advantage of the new opportunities that will be provided by the Channel tunnel in 1992. I ask Members in all parts of the House to join me in urging the parties to the strike to get together this afternoon so that the matter can be resolved.
    Mr. Higgins: Will my right hon. Friend convey to the chairman of British Rail the fact that the travelling public as a whole, not merely those who travel on the railways, regard it as intolerable that strikes are taking place when there is a perfectly reasonable negotiating machinery for settling the matter without strike action? Will he therefore urge the chairman of British Rail to get on with the negotiations and in turn urge the unions to settle the dispute as it should be settled—through the normal agreed negotiating machinery?
    Mr. Channon: I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. Furthermore, I understand that at lunchtime today British Rail asked the three unions to come to talks this afternoon at 3 o'clock. I am sure that I can count on the support of the whole House when I say that all of us would like those talks to take place.
    Mr. Dunn: When my right hon. Friend sees the chairman of British Rail tomorrow, will he inform him that the proposals for the high-speed link to Dartford constituency are totally unacceptable to the people living there and that the only way to make the link acceptable is to place it underground?
    Mr. Channon: I shall, of course, bring my hon. Friend's remarks to the chairman's attention. I think that he is already well aware of my hon. Friend's views and he will, I am sure, treat them seriously.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: While the invitation by the chairman of British Rail to the unions for talks this afternoon is very welcome, will the Secretary of State make it clear to the chairman of British Rail that it takes two to negotiate? Does he accept that both his attitude and that of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer have been extremely unhelpful, suggesting that only one side had brought about the dispute when the management of British Rail is widely regarded as having been extremely unsatisfactory for several years?
    Mr. Channon: What is important now is that we should concentrate on prospects for a settlement. [Interruption.] I am glad to have the support of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott). I should have thought that all hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East, would want British Rail's invitation to the three unions to meet this afternoon to be taken up and talks to begin.
    Mr. Gregory: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the present rail strike is undemocratic as only four out of 10 voted to go on strike? Will he confirm that if the strike is not over soon, rail users—passengers and freight—will move away to road and air on a long-term basis? Is he aware that people in great major cities such as York are looking forward to the denationalisation of the industry?
    Mr. Channon: I know my hon. Friend's views on that long-term issue. There has been no decision yet and studies are still in progress. It will go ahead only if privatisation is

    667
    feasible and offers benefits to railway users. My hon. Friend raised another exceedingly important point, as businesses throughout the country will have to decide quite soon how they plan to invest in the light of the Channel tunnel. There is an enormous opportunity for British Rail to get a far greater share of rail freight than ever before, but that will not happen if the railways are seen to be unreliable. The strikes are doing grave long-term damage to the prospects of those employed in British Rail.
    Mr. David Marshall: The Secretary of State seems to fail to appreciate the reasons for the dispute. Nothing that he has said so far goes any way towards resolving it. Will he tell the House when he intends to take positive measures to end the strike? What does he plan to do to bring it to an end?
    Mr. Channon: It is not for the Government to negotiate these matters—it is for British Rail and the trade unions involved, and they have the opportunity to do so. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman has not joined me in urging the unions to attend the talks this afternoon. I hope that I have the unanimous support of the House, although I am not sure that I do. I ask all hon. Members to urge that all parties involved in the dispute begin talks at once and continue until they reach a settlement.
    Mr. Norris: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the most worrying features of the current dispute is the way in which the rail unions purport to represent British Rail as having hundreds of millions of pounds in profits? Does he agree that any detailed reading of British Rail's accounts shows that the railway network made an operating profit of less than £20 million this year and that it would be wholly irresponsible of British Rail to enter into negotiations for an award that it could not possibly finance in future?
    Mr. Channon: I fear that my hon. Friend is right. As the House knows, there is a subsidy to British Rail of hundreds of millions of pounds, which also throws a new light on those interesting figures.
    Mr. Spearing: Does the Secretary of State agree that it is not simply a matter of pay? Will he tell the House how long the machinery for national negotiation of wages has been in existence? Will he say whether he has given British Rail instructions to terminate that, and will he give instructions for British Rail to withdraw the notice of termination? Does he agree that such a notice was part of the problem and that if he did not take action to prevent it, the Government are partly responsible?
    Mr. Channon: I have not given British Rail any instructions on the matter. As the hon. Gentleman points out, there are two major points of dispute between British Rail and some but not all the unions involved. One is pay and the other is the bargaining machinery. Both can and should be negotiated. Any changes to the bargaining machinery that British Rail proposes do not come into effect until November. There seems to be ample time for negotiation before entering into senseless strikes which do so much damage to the travelling public and to the long-term future of the railways.
    Mr. Gerald Bowden: Can my right hon. Friend recall in his earlier meetings with the chairman of British Rail
    668
    whether he was ever shown a business plan for the Channel tunnel rail link? If he has not been shown such a plan, does that not give credence to the belief that British Rail embarked upon this massive project without producing a proper business plan?
    Mr. Channon: A proper business plan will have to be produced for any high-speed rail link proposal that is brought before the House if it is to have a chance of getting through the procedures of the House of Commons. If and when British Rail produces such proposals as my hon. Friend has in mind, it will have to show proper financial justification as well as cover all the other points on which it will have to satisfy the House.
    Mr. Prescott: The House will welcome the Secretary of State's conversion to the need for talks, rather than describing one party to them as "cowardly" as he did at the beginning of the dispute. Has the Secretary of State read the statement made by the Railway Staff National Tribunal? Does he accept its finding that the 7 per cent. pay offer imposed by British Rail, which is one of the causes of the dispute, was inadequate and represented a cut in real wages? Does he agree with the tribunal that the exeptional productivity of railway workers over the past few years has fully funded wage increases and justifies a wage increase today? Will the Secretary of State give an assurance that if the tribunal's findings provide the basis for a settlement acceptable to the Government he will not put financial obstacles in the board's way which prevent the dispute being brought to an end?
    Mr. Channon: I noticed, rather surprisingly, that the hon. Gentleman did not urge the unions to attend talks this afternoon.
    Mr. Snape: Answer the question.
    Mr. Channon: I shall certainly answer the question. I also noticed that the hon. Gentleman did not condemn the strikes which are causing major disruption and interference to the railways and passengers. Of course I have read the decision of the Railway Staff National Tribunal, but it is for the parties concerned to negotiate, not for the Government. The parties could be at the negotiating table within a quarter of an hour and the dispute could be settled. I am amazed that the Opposition did not join us in that request.

    M3-M27 Link
    Mr. Atkinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to make a statement on the completion of the M3-M27 motorway link.
    The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Peter Bottomley): We hope to award the main contract for the Compton to Bassett section of the M3 extension shortly.
    Progress on the Bar End to Compton section depends on our consideration of the inspectors' reports on the recent inquiries. We hope to make an announcement later.
    Mr. Atkinson: My hon. Friend's statement will be greeted with relief and encouragement by the millions of motorists who have had to endure more than a decade of misery and delay along the present A33 link road, but they will not believe in the completion of the motorway link

    669
    until they see it. Will my hon. Friend be more precise about when he foresees the road actually being open for use by motorists?
    Mr. Bottomley: The answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's question about completion is 1991. It would be beyond the abilities of my crystal ball to give an answer to the second part.
    Mr. Ward: Is my hon. Friend aware that we have had five public inquiries about this stretch of road and that between 1978 and 1987 there were 217 accidents on it involving personal injury? Could not my hon. Friend go down in history as the Minister who made up his mind? The Department has procrastinated for donkey's years. No new information will be forthcoming from an inquiry, so will my hon. Friend make us his mind? I was told that the section would be opened last year, but there is still no sign of activity.
    Mr. Bottomley: The excuse—and the reason—for the delay outlined in the second part of my hon. Friend's question was legal matters; if I answered the first part of my hon. Friend's question, further legal problems would probably result. The fastest way of helping is to say nothing.

    Road Congestion
    Mr. Andrew Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a further statement on his proposals to relieve road congestion in the south-east.
    Mr. Channon: The proposals in the White Paper, "Roads for Prosperity", together with the many major schemes already in our programme, will greatly help to relieve road congestion in the south-east.
    Mr. Smith: Given the abject complacency of that response, will not the Secretary of State take note of the deepening anger among people in the south-east at how chronically worsening congestion is poisoning the environment, damaging business and driving the public slowly—in many cases, stationarily—round the bend? Does he accept that the way to tackle the congestion is through measures to halt the relentless increase in car use, and that that will be achieved only through a proper plan for transport throughout the south-east which stresses the investment needs of railways, buses, cycling and proper traffic management and achieves the right balance between car use and public transport?
    Mr. Channon: I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would be the last hon. Member to ask such a supplementary question, as I understand that he represents Cowley. I should have thought that people would prefer to be in work rather than out of it, including the hon. Gentleman's constituents. His suggestions would probably have deleterious effect on his constituency. I am trying to provide a decent road infrastructure in the south-east, and we are doing a great deal in Oxfordshire.
    Mr. Soames: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the extensive package of new road building that he recently announced will be of great benefit to the south-east? Will he acknowledge, however, that it is on minor roads in constituencies such as mine that great difficulties are experienced? Will he do what he can to work more closely
    670
    with West Sussex county council—his hon. Friend the Minister has been doing so—and view favourably any further requests for transport supplementary grant?
    Mr. Channon: I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of local roads and I will certainly look with sympathy at anything that West Sussex suggests. I know from meetings with my hon. Friend and other Sussex Members that they attach great importance to this issue and I shall certainly examine it.

    A140
    Mr. Lord: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will make a final decision on the dualling of the A140 between Scole and the A45; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: We shall be considering the case for some limited further additions to the roads programme when we publish a full roads report later in the year.
    Mr. Lord: My hon. Friend will be aware of the great increase in the volume of traffic on this road and of its appalling accident record. He will also be aware that we have had an Adjournment debate on this. He kindly visited the road early this year to see the problems that we have. He will also know that a little while ago there was a huge public outcry when it was announced that the road north of Scole would be dualled but that the road south in Suffolk would not. I appreciate that today is not the day for my hon. Friend to make an announcement but may we hope that when announcements are made later in the year, dualling of the A140 in Suffolk will be included in the programme?
    Mr. Bottomley: Without making any commitment, I can say that I have stood by the side of that road with my hon. Friend and it is dangerous. I remember that there was a crash when drivers were distracted by a television crew. The problem is that it is an old Roman road and as it is straight further improvement will not produce the usual gains. We have said that we shall review it further and perhaps make an announcement later this year.

    Automatic Ticket Barriers
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on arrangements for automatic ticket barriers in the event of an emergency.
    The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Michael Portillo): The barriers are supervised constantly by station staff, who have been instructed to open them immediately if any emergency or severe congestion occurs. The ticket gates will open automatically if power supply or air pressure failures occur. Other safety features have been incorporated or are being developed.
    Mr. Hughes: Does the Minister realise that there are substantial demonstrations by pensioners today against automatic ticket barriers, which they regard as mechanical rottweilers? Is he aware that many pensioners cannot use the gates and need to be helped to the other side of the barriers? Given that there is far less fraud on the London Underground than in any other capital city in Europe, might it not be better to do away with the gates and restore the original system, which is far safer and commands greater public confidence?
    Mr. Portillo: The hon. Gentleman should suspend his judgment about the safety of the gates until we have the benefit of the report that London Regional Transport has commissioned at my request. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is it?"] I am sorry that it is not available today, but I hope that it will be available in about a week's time. The hon. Gentleman can then judge what the consultants said on that important point.
    For some pensioners it is a matter of getting used to the new gates. For the disabled, for people carrying shopping and those accompanied by children, there are manually operated gates, and staff will be on hand to let out people who find it difficult to use the automatic gates.
    Mr. Carrington: In reviewing the automatic gates, will my hon. Friend bear in mind that one of the big problems, and one of the major anxieties of my constituents, is the inability of London Transport to keep change machines properly supplied with change, which leads to enormous queues at ticket offices?
    Mr. Portillo: I shall make a special point of ensuring that my hon. Friend's observation is conveyed to London Regional Transport. I am sure that LRT will want to put that matter right.
    Ms. Ruddock: Further to the Minister's reply about safety, does he acknowledge the deep anxiety of fire fighters about the automatic ticket gates? Is he aware of the incident at St. James's Park Underground station in which fire fighters attempted to evacuate the station because of a fire but the automatic ticket gates failed to open when they pushed the alarm button and no station staff were available? Can the Minister assure us that he receives reports of such incidents, and what action is he taking?
    Mr. Portillo: I must question the premise on which the hon. Lady began her question. She talked about the concern of fire fighters, but the advice of the London fire brigade has been taken several times since the gates were proposed. The hon. Lady will know from the Fennell report that the London fire brigade and the railway inspectorate were satisfied with the installation of the gates. Since then, the London fire brigade has looked at the gates again and made a series of recommendations, which are being implemented. Over and above those two levels of approval—from the railway inspectorate and the London fire brigade—there is the report from the consultants, which will be available to the hon. Lady and the House shortly.

    M6
    Mr. Butler: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects work to begin on providing fourth traffic lanes on the M6.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: In about three years across Thelwall viaduct and east of Preston. It is too soon to say when construction might start on sections of the 80 miles of M6 widening announced in "Roads for Prosperity".
    Mr. Butler: Does my hon. Friend agree that there are sections of the M6 which even in 1986 exceeded the design flow capacity that would be associated with a four-lane motorway? Should we not go ahead as soon as possible with providing four lanes for the M6?
    Mr. Bottomley: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Hind: My hon. Friend will be aware of the heavy traffic on the M1 and M6 on Friday afternoons and Sundays as people go away for the weekend and return home? Will he ensure that when work begins to provide four lanes on the M6 consideration will be given to those periods when traffic is extremely heavy so as to minimise the chaos which occurs on our motorway network?
    Mr. Bottomley: Yes, Sir. It is not just chaos, but congestion. Often the solution to congestion is spreading the load, finding other modes or getting more investment. We aim to make progress with all three.

    Trunk Roads
    Mr. Burns: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many miles of new or improved roads will be added to the trunk road network when his expanded road programme is completed.
    Mr. Channon: Some 2,700 miles of new or improved roads will be added to the trunk road network when the expanded road programme is completed.
    Mr. Burns: Is my hon. Friend aware that that answer will be warmly welcomed by many people throughout the country, especially in Chelmsford? Given the announcement of the new motorway from the M25 and the widening of the A12, can he reassure people that the maximum effort will be made to keep noise nuisance levels to a minimum? Will he also ensure that compensation for land taken in building works will be paid swiftly and remedial work undertaken as quickly as possible?
    Mr. Channon: I think that I can give my hon. Friend both those assurances. I am grateful to him for what he says. Perhaps he will keep in touch with my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic or with me about any detailed points that may arise.
    Mr. Roy Hughes: Will the Secretary of State pause to consider that his programme for a new era of toll roads will take Britain backwards to the 18th century rather than forwards to the 21st century?
    Mr. Channon: I think that that point will arise specifically on a later question. If we have a few extra toll roads in addition to what is in the public sector, I think that many people will very much welcome that.
    Mr. Neale: Will my right hon. Friend accept that there is no doubt among Conservative Members that he has engineered one of the largest ever increases in funding for the road sector programme? Does he accept that we have no doubt that he has created the best possible opportunity for further private investment? Does he accept that the greater the clarity that he and his Department can give as to the prospective schemes, and the greater the certainty as to time in terms of planning and construction, the more likely he is to get more private investment to come forward?
    Mr. Channon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. There has been a considerable increase in the roads programme, and that is very much needed. As for clarity in the private sector, I accept what my hon. Friend says. Of course, we are still consulting on the Green Paper that we issued at the end of May—
    Mr. Dobson: The hon. Gentleman said "carroty."
    Mr. Channon: Perhaps, in that case, I did not hear my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Neale) clearly enough.
    Mr. Snape: He said carrots, not claret.
    Mr. Channon: Mr. Jenkins is no longer with us, but I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes. We are still consulting on the Green Paper. I will bear my hon. Friend's points in mind.
    Mr. Cox: As the question refers to new and improved roads, the Secretary of State will be aware of the "options", as one of his Ministers calls them, that are under discussion for London. When does the right hon. Gentleman expect those proposals to be presented to the people of London?
    Mr. Channon: My hon. Friend and I are right to call them options. I hope to be able to make an announcement before too long to reduce the number of options available. I am aware of the concern of the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members of all parties that we should proceed as quickly as we can so that people know exactly what lies in the future.

    Railway Unions
    Mr. Adley: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met the railway unions; and if he has any plans to meet them again soon to discuss Government investment in the railways.
    Mr. Portillo: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met leaders of the Transport Salaried Staffs Association, the National Union of Railwaymen and the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen on 12 July 1988 to discuss a report on the quality of service on British Rail. No meeting is arranged at present.
    Mr. Adley: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Can he confirm that for five years, British Rail has had no recourse to the national loans fund? That being so, what precisely did our right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer mean when he threatened to cut the level of investment? Will my hon. Friend assure the House that he and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State are using their best endeavours with the unions and management to try to settle the current industrial dispute? Can he tell the House what those best endeavours are and, as according to his answer it is now a year since he met the unions, will he, when he meets them, tell them that the railway industry would be far better served by having one union rather than three and that that might be part of any package discussed when the strike is settled?
    Mr. Portillo: I hasten to point out to my hon. Friend that the reason such meetings have not occurred is not that we have been refusing to meet people who wish to meet us. On the point about my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exhequer, I think that my hon. Friend would have made the same point if he had been there. When one listened to the unions urging that there should be more investment in the railways on the very day when the railways were shut down and when they were providing such a poor advertisement for themselves in attracting new customers, it was only reasonable that my right hon.
    674
    Friend should point out the extraordinary irony of that position. My hon. Friend will appreciate that whatever the position vis-a-vis the national loans fund, this nationalised industry has been heavily indebted in the past and many of its debts have had to be written off by the Government. The industry is still heavily dependent on public sector obligation grant.
    Mr. Dalyell: Does the Minister think that Rab Butler —the former chief of the Secretary of State—when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, would have had the unwisdom to make those public comments? The rail unions have given the Department a table of investment comparing the amount of state money available in Germany, Belgium and France. How do Ministers explain the fact that the level of state money being given to the railways here is so much less than that in every other European country?
    Mr. Portillo: The hon. Gentleman glides swiftly from talking about state money to investment, as though the two were one and the same, which they are not. As the amount of subsidy in this country has fallen—that is, the money needed to make up for the losses that the railways make each year—so the amount of investment has risen by and large. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to talk about comparisons, he must compare the fact that investment in the railways today is higher than in any year of the last Labour Government and at levels rarely seen since the 1960s. Those are the relevant comparisons and that is the background against which the strikes are occurring.
    Mr. Yeo: Does my hon. Friend share my concern at the total failure of Opposition Members to condemn the strike, the only certain consequence of which is great damage to the travelling public and, in the long run, to British Rail's own employees?
    Mr. Portillo: I do, indeed, find it sad and extraordinary. Opposition Members have been given the opportunity today either to condemn the strike or simply to urge that the unions should come to the talks, yet they have refused to take those opportunities. The Opposition spokesman now talks about whether the Government accept the findings of the tribunal, yet I do not remember him urging the unions to go to the tribunal in the first place.
    Mr. Alfred Morris: In regard to investment in the railways, will there be an announcement today, in the first place to this House, about the projected rail link to Manchester airport which, as the Minister will know, is of major importance to the north-west of England as a whole?
    Mr. Portillo: Yes, it is intended that there should be an announcement on that subject. If question No. 12 is reached, there will be some news.
    Mr. Madel: Can my hon. Friend confirm that if the railway unions wish to negotiate a new system of arbitration in the railway industry, he would expect British Rail management to respond positively, but that once a new system of arbitration came in he would also expect both unions and management to abide by its recommendations?
    Mr. Portillo: There is an existing system of negotiating machinery and arbitration. One of the unions has been willing to go to arbitration—so far, the other two have not.

    675
    The question now is whether those other two unions will discuss the decision made by the arbitrator in the case of the TSSA. The railway management is clearly working with the negotiating machinery that is in place today. If decisions are taken to change that negotiating machinery, that will be a question for further consideration. However, that does not seem relevant to the point that arbitration machinery is in place today and that one union has used it. The railway management is now offering to talk to all the unions on the basis of that decision.
    Mr. Prescott: We are pleased to hear that the Minister now believes that the Chancellor's statement was ironic, if not untruthful. That is a further example of the Government being economic with the truth, as they are with the investment figures, which fly in contradiction with the evidence that they gave to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.
    Will the Minister give examples of the unions refusing to meet the Secretary of State? Will he also make it absolutely clear that I have spent much time and effort going around all the parties involved, asking them to come to the table and to negotiate and discuss these issues? Even today, does he not accept that the tribunal cannot deal with the bargaining issue which is equally important and determined by ballots, under the rules?
    Mr. Portillo: Of course, the tribunal cannot deal with that, but we are beyond that stage. The management is saying that it is willing to talk about the arbitrator's decision on pay. Indeed, the management has always been willing to talk about the bargaining machinery. I do not understand how the point arises. We are now beyond the stage of the tribunal in the case of the TSSA.
    Referring to the hon. Gentleman's offer to mediate, the three qualities that I would look for in a mediator are fairmindedness, charm and tact—so I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is not on my short list.

    Trunk Roads (Financing)
    Mr. Carrington: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many trunk roads have been financed wholly or largely by the private sector since 1986; and how many cost-sharing agreements for trunk road schemes are under consideration.
    Mr. Channon: In addition to the Dartford bridge, there have been 58 schemes in the past three years. A further 50 agreements are being considered.
    Mr. Carrington: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that that is an excellent way of increasing investment in the road infrastructure and obtaining value for money at the same time? Does he also agree that the introduction of tolls on roads would have the further benefit of ensuring that roads do not get clogged up with non-essential traffic and that commercial transport will then be able to get through properly?
    Mr. Channon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and am sure that as the new developments come forward—with some possibly being financed by tolls—they will provide extra opportunities for roads and will be widely welcomed throughout the country.
    Mr. Corbyn: Is the Secretary of State aware that the many road proposals in the east London assessment study
    676
    are all bitterly opposed by the local communities? Will he confirm whether there have been discussions with any private road entrepreneurs to build private roads in the area covered by the east London assessment study?
    Mr. Channon: I know of no such proposals.

    Transport (North-west)
    Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what new measures he is proposing to improve road, rail and air transport links in north-west England; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Channon: I can today announce my approval for a scheme to link Manchester airport to the rail network at a cost of just under £25 million. The rail link should be ready by 1993 when the second terminal is due to open. About £1 billion of the £7 billion increase in trunk roads spending announced on 18 May is for the north-west. There are proposals to widen existing motorways, construct a new motorway west and north of Manchester, and for new bypasses.
    Mr. Thurnham: In welcoming that good news from my right hon. Friend, may I urge him to press ahead with that work as quickly as possible and to ensure as few delays as possible in view of the importance of the air-rail link to the continuing success of the popular airport at Manchester?
    Mr. Channon: I am extremely anxious that Manchester airport should have every opportunity to expand still further. I shall certainly do my best to ensure that the rail link is in operation when the second terminal is opened. I hope that that will provide general satisfaction in the north-west.
    Mr. Robert Sheldon: I welcome that news, but will the Minister say something about the further development of the motorway linking Denton and Oldham, and passing through Ashton-under-Lyne?
    Mr. Channon: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks about the rail link to the airport. As he knows, four major motorway contracts have recently been completed. We are also engaged in the completion of the Manchester ring gantries, the completion of the M63 widening south of Barton bridge and the Derby road improvement in Bootle. I shall bear in mind what the right hon. Gentleman said, and if he has a detailed point to raise, perhaps I had better write to him about it.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I thank my right hon. Friend on behalf of my constituents who will no longer have to go to London and waste time and money spending the night there when they could perfectly well fly from Manchester. When considering these megaschemes, will my right hon. Friend also remember the village of St. Michael's on Wyre which urgently needs a bypass if the horrendous danger of the humpback bridge in St. Michael's is to be avoided?
    Mr. Channon: I shall personally look into the problems of the village of St. Michael's at the earliest opportunity.
    Mr. Snape: Let me assure the Secretary of State that the Opposition welcome his belated announcement about the rail link to Manchester airport. Can he confirm that the £25 million cost of the project that he has so graciously

    677
    authorised falls neither on the budget of his Department nor on that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Does he agree that future road, rail and air transport links in north-west England should be evaluated on the same basis for each mode of transport?
    Mr. Channon: On the whole, they are evaluated on a very similar basis. [Interruption.] There is a difference between air, rail and road. I have been trying for some time to get that into the hon. Gentleman's head, but so far I have failed. The different modes of transport are evaluated on a very similar basis. The proof of the pudding is in the eating: we are achieving massive road and rail investment and, I hope, massive air investment, in the north-west. All that is to the general good and is much to be welcomed.

  DUCHY OF LANCASTER

    Intestate Deaths
    Mr. Pike: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the total of funds administered by the Duchy of those who have died intestate in the county palatine.
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Tony Newton): The affairs of those dying intestate in the county palatine of Lancaster are administered by the Solicitor for the Affairs of the Duchy of Lancaster. He is the person appointed for this purpose under the Administration of Estates Act 1925.
    In the year to 29 September 1988 the solicitor administered a total of over 270 such cases. The gross total of funds involved after payment of debts but before ex-gratia payments or administrative expenses were made was £1,129,298.
    Mr. Pike: Will the Chancellor of the Duchy do everything in his power to ensure that the estates are dealt with as speedily as possible? Will he also ensure that any residue is used to help create jobs and to encourage development in the county palatine?
    Mr. Newton: I shall certainly do everything that I can to make the administration of the estates as speedy as possible. I think that I referred to the question of a benevolent fund. I should be rather reluctant to tie that to the creation of jobs—many such funds are for charitable purposes—although naturally it is to be hoped that employment opportunities will be created as a result.

  CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

    Ecclesiastical Buildings
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, when the Church Commissioners last met the leaders of the Methodist Church to discuss the use of ecclesiastical buildings.
    Mr. Michael Alison (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): The main forum for inter-denominational discussion of matters concerning Church property is the Church main committee which meets regularly under the chairmanship of the Bishop of London. Its last meeting was on 13 March and it meets again on 17 July.
    Mr. Marshall: When my right hon. Friend talks to the Church Commissioners, will he tell them to emphasise, when they next meet the leaders of the Methodist Church, that many people in the House and elsewhere are appalled at the misuse of his position by the president of the Methodist Conference, who prefers political propaganda to religious faith?
    Mr. Alison: As my hon. Friend has done, no doubt, I have read Dr. John Vincent's inaugural address to the Methodist conference carefully. In many respects, it is an inspiring and edifying speech, but the comments on public policy contain a substantial number of inaccuracies and suggest a good deal of misapprehension. In respect of those rather negative aspects of the speech, I propose to write to him in a personal capacity to try to put the record straight.
    Mr. Frank Field: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen a copy of the Archbishop's sermon yesterday on toleration? If so, would he care to give a copy to his hon. Friend the Member of Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall)? Will he draw the attention of the House to the fact that while some of us may disagree with what the president of the Methodist conference says or does not say, it is a sign of our democracy that he can say it?
    Mr. Alison: I heard the Archbishop of Canterbury's admirable sermon in York Minster yesterday. The sermon was directed at fundamentalists. Dr. Vincent's speech was not in any sense—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that Dr. Vincent should address himself to matters spiritual and ecclesiastical and not make crass comments of a politically based nature?
    Mr. Alison: I have much sympathy with what my hon. Friend says. If Church leaders, in the context of Church occasions, make speeches on public policy, it is important that those speeches are accurate and factual. Given those ingredients, such speeches are to be welcomed.
    Mr. Heffer: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the reaction of some of his colleagues in the House this afternoon would have been precisely the same as that to Christ our Lord when he was alive?
    Mr. Alison: Dr. Vincent's speech, as I have already suggested, contained a great deal of material that was accurate, edifying and inspiring. However, it also contained a substantial number of inaccuracies. I believe that there is no precedent for, or merit in, making speeches about public matters which contain substantial inaccuracies.

  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMISSION

    Audits
    Mr. Barry Field: To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission what information he has on the total cost of auditing the following accounts: (a) Palestine Currency Fund, (b) Paris Commission, (c) Doris Duke Gift Fund, (d) Anglo-German Foundation for Study of Industrial Society, (e) Sir Henry Dale Lecture Fund, (f) Winchester College, University and College Estate, (g) Tithe Act 1936, (h) Home Grown Sugar Beet Research and Education Fund, (i) Gas Levy (j) Distribution of

    679
    Energy Property, (k) Water Act 1973, (l) Iron and Steel Act 1982, (m) Antient Domain of the Crown, Jersey; what review of the need for public audit of these accounts has taken place; and when.
    Sir Peter Hordern (Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission): The Comptroller and Auditor General has informed me that the total cost of auditing the 13 accounts listed in my hon. Friend's question was £42,000 in 1988–89. Eight of those audits flow from statutory duties placed on the Comptroller and Auditor General. The remainder are audits that he undertakes by agreement with the Treasury. In most cases this is because the funds concerned are within the control of a Government Department of which he is already auditor; the audit of the Paris Commission is undertaken at the request of the governing body of that international organisation and the full cost is recovered.
    Mr. Field: Given my hon. Friend's knowledge of public service pensions and his well-known zeal for expunging inflation from the economy, precisely how do the costs of the audit fees for those accounts take into account the future liability of the index-proofed, inflation-proof pension of the National Audit Office staff who undertake those audits? Does my hon. Friend agree that no such future taxation liability arises under a private audit fee carried out by a private practice? What justification, therefore, is there for continuing those audits in the public sector?
    Sir Peter Hordern: My hon. Friend's question, alas, does not arise from the original question on the Order Paper. However, if he cares to table a question specifically on the subject that he has just raised, I shall do my best to answer it.

  TRANSPORT

    "Roads for Prosperity"
    Mr. Yeo: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent representations he has received regarding his White Paper "Roads for Prosperity".
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Paul Channon): The numerous representations that I have received recently about "Roads for Prosperity" have mostly expressed strong support.
    Mr. Yeo: I thank my right hon. Friend for his helpful answer. Has my right hon. Friend seen a copy of "Regional Trends" published last week which shows that East Anglia is by far the fastest growing region in the country by almost any measure that my right hon. Friend can think of, including the number of Conservative Members of Parliament? In the light of that, will he bring forward at the earliest possible date those proposals in his White Paper which will be of great benefit to improving the road system in East Anglia?
    Mr. Channon: Yes, Sir. I can give my hon. Friend that complete assurance. If my hon. Friend studies the proposals for East Anglia, he will see that £1,800 million of new schemes are added to the £700 million handled at the moment. That shows our awareness of the importance of the road network to the economic growth of East Anglia.
    Mr. Foulkes: Is not the quickest and cheapest method of reducing congestion in the south-east of England to encourage firms in the south that have difficulty recruiting trained labour to move up to the north and to Scotland where there is an abundance of such labour?
    Mr. Channon: I certainly would not disagree with that.

    British Rail (Privatisation)
    Mr. Teddy Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a further statement on Her Majesty's Government policy on the privatisation of British Rail; and if he will introduce legislation to permit the privatisation of particular services within the passenger network.
    The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Michael Portillo): No decisions have yet been taken on the privatisation of British Rail. I have no plans to bring forward legislation for the privatisation of particular services in advance of those decisions.
    Mr. Taylor: Is my hon. Friend the Minister aware that on the Fenchurch street line to Southend, the reliability of service is so unfortunate that on occasions, passengers find it difficult to establish whether there is a labour dispute, a strike, a work to rule or nothing in progress? Would not Southend be an ideal place to try an experiment with privatisation, bearing in mind that we have two lines from Southend to London, one which could be run by a private company and the other by British Rail? Will he bear in mind the successful privatisation of the cleansing department in Southend? Staff are paid much higher wages and provide a better service at a lower cost to the rate payers?
    Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend will understand that I am peculiarly well-informed about services to Southend. I have a lot of sympathy with him. This matter has been looked at several times in the past. The present position is that the Government wish to examine the case for privatising all parts of British Rail. My hon. Friend will probably agree that that would be a better outcome. Until we take decisions on whether and how to do that, I do not think that it would be right to divert our efforts into looking at the proposals on a line-by-line basis.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS

    Short Money
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: To ask the Lord President of the Council what was the percentage increase in the amount of Short money provided for the running of the official Opposition in the House of Commons in 1988–89 and 1989–90.
    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): The resolution of the House of 21 June 1988 provides for a maximum payment to the official Opposition of £839,709·90 in each calendar year, compared with a maximum of £493,947 under the previous resolution. This represents an increase of 70 per cent. However, because of the change in the basis of calculation of Short money, this comparison is of somewhat limited value. The actual amounts paid during any financial year reflect the irregularity of the submission

    681
    of claims. In the financial year 1988–89 the amount of financial assistance paid to the official Opposition including arrears was £1,035,649. It is not possible to compare the actual amount paid to the official Opposition in 1989–90 against the actual amount paid in 1988–89, since payments for 1989–90 are still continuing.
    Mr. Bennett: When my right hon. Friend considers submissions for further Short moneys for the Opposition, will he consider the report that was published by the parliamentary Labour party review committee 10 days ago on the state of the Labour party? It reveals that many Labour Members practise the cult of the individual, are rowdy and ill-disciplined and have poor morale, and that it would help if they improved their parliamentary performance. Does he agree that the Labour party needs not more money but better leadership?
    Mr. Wakeham: I have to say that my hon. Friend misunderstands the purpose of Short money. It is not to put right the shortcomings of the Labour party, which will require more than money.
    Mr. Winnick: Leaving aside the snide and sarcastic comment that we have just heard, does the Leader of the House agree that it would be wise for all Conservative Members carefully to bear in mind Short money for the official Opposition, considering that they will be filling our places after the next general election?
    Mr. Wakeham: If it comes to snide remarks, the whole House knows where to look for experience. The House will continue to provide Short money for the official Opposition for many years to come, and the hon. Gentleman will be a recipient of some of it.

    House of Commons (Access)
    Mr Tony Banks: To ask the Lord President of the Council if he has received any representations regarding access to the House of Commons by members of the public.
    Mr. Wakeham: Yes, Sir. A number of hon. Members, including the hon. Gentleman himself, have raised the issue of access for mass lobbies and for visitors to the Line of Route in correspondence with me, during business questions, and in early-day motions.
    Mr. Banks: It is about time that we started doing something to make members of the public more welcome in their Houses of Parliament. Frankly, hon. Members seem to do all that they can to put them off coming here. Why can we not now have a proper inquiry into ways that we can improve access and facilities for members of the public, so that they can come here without having to have a Member of Parliament take them to get a cup of tea and a sandwich? It is about time that we made people welcome in this place. They pay for it.
    Mr. Wakeham: These matters are looked at from time to time, but it is appropriate that I should repeat once again that the use of Westminster Hall is a matter for those authorities in whom responsibility for it is vested. The principles that govern its use require the Hall to be used only for parliamentary functions, royal occasions, a ceremony in honour of a head of state or an event with a
    682
    clear historical connection with Parliament. As my predecessor said on one occasion, one of the attractions of Westminster Hall is how little it is used.
    Mr. Andrew MacKay: As my right hon. Friend acknowledged, concern has been expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House for some considerable time because although members of the public wait outside the Norman Porch entrance of the other place, often for many hours in the rain, no canopy has been erected for them, although there are often parties of schoolchildren. It is inexcusable that there has been such a terrific delay in erecting such a canopy. If it happened outside the precincts of the Palace, we should all be complaining loudly. Can something be done about this?
    Mr. Wakeham: As I have said before, these matters are the subject of inquiry, and there are discussions going on with the other place. The Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee has made a number of proposals, which are being investigated. It is hoped that it will be possible to respond positively in time for some improvement to be made before the onset of winter.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: I welcome the current investigations. Will the Leader of the House consider two things? The first is monitoring, over a short period, the time that it takes on different days for lobbies to get through the security system and into the place where they are meeting, whether that is the Grand Committee Room or the Central Lobby. Secondly, on the days when there are lobbies, could they be given the exclusive use of one of the channels of security clearance so that people on other business can have a clear passage through the other?
    Mr. Wakeham: I shall refer those suggestions to the Committee responsible and which looks at these matters from time to time. It will take careful note of the hon. Gentleman's suggestions.

    European Community Debates
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Lord President of the Council how many hours have been spent debating European Community matters since June 1987.
    Mr. Wakeham: Some 163 hours, including 14 hours in Standing Committee and 11 hours on ministerial statements. This total excludes time spent on European Community matters during Question Time and during the business statement, for which timing could be calculated only at disproportionate cost.
    Mr. Marshall: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Is he convinced that the effectiveness of scrutiny is proportional to the time spent on it?
    Mr. Wakeham: I am not convinced of that. In fact, I am convinced of rather the opposite—I do not believe that the time is as well spent as it should be. That is why I am pleased that the Select Committee on Procedure is looking at these matters, and that is why I have had a number of helpful discussions with the Select Committee on European Legislation. I hope that all this will enable us to bring before the House proposals to deal with these matters in a rather more satisfactory manner.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: In the light of the very strong support given by the British people during the recent

    683
    European elections, is it not time for this Parliament to transform its attitude towards the rights of Members of the European Parliament when they visit Westminster? We may have discussed these matters on previous occasions, before that famous vote was cast, but is it not time that we changed our attitudes and considered bringing Members of the European Parliament into our proceedings—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—not giving them a vote, but allowing them the right to attend our Committees, where on occasion they might have the right to speak?
    Mr. Wakeham: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that his party receiving 14·5 per cent. of the total vote of the electorate is a strong performance, I should be interested to know what he thinks is a weak performance. As to access by Members of the European Parliament to the Palace of Westminster, the hon. Gentleman will remember that one of my hon. Friends moved an amendment during a debate that we had recently to make a modest improvement in that situation. I accepted the amendment, and the House passed it, but against strong opposition from Labour Members. They showed clearly that they would oppose any further suggestion of increased rights. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman raises the matter at a parliamentary Labour party meeting to see how he gets on there.
    Sir Dudley Smith: Given that media coverage of the European Parliament is most inadequate, surely it is vital that debates on important Community matters in this House should be in prime time rather than in the far reaches of the night, which happens so often nowadays.
    Mr. Wakeham: The question of what we do in prime time is subject to a lot of competition. There is no more prime time in the day that I can find and something must disappear if we are to find more prime time for European matters. I believe that it is possible for the existing time to be better used. That is what I am seeking to achieve, to, I hope, the general satisfaction of everyone in the House.

    Broadcasting
    Mr. Allen: To ask the Lord President of the Council what steps he will take to make provision for a sound or television link from the Chamber to the offices of those Members and Officers who request it.
    Mr. Wakeham: There are no plans to go beyond the recommendations contained in the report on televising proceedings of the House which advocated the installation of a monitor screen in each of the Division Lobbies.
    Mr. Allen: You, Mr. Speaker, quite rightly, have the right to have a sound feed to your Rooms, as do your Deputies, IRN, the BBC and the press lobby. Could those rights be extended to Members of this House?
    Mr. Wakeham: Obviously they could be, but I must tell the hon. Gentleman that such a decision would be contentious. The unanimous opinion of the Select Committee on televising proceedings of the House was that any such system would tend to encourage Members away from the Chamber, would be intrusive to neighbouring Members and costly to install. I am afraid that that is why the hon. Gentleman received a negative reply when he wrote to me about this matter. My reply represented the unanimous view of the Committee.

Beer (MMC Report)
3.31 pm
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Anthony Newton): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to announce the Government's response to the report from the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on the supply of beer. This was a comprehensive report. It recommended far-reaching changes in the brewing sector. Passionate views for and against its recommendations have been expressed forcefully since it was published on 21 March. We have listened carefully to views from all quarters—large and small brewers, the tenants, and most importantly, the consumers. But before we announce our decisions I should like to restate the Government's position in relation to this and all other MMC reports.
The essence of the Government's view is that competition is good for industry and commerce and, above all, for consumers. It encourages enterprise, greater productivity, greater diversity and lower prices. In general, the operation of the market delivers the benefits of competition to the consumer. But sometimes the Government have to step in—in mergers, restrictive and anti-competitive practices, and monopolies. And the ultimate sanction which the Government hold—and exercise when necessary—is to order divestment. Without this sanction our policies to ensure that competition is kept free would be without force and effect.
Certain preliminary conclusions were announced by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State on 8 June; and my right hon. and noble Friend made a further statement of the Government's position during a debate in another place on 14 June. We made it clear that certain measures would apply to the national brewers but not to regional and local brewers.
I now turn to the specific decisions we have reached on matters covered in the MMC's recommendations. We have taken particular note of recent further evidence of the need for more competition in the supply of soft drinks and low-alcohol beers to pubs. We have decided therefore that tenants of the national brewers should be free to buy those and certain other products from any source, free of ties. Products thus freed from the tie will include non-alcoholic and low-alcohol beers, soft drinks, ciders, wines and spirits. These measures should significantly enhance competition in the supply of those products.
All brewers will be required to supply beer to the wholesale trade at prices no more than those in a published list. The MMC showed that some wholesalers had been prevented from operating in the market because brewers had refused them supplies. These measures, and others I shall shortly come to, should stimulate a more open and competitive wholesale market in beer and other drinks.
We agree with the MMC's conclusion that licensed tenants must be given greater security of tenure in the new circumstances. I confirm that amendments to the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 will be brought forward as soon as parliamentary time permits to give licensed tenants the same protection as other business tenants. We are conscious that many tenants have found themselves in an uncertain position since the MMC report was published. In some cases they have already been served with notice to quit. It is regrettable that some brewers have seen fit to take this action before firm decisions have been announced.
686
We envisage that subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary legislation, all tenancies which have three or more years to run from today's date will fall within the scope of the Act. In the case of tenancies without a definite term, they will fall within the scope of the Act with effect from three years from today, or from the first rent review after the legislation takes effect, whichever first occurs.
The MMC made a number of recommendations aimed at giving tenants further protection beyond that provided by the Landlord and Tenant Act. We have considered this carefully, and have taken particular note of the representations made by the National Licensed Victuallers Association that the power the brewer landlord has over the tenant is such as to justify a special level of tenant's protection. We have, however, decided that it would not be right to go further than affording licensed tenants the same protection as all other business tenancies.
We hope that landlords who have issued notices to quit to their tenants as a consequence of the MMC report will now withdraw such notices. We have announced what we believe are appropriate transitional arrangements. We do not wish to see the position of tenants unduly jeopardised in the period before any amendments take effect. If necessary, my right hon. and noble Friend will make an interim order under the Fair Trading Act 1973, as amended by the current Companies Bill, to safeguard their position.
The MMC recommended the prohibition of all new loan ties. The effect of loan ties is, however, very different from that of ties resulting from ownership, which are permanent ties to one brewer's products. Loan ties can and do change from brewer to brewer frequently. It is clear that in the right circumstances they can be pro-competitive. We have also been persuaded that these loans can be an invaluable source of finance for new public houses and particularly for clubs.
We have therefore decided not to prohibit them, but instead to require that they conform to certain conditions to ensure that they are not used anti-competitively. All loan ties must be capable of termination at no more than three months' notice without penalty and, in the case of loans from the national brewers, must be confined to beer.
We have already made it clear that the requirement recommended by the MMC that tenants should be allowed to offer a guest beer should apply only to the national brewers. We have also made it plain that the guest beer will be a cask-conditioned beer, other than stout. The issues to be resolved are who should be permitted to supply the guest beer and whether the requirement should apply to all exclusive ties entered into by national brewers, whether through ownership or loans.
We have decided that the right to take a guest beer should indeed apply to all exclusive ties entered into by national brewers. As to who should be able to supply to the houses of the national brewers, one view is that any brewer, other than the one responsible for the tie, should be able to supply the guest beer. On the other hand, the Brewers Society has suggested that only brewers with an annual output of less than 200,000 barrels may supply. That would exclude any other than small, local brewers. We would welcome further views on this point during the statutory consultation period.
I now turn to measures to address the central question of the size of the tied estate of the national brewers. The MMC recommended that no brewer should be allowed to own more than 2,000 on-licences. We have always made it

687
clear that we were prepared to consider alternatives provided that they dealt with the public interest issues clearly identified by the MMC.
The national brewers made it clear that nothing which fundamentally affected the strength of the tied house system would be acceptable to them. But this is the central detriment identified by the MMC. Furthermore, it is clear that greater freedom to purchase products outside obligations imposed by the brewers would be widely welcomed both by publicans and by their customers.
We have decided that all brewers who own more than 2,000 on-licensed premises will be required to release from ties one half of premises above this threshold. They must be leased free of ties to the company's products. As these premises will now become free houses, the owning brewer will be permitted to make the new form of tied loans should the new tenants require them.
At present there are about 15,000 free houses. On the basis of the data in the MMC report, these measures will add an additional 11,030 free houses. These proposals should enable a major freeing of the market without the compulsory divestment originally recommended by the MMC. The central problem identified by the MMC was that the tied house system restricts choice and competition. The MMC identified a number of ways in which the operation of the licensing system itself has this effect.
The licensing system exists to control the supply of alcoholic drinks and to ensure that such drinks are sold only by fit and proper persons. However, in practice, licensing justices take account of a wide range of factors in deciding whether to grant a licence to an applicant, including whether in their view there is a demonstrable need for a new licensed premises.
The MMC took the licensing system as given. However, in view of the consequences for competition, we believe that we should consider this matter further, even though the MMC made no recommendation to that effect.
It is no part of Government policy to seek to increase the number of licensed premises. But, equally, a licensing system devised for one purpose should not be used for another purpose, namely, to fortify a local monopoly. My right hon. and noble Friend, together with my right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Lord President, have agreed to look into this point further.
The main measures we have announced will take some time to put into effect. We propose that a period of two years should be allowed for those measures which involve modifying tenancy agreements or separating a business into a tied and free estate. At the end of one further year we propose that the effect of these measures should be reviewed by the Director General of Fair Trading. They involve significant structural changes to the market, and it will be important to review whether they have had the desired pro-competitive effects.
Throughout our consideration of the MMC report we have been in close touch with the European Commission, which is conducting a review of competition in the brewing sector throughout the Community. The measures that we intend to take are compatible with the terms of the existing block exemption from article 85 of the treaty of Rome.
The Commission's own examination is also looking closely at the effects on competition of vertical tying and we look forward with interest to the conclusions of the
688
Commission's study. When the position in the United Kingdom is reviewed at the end of three years we shall take fully into account the results of the EC review and any consequent change to the EC block exemption regulation.
Drafts of orders to give effect to the measures that we have announced today will be published as soon as possible. Parties whose interests are affected by such orders will have at least six weeks after they have been published in which to make representations before the orders are placed before Parliament.
Mr. Bryan Gould: Does the Chancellor recall the enthusiastic welcome given by the Secretary of State to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report, his readiness to grapple with the monopoly identified by the commission and his proclaimed keenness to protect the consumer? What has happened in the meantime to explain the embarrassing shift from initial welcome to the craven and complete capitulation which he has announced today? Could it conceivably be something to do with the immense lobbying power of the big brewers and the fact that they are major bankrollers of the Tory party?
Is this not a blatant example of a Government being bought and sold by its major commercial backers, a phenomenon which should be regarded as wholly unacceptable to all who are committed to good government? What price now the Government's competition policy and the authority of the MMC? Does not this climb-down completely undermine the role of the MMC? What weight can now be given to the important reports which are still expected on credit cards and on petrol retailing?
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that allowing the big brewers to retain their ownership and their continuing power to loan-tie the so-called free houses gives them all the power they need, irrespective of any formal tie, to compel tenants to accept their products? Is this not therefore a complete failure to address what, in the Chancellor's own phrase, is the central detriment identified by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission?
On other issues, we welcome the extension of the Landlord and Tenant Act to tenants, but what protection is to be offered to tenants who will come under immense pressure from owners to contract out of the Act? Does he not accept that without that safeguard the so-called protection is largely illusory? Is this not an extreme disappointment to the smallest breweries? For example, what has happened to the sliding scale for duty on which they placed such hopes to improve their access to the market? Is it not the truth that after so much posturing the Secretary of State has shown, as many of us foresaw, that he simply does not have the bottle to take on the big brewers? Many public houses carry the name "The King's Head". After this climb-down we can expect many public houses to be renamed "Lord Young's Scalp".
Mr. Newton: I can only assume that the hon. Gentleman scripted his remarks before he had a chance to study the statement. The notion that the proposals that I have put before the House represent anything other than a substantial change in the structure of the industry to produce a much more competitive framework in respect of the national brewers is far fetched. The hon. Gentleman might recall that the comments that were made following the publication of this report contained not merely objections by some brewers, but vigorous objections by the

689
TUC. Indeed, there was a letter from the hon. Gentleman himself on 29 March pointing to what in his view were the real dangers in the MMC proposals on tied houses and calling for somewhat different steps to be taken. The Government have addressed the defects in the industry that were shown by the report and in a way that will avoid the dangers to which the hon. Gentleman himself drew attention.
Mr. Michael Jopling: Will my right hon. Friend understand that his announcement is a huge improvement on the unfortunate proposal that was made originally? Will he clarify what he meant when he talked about half the pubs owned by the big brewers having to be free houses? Can he say whether his new rules will prevent brewers from continuing to increase the size of their estates? Will they still be allowed to buy and build extra pubs provided that 50 per cent. of those over 2,000 remain free houses?
Mr. Newton: Yes, that is the position. Our proposal is that half the pubs that they own over the threshold of 2,000 should be dealt with on an arm's-length basis. It would follow, of course, that if they increased their ownership of pubs they would also have to increase the number operated on an arm's-length basis.
Mr. Stan Crowther: Is the Chancellor of the Duchy aware that the Government's refusal to grant full and immediate protection, including an enforceable code of practice, to all tenant licensees will be greeted with dismay throughout the country? Does he not appreciate that in many respects the licensed trade is different from other businesses, not least because the pub is the tenant's home as well as his business? Why can he not accept that there is a need for proper protection for public house tenants? Does he realise that allowing contracting out will mean that the brewery companies, if they wish, can simply refuse to grant a tenancy to anyone who does not agree in advance to contract out of the Landlord and Tenant Act? Does he not appreciate that security for the licensee is very much in the interests of the customers as well as the tenant, because customers do not want to see their licensee subject to the danger of being thrown on to the street?
Mr. Newton: We considered carefully the difficult balance that had to be struck and, as I said in my statement, we concluded that it would be right to stick to extending to this particular class of business the same provisions as apply to others. We had in mind the fact that, if tenancy arrangements are made so unattractive to brewers that they do not want to go in for them, that will hardly be in anyone's interests.
Mr. Michael Colvin: May I first declare an interest, not as one of the fat cats referred to by the Leader of the Opposition but as a simple tenant of a major brewer who would have benefited considerably from the initial Monopolies and Mergers Commission recommendations? If the Secretary of State's intention—by his initial, knee-jerk reaction that he was mindful to accept the recommendations—was to provoke the maximum constructive debate about the recommendations, then he has succeeded beyond his wildest dreams. Instead of scoring what might have been a monumental own goal, the Government have come up with a winner.
Mr. Newton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, not least for the constructive part that he has played in the discussions.
Mr. Charles Kennedy: Surely the logic of the pro-competitive stance by the Department of Trade and Industry, with the divestment requirement above 2,000 on-site licences, would have been to make divestment above that limit absolute instead of the 50 per cent. half/way house that the DTI has gone for on this occasion.
The Minister referred to the further consultations that will take place on the question of guest beers. What will be the nature of those consultations? Will they be led by the DTI or will it play another passive role, waiting for the industry to comment?
Mr. Newton: On the hon. Gentleman's latter point, I expressed our views with genuine and complete openness in my statement. We shall need to lay draft orders covering consultations in the fairly near future. We shall then further consider precisely what arrangements should be made concerning where the guest beer should come from.
On the first point about divestment, I hope that it is clear to the hon. Gentleman and to the House that our proposal—that the national brewers should have to put at arm's length 50 per cent. of the on-licences that they own over 2,000—means that if they were to sell a number of pubs they would have to put yet another number at arm's length in order to fulfil the requirements.
Mr. Bowen Wells: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on what I regard as a pragmatic and sensible programme for progress in the beer industry. Does he think that his proposals will protect the industry from foreign acquisition, particularly by the European Community?
Mr. Newton: The effect of the proposals, which increase the competitiveness and the service that the industry offers to the consumer, will be generally beneficial to the industry. I do not think that I can speculate beyond that.
Mr. Sydney Bidwell: In these days, which mark the decline in the fortunes of the Tory party, would it not be appropriate, in the name of democracy, for the brewers to conduct a ballot within the pubs as to whether they wish to continue to subsidise the Tory party?
Mr. Newton: I am quite content to leave it to the brewers to decide what surveys to conduct. The Government have paid more attention to surveys conducted by others, including the Consumers Association, that have shown strong support for the proposals that I have put before the House this afternoon.
Mr. Roger Moate: Does my right hon. Friend accept that most of us on this side of the House are concerned primarily about protecting the legitimate interests of the large and small brewers and the jobs in many local breweries, representing national and regional breweries, and about protecting the very delicate structure of public houses to which the British people are so greatly attached? Does he accept that the primary public interest appears to be to keep the maximum number of public houses?
As for the proposal regarding the size of the tied estate, does my right hon. Friend accept that there is still some danger that the freeing of over 50 per cent. in some areas

691
could jeopardise the variety of beer that is available from certain local breweries and the existence of many pubs that are only just viable? If my right hon. Friend sees evidence of closures as a result of the proposals, what steps can he now take to ensure that those pubs, particularly village pubs, are kept viable?
Mr. Newton: It is very unlikely that the proposals I have put forward this afternoon will have the effect that my hon. Friend suggests, especially when taking account of the guest beer proposals which are calculated and reckoned by the regional and small local brewers to have the effect of enlarging the opportunities for distinctive local and regional beers.
Mr. Peter Shore: As there is no evidence of a monopoly or of collusive price fixing by the six large brewers, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the MMC report was extraordinarily ideological? What are the Minister's expectations for a reduction of prices of beer—which, after all, is the major consumer test of what is the right policy—which would have followed the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's recommendations, had they been carried out, or the modified proposals which the right hon. Gentleman is putting forward?
Mr. Newton: On the second half of the right hon. Gentleman's question, I would expect the increase in competition to have its normal effect, which is to keep the downward pressure on prices greater than it otherwise would be.
On the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, I must confess that I am in some difficulty in deciding who is speaking for the Opposition in this matter. The view expressed by the right hon. Gentleman is not only at variance with the report's findings but clearly is at variance with the views of those on his own Front Bench.
Sir Peter Hordern: As the new tenancies for the holding companies with more than 2,000 houses are to be run under the Landlord and Tenant Act, which applies to commercial tenants, what will happen to those tenants when the owners rightly decide that they must operate a commercial rent? Is that not likely to lead to the closure of the most marginal pubs, notably those in the most rural areas?
Mr. Newton: I very much doubt it. The Brewers Society's evidence to the MMC suggested that rentals of tied properties were about 20 to 30 per cent. below the full market rental. However, those tenants pay much more than they otherwise would for their beer. Our reckoning is that the two factors will roughly balance out.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: To some extent, I share the view of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore).
The Chancellor of the Duchy said that
"tenants of the national brewers should be free to buy these and certain other products from any source, free of ties."
What sources and what products was he referring to, and who controls the key question of distribution?
The Minister continued:
"As these premises will now become free houses the owning brewer will be permitted to make the new form of tied loans should the new tenants require them."
692
The issue of tied loans is crucial to many individuals. Precisely what form of tied loans does the Minister have in mind?
Finally, the Minister said:
"We have … decided that it would not be right to go further than affording licensed tenants the same protection as all other business tenancies."
Why has he taken that decision?
Mr. Newton: I answered the hon. Gentleman's third question in response to an earlier question when I said that it was in no one's interest to make pub tenancies so unattractive that the brewers would turn away from them altogether.
On the issue of detriment and whether there is what the commission called a complex monopoly, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the substantial list of detriments which are set out in the MMC report. I have it in front of me, but I shall not attempt to read it to the House. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that there is not a complex monopoly, we must simply agree to differ.
On the hon. Gentleman's question about the tied loans, it should be made absolutely clear that we do not think it right to prevent arm's-length pubs from enjoying the advantages of a loan tie which have been pressed on us in a number of other cases, including clubs, and which the House welcomed when I made the announcement. We do not think it right to deny arm's-length pubs that right, but they will have the same protection—the capacity to withdraw at three months' notice if they wish—and of course they will be free to take a loan tie from anybody, not necessarily the brewery which owns the pub.
Sir Giles Shaw: I thank my right hon. Friend and his colleagues for the care with which they have tried to deal with the central issue of the report. As to the disposal of 2,000 pubs, what is my right hon. Friend's estimate of the reduction in the market that will therefore pass from the six major brewers to those who will compete from outside the hallowed circles?
Mr. Newton: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's initial remarks. I cannot make a realistic estimate of the precise changes in the amount of barrelage supplied by one brewer or another. In the short term, despite the arm's-length proposal, it is unlikely that pubs will suddenly decide to change completely from the beer to which their customers are accustomed to another beer. Over a period it is likely substantially to widen the choice available in all pubs.
Mr. Joseph Ashton: Does the Minister intend to disband the Monopolies and Mergers Commission? What is the point of a long, independent inquiry on behalf of the consumer if political paymasters can simply lean on the Government and knock it to one side? Is not the Conservative party supposed to be the party of the free market? How can the market be free if the manufacturer is the wholesaler, retailer and landlord? The Monopolies and Mergers Commission is now considering the set-up for petrol stations. Will not the oil companies be laughing all the way to the bank to buy off the Tories at the next election?
Mr. Newton: We do not intend to abolish the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. We shall consider any future recommendations with the same care that we

693
have devoted to these and, if necessary, take the same substantial steps to address the problems revealed in a report.
Mr. Tim Smith: Is not the key issue for the beer drinker not who owns the pubs but whose beer he can drink? Will not an extra 11,000 free houses substantially increase consumer choice? Is this not, therefore, a sensible and balanced package that will increase competition but at the same time avoid the worst excesses of an Australian-style scenario for the brewing industry?
Mr. Newton: I very much agree with my hon. Friend, and I am grateful to him.
Mr. Tom Cox: Is the Minister aware that the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) about protection for licensees of public houses is of crucial importance, because often it is they who are successful or unsuccessful in running a pub? The Minister has repeatedly referred to consultation. Will he tell the House what that means? Is he aware that in the London borough of Wandsworth there is a small family brewery called Youngs which has a high reputation in the area not only for the quality of its products but for its care of the people who run its pubs and its employees? Is he aware that its chairman sent his observations to the noble Lord Young, yet not only did he not receive a reply but he was not even given the courtesy of an acknowledgement? What sort of consultation is that?
Mr. Newton: I shall look into the latter point. I have said that we shall listen to further thoughts about how far the guest beer provisions should be restricted to beers from smaller or regional brewers. It sounds as though Youngs may make representations on that, which of course we shall welcome.
Mr. Ian Taylor: Will my right hon. Friend accept congratulations on shaking up the pubs without breaking the glasses? Will he give further information about whether the major brewers—who appeared, when the original announcement was made, to prefer to hang on to their pubs rather than their breweries—will be content to continue as brewers and pub owners? Does he accept that, in effect, there are 23,000 more pubs in which there is at least partly free choice for the drinker?
Mr. Newton: I cannot predict precisely the reaction of national brewers. I suspect that they will not show the same enthusiasm as the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) implied for the proposals that we have brought forward. I agree with my hon. Friend that there will be a substantial increase in competition and choice for the consumer.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Why has the Minister sought to dither on the question of guest beer? Why has he not taken a clear decision to establish the principle of the small brewers having access to the supply of guest beer? If he had done that, there would have been an immediate effect on small brewing companies, which would have been building up to provide the capacity to ensure that that part of his proposals was complied with. By delaying, a vacuum in the market may well appear.
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman is being a little unfair about the position as I described it. There is no doubt that
694
the small local brewers will have access, to use his word, to the guest beer proposal. The issue is whether it should be confined in some way so that only such beers can be guest beers, and that raises more difficult issues.
Dr. Ian Twinn: Does my right hon. Friend agree that his announcement brings good news to the British public, the consumer and the landlord and is particularly good news because it brings competition in the supply of soft drinks and real ale to many pubs?
Mr. Newton: I agree. Insufficient comment has been focused on the issue of soft drinks and alcoholic drinks other than beer, including cider. The effect of the proposals on those drinks will be substantial. The proposals are directed towards one of the main consumer grievances—the high price of drinks, especially soft drinks, in many public houses.
Mr. Tony Banks: What action does the Minister intend taking against those brewers who have already given their tenants notice to quit? Those tenants will not be assisted by his proposals. Will he consider giving tenants the right to buy the pubs in which they not only work but live? In view of the Minister's retreat in the face of the brewers' hostility, this seems to be the equivalent of brewer's droop on his part.
Mr. Newton: I do not think that I can comment on the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question. I simply ask him to reflect on the extent of the opposition from the TUC and ask him whether he is accusing me of backing down to the TUC. We have sought to produce a set of proposals that meet the anxieties about the original proposals in a way that my hon. Friends have rightly welcomed.
As for the Landlord and Tenant Act, we have sought to strike an appropriate balance. I said in my statement that, should we feel it necessary in the light of the pressures exerted on tenants, my right hon. and noble Friend will be prepared to make an interim order under the Fair Trading Act 1973 to prevent them from being dispossessed, for example, for exercising the new rights that we propose to give them.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I must have regard for the subsequent business, I shall endeavour to call the hon. Members who have been standing, but I ask for brief questions. We should move on to the next business at about 4.15 pm
Sir Charles Morrison: I note the helpful reassurance that my right hon. Friend gave my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern) about the rural pub. Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of us retain some fears for the future of the rural pub? Will he please therefore take account of the representations that may be made to him? Will he bear in mind that too often in the past many policies have been perfectly sensible for urban areas but nothing like so good for rural areas?
Mr. Newton: I note what my hon. Friend says. None of us can predict with accuracy the result of the proposals in terms of the balance between urban and rural pubs that may be managed at arm's length. My general view is that the greater freedom that some rural pubs may gain from

695
the proposals will enable them to exploit the already considerable natural advantages that exist and, perhaps, strengthen them.
Mr. Michael Morris: As lager is the faster growing part of the beer market and as probably the finest lager in the world is brewed in Northampton, am I to understand from my right hon. Friend that the guest beer is to be opened up to lagers, or are we to have no competition in lager?
Mr. Newton: The phrase I used in the statement was "cask-conditioned" beer. I understand that no cask-conditioned lager is manufactured in this country.
Mr. David Amess: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the package of measures announced this afternoon represents a sensible compromise between the views of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and the brewing industry? Does he also agree that, above all, the measures emphasise the importance the Government place on promoting competition, which is the best consumer protection policy of all?
Mr. Newton: I very much agree with my hon. Friend.
Mr. Barry Field: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the brewers who have given notice to quit to their tenants represent a tiny minority of the brewing industry and that a number of the larger brewers, such as Whitbread, have issued a reassurance to tenants that there will be no notice to quit and that they welcome the measures announced today?
Mr. Speaker: Order. Come to the question, please.
Mr. Field: Is my right hon. Friend also aware that, like Whitbread, many of the larger brewers have never required tenants to take soft drinks from a single source?
Mr. Newton: Of course, the arrangements made in respect of different tenants and by different brewers vary. I note what my hon. Friend has said, and I very much hope that the responsible approach he reports from one brewer will be followed universally.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Will my right hon. Friend, in his discussions with the brewing industry, draw to its attention the continuing concern about the use of restrictive covenants to stop competition, following the case in my own constituency in which a restaurant, which was a pub 37 years ago, has been told that if it wishes the covenant to be lifted it will cost £10,000 and that it will have to continue to use that brewery's beer?
Mr. Newton: I would not wish to comment on a specific case without the opportunity to look into it more fully. However, the general effect of our proposals will be to enhance competition and to reduce the scope for restrictive covenants of all kinds.
Mr. Graham Riddick: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the survey which Market Access International carried out among 100 Members of Parliament which showed that only 23 per cent. of Labour Members wished the MMC proposals to be fully implemented? Will my right hon. Friend, therefore, wholly
696
ignore the rantings of the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), who is clearly seeking to score political points on the issue?
Mr. Speaker: Order. Come to the question, please.
Mr. Riddick: Can my right hon. Friend allay one fear? In countries where the tie does not exist, or in Scotland where there are far fewer tied outlets, there is a far higher brewery concentration and prices are higher as well. Which of his proposals will ensure that that does not happen in this country?
Mr. Newton: The effects of the proposals, taken as a whole and including the removal of the tie in respect of national brewers on non-alcoholic, low-alcohol and soft drinks, combined with the proposals on loan ties and on guest beer, will move us significantly in the direction that my hon. Friend wants.
Mr. Jeremy Hanley: I thank my right hon. Friend for carrying out and responding to a genuine consultation exercise. However, I ask him for some clarification. Will brewers be free to choose which pubs suffer divestment? Will there be a maximum number of pubs that brewers can hold in various towns? Over what time must divestment take place? There could, otherwise, be an unfairly falsely low market.
Mr. Newton: I will make, briefly, four points in response to my hon. Friend. This is not divestment in the sense in which I thought he was using the word, but a requirement that a given proportion over 2,000 should be operated at arm's length. It will, of course, be for the brewers to decide which of their on-licences they wish to put into that category. The period involved to carry through the changes will be two years. They are large, structural changes to the market. There will then be a review at the end of the third year, after a year's experience of the full effect of the changes.
Mr. Kenneth Hind: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the public, realising that 23,000 pubs will now be free to sell guest beers and that more than 11,000 of those will be free to sell beers of all types, will not regard that as a climb-down. However, does my right hon. Friend have any proposals to ensure that the big breweries do not try to breach the guest beers rule by swapping lagers or by doing deals between themselves to introduce guest beers? In that sense, local and regional brewers would regard it as a betrayal of the traditions and ideas at stake.
Mr. Newton: I have already said that we are talking about cask-conditioned beers and that no cask-conditioned lagers are manufactured in this country. The other point that my hon. Friend raised is precisely the issue to which we shall give further consideration during the consultation period on the orders. We shall then decide whether some restrictions should be introduced to ensure that guest beer has to come from a small or regional brewer.
Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this package will be welcomed by consumers, who will especially welcome a greater supply and variety of low-alcohol beers in pubs, and the fact that the prices will come down from their outrageous levels at the moment?
Mr. Newton: Yes, I think that it will have that effect. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his words.
Mr. Gould: Earlier, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster referred to a letter from me and seemed to imply that I had recommended that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report should not be fully applied. As I am sure that he would not wish to mislead the House, will he confirm that my purpose in writing to the Secretary of State was to urge him to apply the report in full and to take further steps to ensure that the major brewers were not able to evade its recommendations? In the event, the brewers did not have to bother as, presumably, they knew all along that Tory party Central Office was already a tied house.
Mr. Newton: I shall seek to respond in the spirit in which the hon. Gentleman made his point. I am grateful for the courteous way in which he did so. He knows that I would not have sought deliberately to distort his views —[Interruption.] I do not think that I did so, but if I did in any way, of course I apologise.
The point that I was making was simply that, when the hon. Gentleman wrote to my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State shortly after the publication of the report at the end of March, he saw clear dangers—that is the word that the hon. Gentleman used—in the MMC proposals on tied houses and he asked us to guard against two threats. He now takes the view that the action that we have taken, which as we see it guards successfully against those threats, is not the right action. However, he must agree that, while wanting to go at least as far as the MMC, he was not himself endorsing the exact detail of its recommendations.

Points of Order
4.17 pm
Mr. Charles Kennedy: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I rise briefly to ask, through you, Mr. Speaker, whether later this week the Leader of the House might be able to use his good offices to arrange for a Foreign Office statement on the position of the hostages in Beirut. This arises following contact that some colleagues had earlier today with the friends of John McCarthy, and with Jill Morrell in particular, following the sad news of Mrs. McCarthy's death at the weekend.
It would be a great reassurance to all those involved in seeking to achieve John McCarthy's release, and that of other citizens who are in a similarly hellish position, if the House were to extend its sympathy to the McCarthy family today and if the Leader of the House could grant my request later in the week.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that the whole House will have heard the sad news to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. I shall, of course, refer the matter to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and ask him to consider it.
Mr. Barry Jones: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your help regarding the need for a statement on the National Health Service in Wales, because there is immense resistance to the Government's proposals in the Health Service White Paper. For several weeks my hon. Friends have pressed the Leader of the House in business questions for a Health Service debate in the Welsh Grand Committee.
It will help you, Mr. Speaker, to know that on I March the Secretary of State for Wales promised a debate on the White Paper. That promise is recorded in Hansard. However, we have had no such debate. The Secretary of State for Wales has refused to make a statement on the matter. Moreover, although working papers on the White Paper for England have been supplied, the Secretary of State for Wales has not given the people of Wales any working papers, although he promised such working papers on 1 March.
We demand a debate before the House rises. We demand the papers relating to the National Health Service in Wales. We demand that the Secretary of State for Wales comes to the Grand Committee or to the House because these matters are of crucial importance to the people of Wales. They are important to our valleys, to the rural areas, to the medical profession and to all our people. We believe that the Secretary of State for Wales is running away from an important matter.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you confirm that there is an Opposition day next Monday and that if Opposition Members feel so strongly about the matter, they could arrange a debate for that day?
Mr. Ted Rowlands: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to draw to your attention one aspect of the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones). In reply to an intervention made by me in the St.

699
David's day debate on 1 March, the Secretary of State for Wales said that the Welsh Office would be preparing papers that week or soon after. It is now July and we have not a single paper on the Health Service in Wales before us, months after that commitment was given. Surely that should justify our demand for a statement and debate if nothing else does.
Mr. Wakeham: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I shall certainly look into the question of papers, although the question of a debate is more directly my responsibility. The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) is right to say that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales said:
"I hope that we shall debate the White Paper in the Welsh Grand Committee".—[Official Report, 1 March 1989; Vol. 148, c. 302.]
The Secretary of State and the members of the Welsh Grand Committee knew that its next meeting would be on 6 April, when the subject for debate was to be chosen by the Opposition. The Opposition chose to debate a matter other than the Health Service, which was a disappointment to everybody concerned. The next debate in the Welsh Grand Committee was just a short time ago, on 28 June, when the subject was chosen by the Government's supporters, who chose the valleys programme because that day was its first anniversary and, therefore, an appropriate occasion. Clearly, both sides of the House would welcome a Grand Committee debate on the Health Service; it is a question of when is the most appropriate time to organise it, and that is a matter for discussion through the usual channels. The Committee meets about every two months; it met recently, on 28 June; we shall do our best but we cannot make any promises.
Mr. Allan Rogers rose—
Mr. Ray Powell rose—
Mr Speaker: I shall call the hon. Member who is the Welsh Whip, then we must move on.
Mr. Powell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not have a copy of Hansard before me, but I recall that in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) on 22 June, the Leader of the House said that we would have a debate on the Health Service before the summer recess. That was the promise. I repeat what I said last Thursday at business questions. I do not want to take the time of the House, but having promised that, the Leader of the House told me that I had no confidence in the usual channels. My confidence will wane still further if we cannot have a debate on the Health Service in Wales in the Welsh Grand Committee.
Mr. Wakeham: I have the words in front of me, and I said nothing of the sort.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell), who is the Whip on the Grand Committee, said that this matter was raised at business questions last Thursday. This is not business questions, and I remind hon. Members that a large number of hon. Members wish
700
to participate in a subsequent debate. It is unfair for Front-Bench spokesmen to seek to take Back-Bench Members' time.
Mr. Rogers rose—
Mr. Speaker: I will hear the hon. Gentleman, but I shall bear it in mind when he speaks in future.
Mr. Rogers: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can I say as an hon. Member elected by my constituents that I take very badly the threat that you have just issued— —
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Rogers: As to when— —
Mr. Speaker: Order. Please sit down. It was not a threat. I must have regard for the hon. Members who wish to speak in the subsequent debate. I was merely saying to the hon. Gentleman—and it is absolutely true—that a large number of hon. Members wish to participate and may be disappointed.
Mr. Rogers: I may be Welsh, Mr. Speaker, but I can certainly understand English.
In his response to my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) the Leader of the House deliberately misled the House by suggesting that the Opposition—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that he cannot use the phrase "deliberately misled."
Mr. Rogers: All right, the Leader of the House inadvertently misled the House, and perhaps he will take this opportunity to retract what he said in his reply. The Leader of the House suggested that the Opposition had the opportunity on two occasions to bring a debate on the National Health Service to the Welsh Grand Committee. However, the right hon. Gentleman obviously has not been informed by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales of the fact that the working papers prepared by the Secretary of State for Wales were not ready for debate on those occasions.
Mr. Alun Michael: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not going to hear any more, in fairness to other hon. Members.
Mr. Frank Dobson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I will have to call the shadow Leader of the House. However, I must again make the point that today is a rare opportunity for Back Benchers to participate in a debate on Select Committee reports. The hon. Gentleman's point of order will unquestionably be to their detriment.
Mr. Dobson: I want to raise an entirely separate point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you received any representations from the Secretary of State for Defence asking to come to the House to make a statement about the extraordinary circumstances surrounding the untruths about Birkbeck college which were published in The Mail on Sunday and The Sunday Times on 2 July? The Ministry of Defence denied the truth of those accounts on the following Tuesday. It now appears that those stories got

701
into those two newspapers because they were being peddled by public officials—press officers of the Ministry of Defence. In those circumstances, we believe that it is right and proper that the Secretary of State for Defence should come to the House and explain which of the 217 MOD press officers were involved, how they came to be peddling those lies and what disciplinary action he intends to take.
Mr. Speaker: I have received no representations about a statement on that matter.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House, I will put together the four motions relating to statutory instruments.
Ordered,
That the Customs Duties (ECSC) (Amendment No. 4) Order 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 1088) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft Inter-American Development Bank (Seventh General Increase) Order 1989 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft Appropriation (No. 3) (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 1989 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Darrell.]

ESTIMATES DAY
ESTIMATES 1989–90
  Class VI, Vote 3

    Department of Energy
    [Relevant document: Fourth Report from the Energy Committee of Session 1988–89 on the Department of Energy's spending plans: 1989–90 (House of Commons Paper No. 435)]
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    That a further sum, not exceeding £24,044,000, 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 Energy on salaries and other administrative costs.—[Mr. Michael Spicer.]
    4.26 pm
    Sir Ian Lloyd: I am sure that Back Benchers on both sides of the House will have noted with great pleasure the energetic and forceful way in which you, Mr. Speaker, sought to protect our time. We value these opportunities to debate matters that come before our Select Committees and we believe that it is in the interests of the House and the country that we should have opportunities to comment.
    I hope that my Committee, the Select Committee on Energy, has discharged its annual obligation to consider the Estimates of the Department of Energy and in particular to consider chapter 6 of the public expenditure White Paper and class VI of the Supply Estimates.
    Last year when we undertook a similar task, we requested that the Department of Energy should improve its performance indicators and achieve a greater consistency of presentation. I am glad to say that it is the general view of the Select Committee that the performance indicators have been greatly improved and broadened and we look forward to that process being continued. We cannot yet make a judgment about the consistency of presentation because that is an ongoing objective which the Department will consider from time to time and from year to year, and obviously the Select Committee will consider that in due course.
    The first subject on which I want to concentrate—the coal mining industry—has probably occupied most of the time of the Select Committee. In many senses, coal mining is a primary industry to this country and it imposes a primary financial burden on the state. There is no dispute about the fact that the industry's subsidies have been vast and are apparently unending, whatever its scale of operation. The industry's scale of operation has undoubtedly been reduced quite dramatically over the past decade.
    We are concerned about the uncertainty of the industry's finance forecasts. However much year by year is budgeted by the Department and the Government in March, more appears to be required by October and this year is no exception. According to the exact figures in the public expenditure White Paper, the requirement from the state in January was estimated at £560 million; in February the Secretary of State told us that that figure would rise to £720 million and in July we were told that

    703
    there would be a summer Supplementary Estimate of £250 million which the Committee was told in evidence was "a temporary blip". All I can say is that it is some blip and, unfortunately, the evidence does not seem to support the use of the adjective "temporary", but we all hope that it is. We hope that, because of Sir Robert Haslam's undoubted achievements and leadership, these forecasts will be fulfilled. Nevertheless, some of us remain sceptical, and I think that that scepticism probably spreads throughout the Committee.
    Break-even always seems to be about 18 months ahead. I suspect that what we are really looking at is a national reluctance to face facts whenever we examine the coal mining industry. There seems to be a genuine inability to conclude that the horizon is always receding and that we will never quite get there. I wonder whether we are being ground between the upper and the nether millstones. The upper millstone—I think that all members of Committee are agreed on this—is the fact that there is no secure substitute for plus or minus 100 million tonnes of indigenously mined coal. Whether it is deep mined or opencast is another matter, but there is no clear and secure substitute for it. I emphasise the word "secure". A great deal of argument can take place about what that means in different contexts.
    The nether millstone is the fact that there seems to be no way in which our coal can be mined at world market prices, and no possible way of predicting exactly what those prices would be if we imported 50 or 60 per cent. of our national coal requirement.
    The volume of international trade in coal and the competition is such that, in my judgment, the scope for market exploitation is small, although I fully understand and accept that there are many views on this question and that they cover a wide spectrum and are legitimately held.
    Since there are no easy solutions, the Committee, considering the contemporary scene—it has tried to do so as specifically as it can—deplores the negotiating uncertainties which appeared to start between the South of Scotland electricity board and British Coal in Scotland, and which still seem to be hovering over the industry in a rather unfortunate way.
    I think it is the view of the Committee that national policy—this is still a matter of national policy because neither coal nor electricity has effectively been privatised yet—should not be settled in the courts. Both are still in the public sector so there is a considerable obligation on the state to take the leaders of these two great and important industries by the hand and say to them, "For heaven's sake, get on with it and achieve a settlement." Even if both industries were in the private sector, there would still be such an obligation because it is in the national interest not to keep matters suspended indefinitely so that the managements of both major industries do not know where they are.
    The additional £250 million Supplementary Estimate which the Secretary of State has asked for is discussed in some detail in paragraph 5 of our report. We noted there, with some dismay, that we were given four reasons for the extra money: mild weather, higher interest rates, accelerated closure costs and the repayment of existing loans. The Committee was somewhat dissatisfied with this explanation, first, because we thought that all those factors
    704
    could probably have been guesstimated at least somewhat more accurately further ahead and, secondly, because we felt that £250 million is too large a figure to be swept under the carpet in a one-line explanation.
    On the broader question whether these matters would occur in some different institution or organisation, I should say that privatisation would not necessarily guarantee that the problems would be solved; nor would it alter the need for a national view to be taken, first, on whether coal should be mined; secondly, on how much coal should be mined; thirdly, at what cost coal should be mined—and certainly at what cost to the nation; and, fourthly, for what purpose coal should be mined.
    That brings me to the other question that will not be eliminated by changing the structure or ownership of the industry. That question can be divided into separate parts. Again, the change that is foreseen will not necessarily solve the problem and eliminate these questions. One question is whether and to what extent the social obligation that will remain if we decide to keep a major coal mining industry in the United Kingdom should be borne directly by subsidy, indirectly through the price mechanism, or by a combination of the two. That is another way of describing the inevitable distribution of any burden resulting from a coal mining policy between the private consumer, the industrial consumer and the taxpayer.
    Those questions will not easily be answered. If the record of the past 20 to 30 years is any guide—I do not share the most optimistic forecasts—those questions will be with us for the next 10 years. Whatever the answer may be, equivocation and uncertainty would be the worst possible outcome. Wherever possible, equivocation and uncertainty should be removed.
    Perhaps optimistically and hopefully, in our report we used the phrase
    "a strong and competitive indigenous industry."
    If the coal mining industry is a high-productivity industry, and it is becoming so at considerable and welcome speed, it will be competitive. Although recent productivity improvements have been dramatic, no solution is yet in sight.
    The industry has received about £20 billion in subsidy, without achieving its target. It has borrowed and remains in debt to the extent of £4·3 billion. To illustrate the scale of that problem—generally speaking, such large numbers are lost to the public and to most hon. Members—that debt of £4·3 billion represents £86 per head of the population, and the total subsidy so far represents £430 per head of the population. Therefore, the Committee strongly supports new, specific and quantified objectives. They must be new if we are to solve the problem. They must be specific if we are to make sensible judgments about them. Obviously, if we are to be able to make policy measurements, they must be quantified.
    The Committee was delighted that, almost uniquely among the major Departments of state, the Department of Energy described its research policy and performance in about 12 pages of "The Government's Expenditure Plans for 1989–90." That excellent example should be widely noted. None the less, some definitions are not sufficiently rigorous. For example, the figures under research and development include non-research and development elements. That can be clearly discerned from time to time. Also, energy efficiency monitoring and targeting are included under research and development, when they could not accurately be so described. Similarly, some

    705
    non-research and development nuclear programmes have been brought together under nuclear research and development. Again, that gives a slightly inaccurate and misleading figure when we should be able to know very precisely how much is being spent, where it is being spent and what the objectives are. The general analysis is greatly improved, and we look forward to seeing a continuation of it.
    Energy efficiency is of increasing prominence. My Committee was in slight difficulty with that matter. Having taken evidence on the greenhouse effect over the past six or eight months, we are about to report to the House—a week from today—in great detail about energy efficiency in the context of the greenhouse effect. However, we felt that, in the light of the policy set down in the estimates, we could draw attention to what the Department is doing at the moment in some matters and what its priorities are.
    Recently, the Committee visited the research installation at Grimethorpe and we were impressed by what we saw there. We were somewhat disturbed by the equivocation surrounding certain projects and the uncertainty, which was obviously having a depressing effect on the morale of those involved. If energy efficiency is as important as we shall suggest that it is in a few days' time, there is no doubt that the Grimethorpe project is one of the technologies that should be explored either to success or destruction, whichever the research proves. It should not be left in suspension, hanging and uncertain.
    A great deal of work has been done in this country, in the United States and elsewhere, into energy renewables, and various suggestions have been made about what contribution these might ultimately make to energy supply in the United Kingdom. Although I have seen figures as high as 20 per cent., these generally seem to follow rather over-optimistic assessments both of the costs and of the technologies. More generally, fairly small figures, of perhaps between 5 and 6 per cent., are realistic targets. One then has to conclude that if renewables are to make a significant contribution to energy consumption—as everyone hopes, and as they must—a great deal more work is required on them.
    The next issue to which I should like to draw the attention of the House is the more complex and controversial one of fast breeder reactors. The Committee is suspending its judgment because we have decided that we should undertake a full-scale inquiry into this important subject, and that will be starting towards the end of the year. In the meantime, it is our view that the research and development work on the post-thermal reactor technology should continue and should not be seriously reduced in any way.
    In that context I—like, I imagine, other members of the Committee—was somewhat surprised and disturbed to see late last week an advertisement published in all the national newspapers by a large number of scientists, including 15 distinguished fellows of the Royal Society. They said, effectively, that nuclear power provides no realistic, safe, or possible solution to our energy problems. I find that extremely disturbing, although I have the greatest respect, as the House knows, for scientific opinion and judgment. If those 15 members of the Royal Society who signed that statement had listened to all the evidence presented to my Committee and waited one week for the report of the Committee, which is to be published next Monday, I wonder whether they would still adhere to the view that we need not, cannot and should not develop
    706
    nuclear power. My judgment is that many of them, being distinguished scientists, and essentially the most rational of human beings, would reverse that judgment.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: I am encouraged to hear that the Committee will specifically conduct an inquiry into the future of the fast breeder reactor and associated issues. What time scale does the hon. Gentleman envisage for its report, and when will it be published? He will appreciate the great concern in the northern part of Scotland about the dislocation that the effective rundown of Dounreay is causing, and the controversy that that is generating on all sides.
    Sir Ian Lloyd: I should imagine that the Committee would start the procedure for inviting memoranda fairly soon—probably the beginning of September. The notice of this inquiry has been published. Those parties who are likely to be principal witnesses will doubtless already be preparing their evidence to the Committee. However, I think it unlikely that the Committee will be taking verbal evidence before the House resumes in October or November and, if experience is any guide, it is unlikely that the Committee will be reporting on this inquiry, which is both important and complex, within the first four or five months of next year. We shall obviously proceed with great expedition, in view of the general importance of the subject.
    Another important matter is energy efficiency in the public sector. We knew that it was large, but it always comes as a surprise when one realises that the public sector—that is public buildings owned by the Government or public authorities—spent £1·8 billion on energy in the most recent year for which figures are available. We give that information in paragraph 20. That is a large sum, and we are somewhat disturbed that progress in improving efficiency of energy conservation in the public sector is less rapid than it might otherwise have been.
    Since the report was published, I had the occasion to visit a major hospital, which I shall not name, although there is no reason why I should not, in the Portsmouth area. I discovered two interesting points. The hospital management told me that the hospital was designed for an average winter temperature of not less than 34 deg. and if the temperature falls below that the management has considerable doubt about whether it can maintain the right temperature in the wards so that it can avoid the conditions leading to hypothermia. I found that a rather dramatic conclusion because I realised that if this is the way in which we have been building hospitals, at least within the past 20 to 30 years, it shows a surprising lack of attention to energy efficiency.
    I was told that the difference in the energy bill for one major hospital between one year and another could be as much as £1 million. If that is so, it reinforces the Committee's conclusion that this is something to which the Government must pay the closest attention.
    I have now a general question that has assumed an increasing prominence in the debate in the press within the past few months, and that is the need for a Department of Energy. We discuss this in paragraphs 26 and 27. It is a broad and controversial subject and, again, there is room for many points of view. I speak only for myself on this occasion, but I hope that I can speak somewhat more objectively than I might otherwise have been able to do because, in almost all probability, I shall not be opening

    707
    the debate on the Energy Department's estimates next year, although I hope to be around. Therefore, I speak with objectivity when I say that I reinforce everything that the Committee has concluded. This is not the right time to disband, dismantle or move around the Department of Energy.
    Energy, as a major subject with enormous political implications, is rising into increasing prominence, almost with every month that passes. That does not suggest that now is the time to disperse a major and important Department among other Departments of state, however competent. Whatever the other arguments may be for such a dispersion and reorganisation of Government, the Department of Energy is an essential means for focusing attention on national energy policies. It will be far better if that is done centrally under a Secretary of State for Energy rather than peripherally by any other Secretary of State who has energy matters as a subsection of his Department.
    I have no axe to grind. The words in paragraph 27 are largely mine and I am glad to say that the Committee endorsed them. I believe that the work of the Department and the Select Committee must continue, because together they will get it right.
    4.49 pm
    Mr. Ted Leadbitter: It is convenient for me to respond to the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Havant (Sir I. Lloyd), by beginning my contribution on the expenditure report and on the work of the Select Committee by emphasising the importance of the Department of Energy.
    I have spent many years in this House; this is my 25th. I spent many years with the old Science and Technology Select Committee, which became the Select Committee on Energy. Over the years during our hearings upstairs we have been privileged to see the growing competence of the people who serve in and represent the Department of Energy. We have many controversial cross-examining procedural requirements, merely to satisfy the thirst of Parliament. It is not a titillating exercise; it suits my personality to be aggravating, aggressive and questioning. That is what Parliament is about. In those years we have seen some excellent officers—excellent at stonewalling, at remarkable revelations and, sometimes, at confessions. Nevertheless, the Department is important to Parliament.
    I shall seek to suggest, perhaps in a slightly different way from the Chairman of the Select Committee, how I look upon the significance of the Department of Energy, the importance of the parliamentary role in the work and development of energy policy and resources, and the paramount importance of public interest.
    In any kind of human activity there must be one essentially striking objective—what it is expected to do. I pose that question in relation to the activities of the Department of Energy. The answer is not difficult or original. Our linguistic facilities do not give us the opportunity to be innovative in this regard. As Lord Rothschild would say, it is self-evident. The Department of Energy is expected to meet national energy needs, but the question is how best to use our energy resources. All things spring from that and therefore the desired objectives
    708
    must be a corollary to that main pillar that substantiates the need for some central place in which to discuss such matters.
    As we are talking about energy and the use of it, there must be, above all things, the highest standards of safety. Related to that we must have the infrastructure required to produce the best regulatory conditions, licensing conditions where they apply and planning conditions. It is also necessary to satisfy the consumer, the people who matter, those who pay. I believe that it is difficult to divide consumers from workers because they produce. It is also important to have efficiency of supply. Research and development must play a supportive role and we must have policies to assist such development in the public or private sector.
    In the exploration of the North sea we must have a substantial offshore share of the industrial activity. Therefore, we need a central base, a controlling edge, to encourage the highest levels of competition. One important essential objective is the ability to control and monitor. At all times there should be a national register of what is happening and how it is controlled in the nation's interest.
    There is also a need for co-ordination in normal and emergency conditions. In the widening sphere of privatisation Parliament should be more concerned about co-ordination at times of natural disasters and other emergencies. The promotion of energy conservation must also spring from the centre. It cannot be left to the tides that flow from profits and deficits. It must be a positive policy so that energy conservation is as essential to our energy requirements as the physical resources. Such objectives should also include a concentrated dynamic and continuous flow of resources and the ingenuity of professional minds directed towards exploiting renewables.
    I have followed the Chairman's theme by asserting that there is a need for a central place where such purposes and objectives can be pursued. Three basic elements are required to meet such objectives. First, we want a Department that is efficient and economically effective. Secondly, the role of energy in the economy must be promoted effectively. Thirdly, there must be co-ordination between the Department, industry, commerce and the public utilities to achieve an effective national role and to provide an international lead regarding the policies and resources requirements that will meet the targets of the Toronto agreement and that will reduce the greenhouse effect of present burn technologies.
    The national interest is best served by effective national involvement in the use of our energy resources—oil, gas, coal, nuclear and conservational renewables—whatever the conditions of public or private ownership. Once we have considered those overall objectives and purposes the need for a Department of Energy becomes imperative. My experience, as I have suggested already, shows that there is no doubt about that.
    Any transfer of subject heads from the Department of Energy to other Departments would invite a disparate condition. Such a transfer would mean that energy policy became ineffective, remote, subservient to the mainstream activities of other Departments and out of touch with the reality that means that energy is paramount in our lives. Energy is at the commanding heights of priorities and urgency given its ability to stimulate the economy and to improve the physical and climatic environment.

    709
    Exuberance about having a Department of Energy must he tempered with a degree of prudence. We have the report of the Energy Select Committee before us, and I am pleased that the Select Committee on the Environment has also produced a report about the way in which the Property Services Agency's estimates for the cost of a new Department of Energy headquarters have stumbled from £4·5 million in 1987 to more than £12·5 million.
    We can only assume from that that there have been delays and disruptions. Whatever the excuses, one thing is certain: the original proposal could not have been thoroughly thought out. Perhaps the less we say about that, the better. By using those words, I am not suggesting that something dramatically untoward has happened, merely that the National Audit Office has decided to look into these disparities and, in due course, the House will be able to learn what went wrong, why delays occurred and what the disruptions were. Having made out the case for the Department of Energy with a great deal of enthusiasm, I was wanting only the accommodation it needed, and no more.
    There are many issues involving millions of people which relate to energy. However, even now, we have no energy policy, or only a very vague one. In the new fashion of dispersal and the Government's abrogation of their responsibilities, there is a likelihood that there will be no policy at all. In that case, how will Parliament have an effective role to play? Any energy strategy works broadly within the parameters of nuclear and non-nuclear development and promotion. When the expenditure plans are directed towards investment and restructuring, the people are interested in the impact of both and neither is the monopoly of Government or private enterprise. The extent of nuclear development, its location and share in the power programme is a matter for the people. They are directly involved.
    In the non-nuclear sphere, the coal industry's share in the power programme is of paramount importance to whole communities. The exploration of oil and gas and its impact on the economy concerns the people, and only through Parliament can the people find effective expression of their national interests as workers, consumers and shareholders in the environment. Our report mirrored that fact. We referred to the fast breeder programme and doubted whether the guessing game of commercial opportunity in 40 years' time justified the running down of Dounreay by 1994. The Chairman of the Select Committee has indicated that this issue is of sufficient importance for us to look at it in the timescale which he has described to the House.
    We have expressed concern about the levels of research and development and the difficulty of identifying in the estimates its range and nature. We have also expressed concern about the reduction of financial support to the Energy Efficiency Office. We mentioned the ending of the energy efficiency survey scheme, in which we discovered that for every £1 of public money spent there was £13 worth of savings and millions of pounds—in some cases, a 20 per cent. reduction in bills—of the participating organisations were saved. Why that scheme was brought to an end puzzles many members of the Select Committee. These and other examples affect the public and show the need for Parliament to assert and protect its role of questioning and challenging in a Department which is totally involved in the matters we are discussing.
    710
    There is one outstanding example. I hope that the country and Parliament will join together in finding how best to bring to an end a tendency which brings unnecessary hardship to whole communities—the acceleration of coal mine closures. We should respond with much gratitude to that special kind of man called a miner. He is unique because over the decades he has inculcated in our minds a sense of loyalty, sometimes misplaced, which has brought about a record for which hon. Members should be generously grateful.
    In 1985, we had 169 colleries; this year we have 94. As was suggested earlier, there is only one colliery left in Scotland. This position was brought about by the stupid, silly and irresponsible bickering of two chairmen, one of the electricity board and the other of the coal board, who would not get round a table and act like decent human beings. Instead they used our money for costly litigation, while Shell brought in imported coal, not in bulk carriers, but in small ships through small ports in Scotland. They did that at a loss to themselves, using the loss leader so that when they obtained the contracts they would make more profit, while our miners lost their jobs. As I have said, the number of colleries has been nearly halved.
    Mr. Alexander Eadie: I have listened carefully to the expose and analysis of my hon. Friend. He mentioned the present position in Scotland where we have only one colliery left, Monktonhall, and the difficulties surrounding the litigation which is taking place between the South of Scotland electricity board and British Coal. My hon. Friend said that one aspect of energy policy should be security of supply. The South of Scotland electricity board decided, at the end of last year and the beginning of this, to import 1 million tonnes of Chinese coal. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is hardly a country of political stability and would not necessarily give us security of supply in relation to energy?
    Mr. Leadbitter: My hon. Friend has a profound knowledge of the energy industry and was a Front-Bench spokesman on the subject. There can be no doubt about the factual accuracy of his intervention or the serious conclusion which he has drawn.
    There were 171,000 people in the industry in 1985, and that figure is down to 89,000. The daily output of tonnes of the long wall face was 845,000 in 1985 and, with a dramatically lower labour force, that figure has gone up by 35 to 45 per cent. to 1,458 tonnes. The operating cost to obtain coal has been reduced from £42·48 per tonne to £38·25 per tonne. That is a graphic, elementary, statistical thumbnail sketch of coal mining performance—fewer coal miners and colleries, but a remarkable increase in productivity. By 1987, productivity had increased by 70 per cent. as against the pre-strike level and this year it has increased by 19 per cent. on last year's level.
    Mr. Michael Brown: No one can deny the statistics which the hon. Gentleman has adduced in support of his argument, but does he think that the events immediately before 1985 had anything to do with what has happened in the past four years?
    Mr. Leadbitter: All activities that impinge on an industry have something to do with it. Whether they are of great magnitude is a matter to arrive at by analysis. There was a strike in the coal industry and that was unfortunate. It brought about an incredible state of affairs—the nearest

    711
    thing I have seen to the creation of a police state. Aggravation was heaped upon aggravation, but that is not relevant to this debate.
    The rate of productivity after the strike showed that nothing was in the minds of those who worked in the pits but a desire to make a success of the industry this time. All, including the management, have worked extremely hard to put this unfortunate past behind them.
    However, the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) reminds me that he has been to South Africa. We are all concerned about apartheid—I have never seen such unanimity in the House as there is against it. But there is apartheid in this country. Miners who have never been found guilty of an offence are still refused their jobs back. Such men are deprived of their jobs against the background of their kith and kin increasing productivity by 70 per cent. since the strike and by another 19 per cent. in the past year.
    Mr. Martin Redmond: The strike came about because of the stupidity of the then chairman of the board and of the Conservative Government. If the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) had spent as much time looking into the situation in this country as he had travelling to South Africa he would probably be better acquainted with the facts.
    The miners wanted the dispute to go to the tribunal which was set up between the coal board and the union, but the Government refused to participate in it. I find it rather strange that that same Government are now arguing— —
    Mr. Michael Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is very interesting and important but, as a member of the Select Committee, may I say that I have read its report and I can see no connection between what we are supposed to be debating and the hon. Gentleman's remarks of the past few moments——
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) is pushing at the fringes of the subject. Perhaps he will now have regard to the terms of the debate.
    Mr. Leadbitter: I certainly agree with your advice and ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but it was a bit naughty and cheeky of the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes to say that, because he raised the point in the first place. However, the House is forgiving and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are understanding——
    Mr. Brown: If I was responsible for subsequent events I must accept my share of responsibility and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, might want to reprimand me for my original intervention.
    Mr. Leadbitter: As usual, the hon. Gentleman apologises in the nicest possible way.
    To return to my analysis, given the indisputable figures showing productivity up, and the pursuit of policies seeking to produce a degree of financial viability, and the hopes based on projections made in 1987 that the industry would have broken even this year, it is not without significance that British Coal showed an operational profit of about £500 million—a figure about which I am willing to be corrected if necessary.
    712
    The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes asked what other factors lay behind this improvement and pinpointed the strike as a major cause. Increasing competition from other fuels, unstable but lower oil prices than in the 1970s, inflation and high interest rates and the costs of servicing debt—these elements completely wipe out the operational benefits of the policies and productivity of management and men.
    Also, a new term has crept into energy vocabulary—restructuring. It means accelerating closures and decreasing investment, which will fall from £650 million to about £500 million in 1992. That will help to make the books look good. But it is important for the House to consider the other costs involved. To pay for the restructuring programme, £311 million will be needed to pay off miners and to close pits—a high price to pay. No one yet has mentioned the social costs and the multiplier costs of a declining industry. No one has mentioned the knock-on costs arising from the closure of companies that supply the industry. Nevertheless, this restructuring will make the books look good.
    Finally, imported coal is beginning to impinge on this country. More of it is arriving from some peculiar places and it is more than likely that it is produced by using cheap labour. This country can match the world in mining equipment and technology—we sell it to America, for instance—but we are using less and less of it here. Did we not learn the lessons of 1973, when oil prices hit the roof and everyone proposed not using oil? We did not. Oil prices have fallen to about $18 a barrel, so now everyone suggests using the cheapest fuel that we can get. The national interest should not depend on short-term price oscillations, however. That is a wrong philosophy and a wrong policy.
    Let us look at the cost of regenerating industries in communities that have lost their livelihood. For every 2,000 people working in a pit community there is a tradesman to look after the service needs of the families. The social cost of keeping people idle is high. Does the House understand that it costs nearly £8,000 a year to service a man's idleness? My constituency has a high level of unemployment, although, blessedly, it is now falling. Each unemployed person would welcome a job on even £7,000 a year.
    What a daft country Britain has become. What a silly, miserable, pettifogging idea it is to squander resources instead of using a lesser amount to promote the ingenuity and adaptability of our work force. Britain is not weak in the way that people abroad have tried to describe it. It is stultified by political blindness. It is more important in Downing street to overcome a peripheral crisis than to get hold of the broader issues in our country and provide a better deal for our people.
    Our Select Committee report impinges upon the economy, upon our social well-being. It seeks to try to understand attitudes that are out of place with the modern dynamism that is required to keep this country great, our people at work and our economy healthy. There are a couple of million people out of work at an approximate cost of £8,000 per person. If we all sit down and do nothing, we will end by having nothing to pay ourselves.
    The time has come for a Select Committee report to show that we must maximise the use of our energy resources. We must magnify the importance of the problem and invest in means that conserve energy and promote its better use. We must also provide the kind of

    713
    investment that will exploit to the full our indigenous energy resources—in this case coal. If we let coal die, a little bit of Britain, nay, a pretty big bit of Britain, will die with it.
    In Britain a disease, a cancer, has stricken the shipbuilding industry, not because it was incapable but because politicians felt that that was the way to go. What has happened to the steel industry? Oh yes, it is making a profit, but once Britain was the largest steelmaker in Europe. Now our steel industry is but a major tiddlywink. One does not have to think twice before saying that, if our shipbuilding and steel industries and the use of coal are built up, Britain will not be the poor neighbour that some people in Europe seek to call it. We need to build up those industries, to invest in them and to put people to work in them. More than that, we must take note of the fine men who worked with fine officers, not only in the Department of Energy but throughout industry, to produce some guidelines about how Britain could make good in a way that will make it the pride of Europe. We will make energy tops if we say yes and keep the Department.
    5.25 pm
    Mr. Peter Rost: I am grateful for the opportunity to follow the thoughtful, important and constructive contribution by the Chairman of our Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Sir I. Lloyd). I am also happy to follow the equally thoughtful, important and constructive but somewhat more controversial contribution of the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter).
    I wish to concentrate on the energy efficiency budget that is exposed in the report. I readily declare an interest, which is well known to the House, as a consultant to a major energy management company. The energy efficiency budget, which was never a large percentage of the total Department budget, has been cut from £20 million last year to £15 million in the current year, and it is planned to reduce it further. I make no special point about that, as I accept that spending more money does not necessarily achieve more results. However, I wish to question, and not for the first time, the Government's priorities in their energy efficiency programme, and those are not necessarily reflected in a reduced budget.
    The Government admit that there is still huge potential for improving energy efficiency, but they appear to believe that consumers are now well aware of that and will make their own decisions. In other words, the Government believe that investment in energy efficiency will go ahead because it is cost effective and because consumers realise that they will benefit by saving money. The Government are saying that market forces will do the trick. Nobody believes more in the market economy than I do, but I also believe that the market needs the right consumer signals. The Government's energy efficiency policy now needs a much higher overall priority in Government strategy. Much can and should be done which does not necessarily require increased expenditure but, rather, policy decisions. Let us look at regulation as one example. All my hon. Friends are reluctant to accept unnecessary regulation, and I share their philosophy. However, we need stronger guidance on building regulations and on energy labelling of appliances, as other countries have found. It is not good enough to try for 10 years to get voluntary agreement and progress in those areas.
    714
    Some years ago we saw the introduction of energy labelling for car efficiency. Nobody objects to that and it has worked as an important yardstick for the consumer. We accept regulation—perhaps reluctantly at first—in every other area of life. We accepted regulations for seat belts and we accept safety regulations wherever we regard them as necessary and in our own best interests.
    It is time that we imposed a little more regulation in order to provide stronger signals to the consumer and to encourage the promotion of energy efficiency. I base that argument on the belief that energy efficiency is much more important than it was some years ago. The main thrust of the debate used to be that we must conserve energy because it is a finite resource, we are short of it, and it will run out. The main argument in support of greater energy efficiency today and tomorrow will surely relate to environmental factors.
    If, within a few years, scientists reach a consensus that global warming is the greatest threat to future existence on this planet, further action will have to be taken. The consensus of opinion to the Committee, to the Government and to the Downing street conference is that in the meantime energy efficiency should be promoted, where it is cost effective, as an insurance policy if the day shortly comes when scientists agree that we have to take further and major international action to reduce the levels of carbon dioxide. Regulation must, therefore, play some part, but it is only a partial contribution.
    What is needed, in addition to a little more regulation, is a priority programme of incentives. Again, however, we are faced with a Conservative philosophy dilemma. We do not believe that the free market needs to be motivated, but it does. If market forces are to operate, they need incentives. The Government have applied that policy in every other area. We believe that it is right to provide incentives to people to buy their own homes. That is why we give huge tax offsets to people with mortgages. We also believe that it is right that people should make provision for their own pensions, so we give them tax incentives. We believe, too, that the market signals are not strong enough to encourage home-produced food, so we give huge subsidies to agriculture. That is not challenged. We give all sorts of strong market signals by using the fiscal system to promote objectives that we regard as desirable. Why else do we spend taxpayers' money on urban renewal, job creation, huge training programmes and regional grants? We provide tax incentives to promote objectives that we regard as economically or socially desirable.
    I believe that energy efficiency should also be regarded as a priority. If the market were achieving the energy efficiency objectives that the Government seek, my argument would be irrelevant, but it is not. My hon. Friend the Member for Havant reminded us that the energy bill for the buildings and other places controlled by Government, such as the National Health Service, is £1·8 billion a year. It is conceded that we could achieve a 20 per cent. saving by means of cost-effective investment in energy efficiency which would have a short pay-back period, yet that is not happening. Despite the Government's initiative, announced last January, to promote that investment, we have still not been given any answers about when the programme will start, what is to be spent on it, what monitoring there will be and what the pay-back period will be.
    Furthermore, energy efficiency is not happening adequately enough and fast enough in the rest of the

    715
    economy. We all know that there is a short pay-back period for much of the investment in industry and in domestic areas, but it is not happening because the market signals are not strong enough. One might argue that the Government did not need to reduce the tax on lead-free petrol to encourage people to buy it because there was already a differential. However, the Government reduced the tax and widened the differential. They intervened directly in the free market to provide a stronger signal. The same argument applies to energy efficiency, but it must now be regarded as a priority.
    There is a major inconsistency in the Government's strategy. We apply one rule to energy efficiency—that the market will sort it out and we do not need to interfere—and we apply a completely different rule to all other areas of Government policy—the tax incentives in all sorts of areas, to which I have already referred.
    There is even greater inconsistency and illogicality about the Government's overall energy strategy. Huge subsidies have been provided to the coal industry. We have allocated a special slot to the nuclear industry; we have protected it by means of extra subsidy. Now, for the first time, we are encouraging renewables by means of the special protection that is provided in the Electricity Bill. Coal has always been protected and the nuclear industry is now being subsidised. We are providing protection because we believe it right to keep those two major sources of-energy alive and flourishing and able to compete, in case we cannot do without them in the future.
    The same must apply to energy efficiency. Even if it is cost effective, it still needs to be given a stronger market signal. The nuclear industry would die tomorrow without Government support and the coal industry would have dwindled long ago without it. Energy efficiency has been struggling along because it has not been accorded the same priority by the Government. We must rethink our strategy and give greater priority to the promotion of energy efficiency. The Minister will appreciate the analogy that it is rather like suggesting that the Treasury should maximise revenue by imposing more and more taxes without ever considering whether expenditure should be cut, thus making more revenue unnecessary. The Government's economic success and our prosperity during the last 10 years have been built on the opposite policy of cutting taxes because we have been able to reduce expenditure. We are providing the supply side of the energy equation with all the incentives, but we are not giving the same priority to the consumption side. If we realised how cost effective energy efficiency is and how well it could be promoted if we gave stronger market signals, my case would be accepted and adopted.
    Even more serious than holding back the energy efficiency investment that we so desperately need and which a little more encouragement would provide is the disincentive to energy efficiency. What has happened to the neighbourhood energy action home insulation programme? It is dying on its feet, yet it was promoted by Ministers as the most cost-effective way in which to improve energy efficiency in low-income homes. There are other examples. Why are third-party financing arrangements for the public sector still so slow to get off the ground? Energy management companies that have offered to finance investment in the National Health Service on a
    716
    shared energy basis have still not been given the go-ahead, even though they could save the taxpayer huge sums of money by reducing energy consumption, while reducing environmental pollution.
    Another example is the Government's deliberate encouragement of the industry to waste energy through their decision to privatise British Gas. The Select Committee on Energy and the major energy users council have received evidence that the 25,000 therm cut-off point and the tariffs now applied by British Gas as a result of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report encourage consumers deliberately to waste gas. If a large commercial consumer uses just below 25,000 therms, it has to pay the domestic tariff, but if it wastes enough gas to use more than 25,000 therms its gas bill goes down although its energy consumption goes up. What is worse, firms that employed energy management consultants to reduce their consumption found that by reducing their consumption to below 25,000 therms they were increasing their energy bills because they had to pay the domestic tariff. That absurdity should be remedied; it is one specific example of how, far from promoting energy efficiency, we are encouraging energy waste.
    I conclude with a note to the Government, and I hope that Opposition Members will shut their ears for a moment. I suggest to my right hon. and hon. Friends that green politics are here to stay and will intensify when scientists internationally persuade us that we have to take action on global warming. Green politics are not a protest vote, they are not relevant only to the United Kingdom, nor are green voters only Guardian readers. They are mostly articulate, well educated, informed, represent an ever-widening section of the public and are mostly Conservative supporters. If we are to remain in government, we have to respond more convincingly to those views or our opponents will take the initiative from us.
    The rhetoric of improving energy efficiency and reducing fossil fuel consumption to reduce the greenhouse effect and global warming has to be accompanied by action. Government priorities and strategies for greater energy efficiency have to be adjusted. We should start next week by accepting the spirit of the Lords amendments to the Electricity Bill on energy efficiency and encouraging the promotion of combined heat and power which is a major way in which we can reduce fossil fuel burn and improve the efficiency of electricity production. We should make a start by accepting the arguments of the Select Committee on Energy over many years and in many reports that energy efficiency is cost effective, but needs a little more encouragement. In the next Session we should follow that up with an energy conservation Bill promoting what is cost effective to address environmental problems.
    The Government should take the initiative positively to promote investment in energy efficiency because it will improve our productivity, reduce our energy bills and, above all, will give consumers stronger market signals to make the investments that the environment and our future survival will soon demand.
    5.43 pm
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak briefly in the debate on the Select Committee on Energy's report. I add my

    717
    voice to those who have paid tribute to the work of the Select Committee and its Chairman, the hon. Member for Havant (Sir I. Lloyd).
    I should like to touch on one or two specific points, the first of which is the future of the Department of Energy to which the hon. Member for Havant referred. I represent Ross, Cromarty and Skye in the Scottish Highlands which is dependent for much of its economic well-being and activity on the health of the oil industry, not least the oil fabrication yards. The work force, and the people whose livelihoods depend on that work force, would view any thought, discussion or serious proposition that the Department of Energy should be wound up as extreme foolishness. It would be foolhardy indeed if we were to go down that track, despite the privatisations in the electricity industry which one can assume will be completed in the next few months. It is absolutely critical, and the report was correct to stress that we should maintain a Department of Energy into the future.
    Turning to the oil fabrication sector, let me give the House one example of the dangers, or potential dangers, that confront the country and the oil industry. After 1992 and the Single European Act, it is extremely difficult to envisage how the Department of Energy will maintain the Offshore Supplies Office in its present form without its being counter to the provisions of the Single European Act. Yet time and again concern is expressed in the oil industry and the fabrication sector about unfair competition from other EC member states that are able to offer more advantageous power contracts or, through their system of local rating or local taxation, more advantageous property overheads for firms bidding for work against United Kingdom-based construction and fabrication companies. Therefore, there is a clear need to ensure as high a United Kingdom content as possible in the fabrication work carried out in domestic yards. Clearly, if the OSO cannot be maintained, a similar body would have a role to play.
    A considerable worry is that Ministers acknowledge that it is likely that the OSO will run counter to the provisions of the Single European Act. They offer the industry a bland reassurance that some supervisory body or watchdog function will be maintained, but it has never been spelt out to those of us who are interested in what the Government propose to do in the next few years. I should be grateful if the Minister would pass my comments on to the Minister of State who takes specific responsibility for the oil sector, as there is growing concern about what will happen.
    The problems that are fast approaching represent a strong argument, in addition to the many excellent arguments that the Chairman of the Select Committee set out, for maintaining a Department of Energy presence in the oil sector, and in all our energy reserves and production concerns.
    I shall not follow in depth the excellent speech by the hon. Member for Erewash (Mr. Rost) about energy conservation, but it is worth putting on record the points about energy efficiency which the Select Committee set out in very fine fashion in the report. The amount of waste in the economy caused by a lack of attention to or emphasis on energy efficiency is marked. The Energy Efficiency Office, having had its budget reduced from £24·5 million to £15 million, will not be as effective as it should be. Speaking in another place, Baroness Hooper said that the proposed reduction was a direct result of the successes
    718
    achieved in the earlier campaign. Does that mean that the Department of Energy believes that the programme's work is complete? Baroness Hooper said that the Government will be "targeting our activities", but what does that mean? It is ill defined—
    Mr. Alex Salmond: Less money.
    Mr. Kennedy: I agree with the hon. Gentleman.
    Is energy efficiency still one of the Department's prime concerns? Government rhetoric about energy efficiency and the contribution that it can make to the economy and broader environment concerns is completely let down by the reality of the reduction in the budget for energy efficiency and conservation.
    I was pleased that the Select Committee on Energy drew specific attention to research and development and industrial support. We have heard about the future of the coal industry, energy efficiency and the future of the Department. It is clear that within the evolving European Community and further afield, Britain will be left at the starting post if more is not done and more emphasis is not placed on industrial research and development and general support for the energy industry.
    Welcome investment is being made in Britain, but all too often it is of an assembly nature and the conception, marketing and production is done in other countries, most notably Japan. In other sectors, conceptual work is done in Britain, but all too often, because of the lack of a coherent industrial strategy on research and development, manufacturing and production are located elsewhere in the European Community, frequently on other continents. That spells death for a nation that is seeking a long-term future but is an island economy. I was therefore pleased that the Select Committee's report drew attention specifically to the importance of research and development in energy. That point should be underscored.
    I hope that the Government will offer an assurance, first and foremost from a local point of view, about the future of the Department of Energy and, more specifically, what will happen to the OSO as 1992 as the reality of the European single market approaches.
    The report is timely and welcome in drawing attention to the importance of energy efficiency and a considerably enhanced role for research and development in this crucial sector of the British economy.
    5.53 pm
    Mr. Michael Brown: A number of hon. Members have supported the recommendations made in paragraphs 24 and 25 of the Select Committee's report. I did not share the views of the rest of the Committee. In the private deliberations that we held last week it was incumbent on me to explain why I differed from the rest of the Committee, so it is incumbent on me to explain why I sought to divide the Committee on the future of the Department of Energy and on another matter regarding the coal industry.
    I commend the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Sir I. Lloyd). He has done an excellent job over the years as Chairman of the Committee. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter). I disagreed profoundly with almost everything that he said, but he has a way of captivating the House and hon. Members enjoy listening to his speeches. I suspect that if

    719
    I were to pick up on one or two of the points that he made I should be in danger of being out of order, as I was half an hour ago.
    I did not agree with other members of the Select Committee that the Department of Energy should continue because I believed that the Committee's remit was to investigate the spending plans of the Department over the past year and for the ensuing summer. The decision about whether we have a Department of Trade, a Department of Industry, a Department of Trade and Industry, a Department of Health, a Department of Social Security, a Department of Health and Social Security or a green department with responsibilities that are currently held by the Department of the Environment—in my humble view it should share certain responsibilities with the Department of Energy—is not one for a Select Committee or the House. We all know that one person has always decided the formulation of Departments. We should do better to wait until that person has made his decision.
    We have an excellent Secretary of State for Energy and team of Ministers, but they need not worry about any changes being made to the Department because none of them will be out of a job. However, those who are members of the Select Committee on Energy will be out of a job. If there is no Department of Energy, there is no Select Committee. If there is a good reason for retaining the Department of Energy, it is because members of the Committee will be able to retain their status and because I shall be able to continue to enjoy my weekly audience at the feet of the hon. Member for Hartlepool as we engage in the rough and tumble of lively debate, which I should certainly miss.
    On page XV of the report, I proposed that the following words should be deleted:
    "Furthermore, even at the risk of slightly affecting the value of the privatised companies at flotation"—
    the electricity companies—
    "we believe that the Government should make it plain to National Power, PowerGen and the Scottish electricity industry that the strategic national case for an indigenous coal industry means that they must pay what the SSEB described to us in 1987 as 'a modest premium' over international prices to ensure that British electricity supplies remain secure. BC should not be forced to reduce its prices to the lowest prices available on an unstable and unpredictable international market, however useful these prices may be to all concerned in the United Kingdom as an indicator of the energy costs of our competitors and hence the real cost of energy."
    It was not in the interests of my constituents or of our economy to go along with that part of the paragraph. After a lively debate, I sought to divide the Committee. Although I lost the vote, I was grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Moss) for taking the same view. It is absolutely essential that every pressure is put on the British coal industry to respond to competition because that is the only way to wean it off the unending subsidy which this report criticises.
    Mr. Redmond: Will the hon. Gentleman expound his views on subsidised coal imported into this country, sometimes from countries where child labour is used in producing it? Does he want subsidised coal from various
    720
    parts of the world to continue to be imported? Is he in favour of that unfair practice and of bumping the coal industry in that way?
    Mr. Brown: Will you advise me, Madam Deputy Speaker, whether it would be in order for me to respond to that question? I am happy to respond, but I fear that the question goes wide of the terms of the debate.
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): This is a reasonably wide debate which covers policy. If the hon. Member wishes to respond, he is at liberty to do so.
    Mr. Brown: I shall respond most happily. I do not care who subsidises what, so long as it is not my constituents as British taxpayers. So long as the subsidies continue to come from my constituents and those of other hon. Members, I have a major objection to them. I have no views whatever on other countries subsidising their products and giving British consumers the opportunity of a better deal.
    Mr. Redmond rose—
    Mr. Brown: I shall gladly give way again in a moment. Any country that subsidises its industries will do as much harm to its economy as Government subsidies to our industries have done to our economy.
    Mr. Redmond: The hon. Gentleman is right to worry about taxpayers footing the bills. Is he aware of the cost to his constituents, paid in tax, of subsidising the devastation brought about by his Government's policies?
    Mr. Brown: I do not agree with that. The hon. Gentleman was not a Member of the House in the early 1980s when I represented the British Steel plant at Scunthorpe. You will recall, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I often sought to catch your predecessor's eye. During the first four years of my membership of the House, the BSC work force of 19,000 was reduced to 6,000 or 7,000. I never once suggested that taxpayers should subsidise my constituents and keep them in jobs producing a commodity that customers did not want to buy. On every occasion that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry came to the House to support Mr. Ian MacGregor, the chairman of the British Steel Corporation, I publicly gave my full support to their policies. I can report to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that as a result of the decisions taken in the early 1980s, supported by me, today the BSC does not ask the taxpayer for one ha'penny.
    Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Rubbish.
    Mr. Brown: It contributes as a taxpayer, paying corporation tax because it makes profits. It now manufactures a product which is sold because people want to buy it in preference to foreign steel. That is the position in which I want the coal industry to be.
    I have been through what Opposition Members fear. In my constituency, 19,000 people worked in the steel industry one year and only 6,000 people four years later. I know that it is painful, but I ask the hon. Gentlemen to face that pain because the recovery afterwards is a joy to behold. I understand their legitimate concern for their miners and constituents, but it is misplaced. Those miners would be left on an unending diet of subsidies, and it is those subsidies that the report criticises.
    Mr. Allen McKay: The hon. Gentleman seems to forget that I, too, had a steelworks in my constituency where the work force was reduced from about 16,000 to about 6,000. 1, too, went through the pain. I acknowledge that there is a difference between the histories of the steel and coal industries. If the hon. Gentleman will consider the history of coal rather than talk about market forces, he will realise how wrong he is.
    Mr. Brown: I am not sure that the histories of those two great industries are so different. They were both starved of investment in the early part of this century and both were nationalised. One has been nationalised for 40 years and is in a worse state than the one which has been nationalised, thankfully, only for 20 years. There is a clear parallel between them.
    I have explained to the House why I and my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East felt it necessary to divide the Committee on the paragraphs that I mentioned. I did not write them; they were presented to me for my approval, as was the rest of the report. It may be out of order to say this, but Back-Bench Members of Select Committees should have a greater opportunity to be involved in drafting reports before they are presented with them for final approval. That would help us when we consider Select Committee proceedings on estimates days and in other debates of this nature.
    There is much in the report to commend it to Ministers. The detailed work of all involved provides food for thought which, I am sure, my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Department of Energy will consider carefully.
    6.6 pm
    Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) will understand why I do not follow him down that road. It is fortunate that the majority of the Select Committee Members rarely follow his suggestions.
    The House will not be surprised if my speech mainly relates to the effect of the estimates on British Coal. Over many years the Select Committee has highlighted the problems that would face British Coal if the Government took certain actions. Unfortunately, the Government have rarely taken much notice of our reports. If they had taken notice of the 1987 report on coal and the report on electricity, they would not have taken the action that they did.
    Three quarters of the money made available in the estimate through the vote is to assist British Coal. It is right and proper that a large slice of the report dwells on that industry. I am sure that the Chairman and members of the Select Committee will agree that it has not always been too impressed with the reliability of the estimates and the value to be placed on them. This year's estimates seem to have been treated with some scepticism for that reason.
    Paragraph 5 of the report tells us that the uncertainties for British Coal are enormous. That is true. For many years it seems that we have never managed to get the Government to come clean. From time to time we have used our crystal ball and mostly the Select Committee and the House have been correct. The Government have ignored many of the Committee's recommendations and suggestions and on most occasions the Committee has been proved right.
    722
    We are aware that £250 million is a lot of money, but, as the Select Committee recognised, it is being used simply to run down the coal industry, as the Government have planned to do since 1984. The Government are on their way. We must ask, "Do we need a coal mining industry?" If the answer is yes, what size of industry is required? I should have thought that it should be the size required to meet the demand to generate energy and to mine for coal on these shores. It is obvious from the evidence to the Select Committee that that is not the Government's view.
    Recently, in evidence to the Select Committee, Sir Peter Gregson made it clear that he expected the contract agreements between British Coal and the Central Electricity Generating Board to be completed in a few months' time. He said that his Department had been keeping in touch with developments. One can take that as one wants, but these decisions will be based purely and simply on conditions in the marketplace. The Government have had to provide £311 million in the estimates to bring about the loss of a further 15,000 jobs in the mining industry this financial year. The spin-off from the last financial year is about 5,000 jobs. This means, as Sir Peter Gregson told us, that by March next year the estimates will cover some 20,000 miners' jobs.
    In 1987, the Select Committee suggested that there might be only 69,000 underground workers in the mining industry by 1990. The Government denied that. It is now obvious that by 1990 that number could fall to 50,000, which means that the mining communities will be in a more traumatic position than they have been in since 1984, when there were about 200,000 men on the colliery books. We have seen the industry run down rapidly. Although in the past there were tragic circumstances in many mining communities, at least the men over 50 were provided with a weekly income to cushion the blow. I have made these points several times in the House and in Committee and I do not apologise for repeating them. The 20,000 miners about whom we are talking in this financial year are not over 50; their average age is 34. They have no weekly income to cushion the blow. There is no alternative employment in the mining communities that these young men can take. There has been no action by the Government since 1984 to provide them with alternatives.
    What is the Government's answer? What should these men do? What are the plans for them if 20,000 jobs are lost? It is not sufficient for the Government to argue that the coal industry must stand on its feet and fight the competition. If one accepts that—I never will —the Government have an obligation to the mining communities not to wipe them out for reasons of political dogma and to provide employment to take the place of the staple industries in these communities. There are no signs of that happening.
    We hear about the marketplace. Does anyone, from the Secretary of State, to civil servants, to British Coal, believe that British coal can compete with coal from other countries? We hear about all the records and wonderful achievements since 1984. The majority of coal mines are making a working profit—£500 million in the last financial year. Through technology and the hard work of miners, these wonderful achievements have been made, which hon. Members on both sides of the House and Sir Robert Haslam praise. However, we can only produce coal for power stations at a price of £46 to £48 a tonne and it is possible to import coal for between £20 and £28 a tonne, because of subsidies and slave labour in other countries.

    723
    British coal will not be able to compete in the short term with coal from abroad. That is why the Select Committee decided that there should be some form of assistance to the coal industry and that the industry should not be left to the marketplace. Vast assistance will be given to the nuclear sector under privatisation, so why throw our industry to the wolves when everyone knows that it cannot compete? That is why some people, including the Government, have pushed hard to extend the ports at Immingham and elsewhere. They know that the negotiations between British Coal and the CEGB will result in contracts for 60 million tonnes of coal—10 million more tonnes of imports, resulting in the loss of miners' jobs.
    Do we want to leave this country in a state where it cannot meet the demand of our power stations for coal because the industry has been so run down and we need more imports? Does anyone think that the prices of £20 and £28 a tonne for imported coal will be available then? No. Schoolchildren know that. We saw what happened during the oil crisis. It is crazy to do this. Without using my Yorkshire words, may I say that the Select Committee recognised that. Coal is the natural power we have available. If the Minister is in possession of the facts, will he tell us how many British pits, of those that are left, are really uneconomical? There may be a few, but if "uneconomical" means that they must produce coal at the marketplace figure for imports of £20 to £28 a tonne, every pit in this country must be uneconomical. If that is so, there is no great future for the mining industry, although we shall have serious need of that industry one day.
    I have referred to figures in the past, and I will not bother the House with them tonight. It seems that some Conservative Members have no respect for the industry, and the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes seems to think that this argument is a big laugh. He should come to my constituency to see whether pit closures are a big laugh. He would see miners' estates, which some members of the Select Committee have seen. Half the estates are boarded up and those properties that are occupied house aged miners and the widows of miners. Shops and schools have been knocked down. The hon. Gentleman should look and decide whether the social consequences of the savage running down of the mining industry are a laughing matter. I assure the House that they are not.
    The Select Committee expressed its concern that the Department's research and development expenditure is set to fall in real terms in 1989–90. As the hon. Member for Havant (Sir I. Lloyd), the Chairman of the Select Committee said earlier, it is essential that the Grimethorpe plant and others like it should be kept operating and that if there is a lack of private funds, the Government do not allow the Grimethorpe plant to close. We talk now about the greenhouse effect and carbon dioxide. That plant contributes to research into the greenhouse effect, which is one of this country's worst problems.
    Last year, the Committee criticised the expenditure incurred by the Department of Energy when it moved to expensive headquarters on a prime London site. The Government have said that some of the major Departments should move out into the regions, so one cannot make a case for spending a colossal amount of money on a new building in London, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) said. I recall
    724
    that the Committee suggested last year that it might be suitable to erect that building in an area such as Pontefract or Abertillery. I support the proposal for Pontefract or Castleford, but unfortunately that has not happened. A report today on the Property Services Agency main estimates showed the vast increase in costs of this new development and there should be some explanation for that.
    I noticed that the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes left the Chamber immediately after his speech. Unlike him, I believe that the Department of Energy has a continuing part to play, especially in view of our energy prospects. There is also a major part for the Select Committee on Energy to play, and I hope that the Government agree. I also hope that the Minister will give great consideration, when wiping out 20,000 mining jobs, to negotiations. Although nobody on the Government Front Bench appears to be listening, I will say to the Minister that his Department should negotiate with others to see what can be done to introduce alternative employment in the communities that will be wiped out, especially when one considers all the young men who will have no weekly income.
    6.25 pm
    Mr. Alexander Eadie: I have followed the debate closely and I understand the strong plea made for the preservation of the Department of Energy. Many hon. Members may not be aware that the Department of Energy was a creation of the party of the present Government. Although the Department was defended in strong and strident terms, I have my doubts about the outcome. As we have said in previous debates, when the present Secretary of State took office, one of his terms of reference was to abolish the Department of Energy. I hope that the defence put up for the Department is listened to, but I have my doubts.
    We have heard today about manpower in the coal industry. The House must be informed about how catastrophic the contraction of manpower in the coal industry has been. I recently had an exchange with the Under-Secretary of State for Energy on the figures and I was able to point out that, in the past seven or eight years, the coal industry has contracted by 151,000 or 152,000 men. It is the greatest contraction suffered by any industry in so short a period.
    We are not talking about pits being closed because of dud technology, because they are using outdated technology, because there are no coal reserves left or because the manpower is aging. A young age group works in the coal industry at present. The average age is about 34 and the older men have left the industry. We do not close pits that have been exhausted; we close those that have great reserves of coal. When it was proposed to close Bilston Glen colliery in my constituency, I pointed out that that pit had hundreds of years of coal left. Even in Monktonhall, which has been mothballed, £30 million, £40 million or £50 million was spent in reaching coal reserves which would last for hundreds of years. In the Midlothian constituency, there is coal lasting for hundreds of years, yet it was decided to close those pits.
    I want to give an example of the economic lunacy we practise and of the logic of bedlam. I was at a meeting with British Coal where we were having discussions with Mr. Moses, a director of British Coal. We were talking about

    725
    how a British pit could survive in the present economic and competitive climate. The general secretary of the National Union of Mineworkers said that British Coal was telling us that a pit must produce coal at so much a gigajoule, although British Coal also said that it could not control the cost per gigajoule because factors in the market place determined that. We were told, for example, about the effects of rises in the value of the pound and about competitive bids from other countries. We asked whether Selby's closure would be considered if it did not live up to the gigajoule cost because of the balance of payments crisis and interest rates. Selby is the so-called jewel in the crown of the coal industry, but Mr. Moses' reply was, "Yes, we would have to consider it."
    The Chairman of the Select Committee on Energy told us about the subsidy that the mining industry is receiving. I am not saying this in a spirit of cirticism, but if we are dealing with the costs of producing energy we must consider other arguments, such as the cost of nuclear power over the years. We must also consider the security of supply—which could be the subject of a valid debate in the House. I can best illustrate my argument with reference to the ridiculous position of the South of Scotland electricity board. The SSEB has gone back on previous understandings and agreements. It had previously said that we needed an indigenous coal industry. Indeed, the present chairman of the SSEB is on record as saying that it would be unthinkable if we did not have an indigenous coal industry in Scotland. He said that we would always need a coal industry in Scotland. However, he has changed his mind about that and is now putting forward similar arguments to those advanced by Conservative Members and is saying that the competitive argument must be considered. The chairman of the SSEB followed that competitive argument, despite the fact that the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Energy have been told that something had to be done because otherwise the coal industry in Scotland would contract to nothing.
    The chairman of the SSEB went ahead with commercial considerations as the Government told him to do and did a deal for the importation of 1 million tonnes of Chinese coal. What about the argument for security of supply? The chairman of the SSEB said that that coal was cheaper. I am certain that it could not have been cheaper. Indeed, all the evidence and analyses are proving that it could not have been cheaper. Surely one cannot defend supplying our power stations with Chinese coal because by no stretch of the imagination could one say that that would give us security of supply. That is why I said that this policy is the height of lunacy.
    I do not want to take up much more time because I want to leave the Minister time to respond to the debate. As a result of this debate, all the information that the Select Committee has given us and all the appraisals, I hope that we will agree that factors other than cost are involved. I hope that the Government will do something about the present uncertainty in the coal industry.
    If we are to talk about blatant preference in our energy policy, the coal industry and the coal communities also have a right to express their blatant preference about the production of coal. We can still use the same argument on behalf of coal that was used 10, 20, 30 or even 40 years ago. We have coal in abundance. Therefore, we would be foolish as a country to contract our coal industry to such an extent that we would be dependent on imports of coal.
    726
    I hope that we can get that message across in this debate to both the Government and the members of the Select Committee.
    6.34 pm
    Mr. Alex Salmond: I was glad that the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse), my colleague on the Select Committee, referred to vote 3 and the administrative costs of the Department of Energy. I am also pleased that almost a full ministerial team is now present because I believe that I speak for all members of the Select Committee in saying that we should like specific answers to the questions about the administrative costs and the location of the Department that we have raised in successive years in estimates debates.
    We have questions about the expenditure incurred on the refurbishment of the offices of the Department of Energy. We are seriously concerned by the Department's apparent lack of consideration of the unanimous view of the Select Committee—again, expressed in two successive years—that the Department should seriously consider moving its staff from central London to other locations. Indeed, so irritated was the Select Committee by the unspecific and cursory response to last year's report that we described it in this year's report as "Civil-Service-speak for doing nothing". The Department is hardly paying even lip service to the Government's professed aim of decentralising staff from London.
    The public will find it remarkable that a Department which is now spending £13 million on refurbishing its offices opposite Buckingham palace—at an actual cost that is about 280 per cent. above the original estimate—is not seriously considering whether it is possible to move most of its staff out of central London. I understand that the report of the Select Committee on the Environment today has expressed parallel concerns about the costs involved in refurbishing the offices of the Department of Energy.
    Sir Gordon Menzie, the chief executive of the Property Services Agency, has described the £13 million expenditure—and the 280 per cent. increase over the original estimate—as an extremely good deal. If that cost escalation over a two-year period is an extremely good deal, one is tempted to ask what an extremely bad deal would be. If we take Sir Gordon Menzie at his word—and he is arguing that that expenditure is only half the standard commercial cost of office accommodation in central London— I expect that we are meant to believe that we are lucky that the expenditure on the refurbishment of the offices of the Department of Energy and its move to its new location opposite Buckingham palace has not amounted to £26 million. When is the Department seriously to consider moving its staff outside central London?
    The public will be astonished that a Department with running costs that we have detailed in our Select Committee report as being over £30,000 per person this year, compared to the Welsh Office expenditure of just under £20,000 per person per year—just over one third less than the expenditure of the Department of Energy—is not seriously examining relocating its staff outside central London. In view of the fatuous explanations that we received both in oral examinations before the Select Committee and in written answers, the people of Scotland

    727
    will find it disgraceful that the oil division of the Department of Energy is not located where it belongs—north of the border.
    On 26 June 1989, the Minister of State, Department of Energy referred in a written answer to the reason for the location of the oil division's staff in London, stating:
    "Moreover the division is very much involved in providing advice to Ministers and has day-to-day discussions with the headquarters of the companies in the oil and gas industry, most of whom remain located in London."
    That view was confirmed in oral evidence to the Select Committee by Sir Peter Gregson and others. It demonstrates a total lack of understanding about the causal relationship between the location of the Department of Energy and the location of the headquarters of the oil companies. The Department of Energy is in London because the oil companies are located in London. The simple fact is that the corporate headquarters of the international oil companies are located in London because the Department of Energy is located in London, with its key divisions of petroleum engineering and offshore licensing. The written answer also states:
    "No specific discussions have been held with the companies on this issue."—[Official Report, 26 June 1989; Vol. 155, c. 359.]
    That is an interesting admission because less than two weeks ago I had discussions with a major international oil company which currently has its operational divisions in Aberdeen and its corporate headquarters in London. I asked its representatives directly and specifically what their response would be to the movement of the Department's petroleum engineering division and licensing staff north of the border to Scotland. The answer was quite specific: they would review the location of their corporate headquarters in London and would follow the Department's movement of staff.
    The Select Committee would like a direct answer to our direct question: when will the Department give proper and serious examination to the question of relocation generally, and to the specific question of relocating the oil division north of the border?
    Since the Select Committee made its recommendation on this point last year, we have gathered some interesting allies to our cause. I am thinking in particular of Professor Ross Harper, the president of the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Association, who has become a recent convert to the idea of moving the whole of the Department of Energy north of the border.
    I do not want to be too rough on Professor Harper because in the past few days he has had some hard lessons on the reality of power politics between Edinburgh and London. No doubt some English Members have been following this interesting episode in Scottish politics. Professor Harper was the nominee or choice of the Secretary of State for Scotland for the post of chairman of the Conservative party in Scotland. Unfortunately for Professor Harper's ambitions, he ran into the Prime Minister's favourite son, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, who was appointed against the advice of the Secretary of State. Professor Harper has been learning some lessons about where the power lies in the Conservative party and where power lies in relations between Edinburgh and London.
    728
    It would be worthwhile for Professor Harper to examine why for the past 10 years there has been no move by the Department of Energy to locate oil staff north of the border. The only move in that direction was 15 years ago, when the Offshore Supplies Office was established in Glasgow as a direct result of political pressure from the Scottish National party at the time.
    It would also do Professor Harper some good to look at the Select Committee's minutes of 25 January this year. On that day, I was engaged in discussion with the Secretary of State for Energy about a related matter—where it would be proper to locate the office of the Director General of Electricity Supply. I suggested that perhaps that office could be located in Scotland. The Secretary of State replied that that was "an eccentric notion". Perhaps Professor Harper should consider why the Secretary of State for Energy regards it as an eccentric notion to try to supervise the electricity industry of England and Wales from north of the border yet finds it entirely natural and normal that the direction and policy of the oil industry, which is located largely north of the border, should be run from London. That is a clear example of the hypocrisy and the fatuous reasoning that underlies the location decisions of the Department of Energy.
    Those in the regions of England and in the nations of Scotland and Wales are of the opinion that it is high time that they ceased to subsidise the south-east of England through the concentration of Civil Service staff in London. That subsidy arises not just from the payment of Civil Service salaries and inner London weighting but from the whirlpool effect on the private sector and on private sector headquarters. This process of subsidy has ceased to be acceptable in the regions of England, and in Scotland and Wales.
    The opinion in Scotland is that it is totally unacceptable that the oil divisions of the Department of Energy should continue to be located in London. That is not because we think that it is crucial that the 200 staff of the division should be located north of the border but because we recognise the thousands of jobs that would follow from the major oil companies if the Department made such a decision. It is not acceptable that the oil jobs concentrated in Scotland should be the jobs at the sharp end of the industry—the dirty, dangerous, offshore jobs. We are entitled to the policy jobs and the corporate headquarters employment now located in London which should be in Scotland.
    Hon. Members have referred to the question of the continuation of the Department of Energy itself. The oil industry provides a neat illustration to show why it is by no means rational to say that because segments of the energy industry have been privatised we do not need a Department of Energy to overlay a policy. At present, no less than one third of the Department's total staff is employed on oil-related matters. For a number of years the oil industry has been largely in the private sector and it is now almost completely in that sector, yet the Government concede that there is still a need for a large proportion of the Department's staff to be devoted to that vital industry. Whether industry is in the public or the private sector, there remains a public policy requirement and a requirement for an energy strategy—something, of course, which this Government have manifestly failed to provide.
    6.44 pm
    Mr. Rhodri Morgan: It is a great pleasure to be able to participate in this slightly unusual debate. By dint of these rather special circumstances Front Benchers have become Back Benchers and vice versa. You, Madam Deputy Speaker, are the fairy godmother. Your powers end at 7.26 pm, and we shall all revert to our normal status. Opposition and Government Front Bench spokesmen will not wind up the debate; that will be for the hon. Member for Havant (Sir I. Lloyd) to do. It is a particular pleasure for me as a former member of the Select Committee to note that one glass slipper belongs to the hon. Member for Havant and the other to my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter). The Minister and I, on the other hand, are discussing this very important set of subjects as ordinary persons and with no kind of superior status.
    I suppose that the most important question of all—it is the subject on which I propose to concentrate—is whether we need a Department of Energy and a Secretary of State for Energy. The former Member for Scunthorpe reinforced that point. The hon. Gentleman now represents the next-door constituency, whose name I temporarily forget—
    Mr. Michael Brown: Let me help the hon. Gentleman. I represented Brig and Scunthorpe from 1979 to 1983 and Brigg and Cleethorpes from 1983 to the present.
    Mr. Morgan: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that characteristic intervention. At least we can have that right, if nothing else.
    The key question is whether we need a Department of Energy, and that is dealt with under vote 3 in the Select Committee's report. It is uppermost in the minds of the Secretary of State and of civil servants in the Department as they contemplate their future, following what I understand is known in Harvard business school jargon as the endgame strategy that the Secretary of State is pursuing. Having privatised the pylons and other appurtenances of the electricity industry, the right hon. Gentleman can dispense with the Department and tell the Tory party conference about it, to rapturous applause. At that point, the right hon. Gentleman will presumably have had some form of promotion or will receive it shortly thereafter. That is known as following the principle, "privatise or perish". I do not think that I am attributing anything to the Secretary of State that he would not be happy to have attributed to him when I say that he must already have written his Tory party conference speech a thousand times in his head. He must have contemplated how wonderful it will be to refer to the notch on his belt once he has got rid of a large electricity supply industry and put it into the private sector. Having got rid of a large nationalised industry—perhaps the biggest—to the private sector, he can then justify the abolition of a Department of State.
    This is a matter of interest to me not only as an ex-member of the Select Committee but as an ex-civil servant at the Department of Trade and Industry at a time when that Department still had responsibility for energy. I witnessed from inside the split up of the Department following OPEC's massive oil price rises in July 1973—from $2·50 a barrel to $10 a barrel—when energy was the word on everyone's lips. Superficially at any rate, there is a justification for saying that energy is no longer in crisis.
    730
    On a superficial level we may be justified in saying that we do not face that great financial cataclysm of the Financial Times index being as low as 146. It is about 2,000 now and that must warm the cockles of the hearts of some Conservative Members who have a direct interest in that sort of thing.
    The western world has survived 13 years of high oil prices, and so there is a belief that we can, to use an apposite phrase, put the energy issue on the back burner. It is fair to say that the Secretary of State for Energy takes that view. For him the important thing is promotion and his next Tory party conference speech. However, the rest of the country is concerned about energy. After the legislation privatising the electricity supply industry is enacted, will there still be energy questions which require a separate Department of Energy? We may have said after the great oil price rises in 1973, "Nice one Faisal", but after the abolition of the Department of Energy, will we be happy to say, "Nice one Cecil"? Some of us believe that energy questions remain the same no matter how many nationalised industries fall within the purview of the Department and the Secretary of State for Energy.
    It is fair to warn the Secretary of State for Energy that if he is pursuing an endgame strategy and wants to race to his promotion and get rid of the Department of Energy as a notch in his belt, he cannot blame other Secretaries of State such as the Secretary of State for the Environment for muscling into the energy question. He cannot even blame his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister—another fairy godmother—if she and her colleagues refer to proposals for coal and carbon taxes at international conferences or in Tory party think-tank papers.
    The Secretary of State appears to be asking whether we need a Department of Energy. Is it enough for the Secretary of State to say, as he appears to be saying now, "I will shovel all the shares in the electricity supply industry off the back of the lorry and then I will sell the lorry"? There is something extremely irresponsible about that view unless the Secretary of State can show that energy questions have become much less important than they were.
    We are concerned about this because the Secretary of State is in a paradoxical position. He is trying to be the commandant of Colditz and the secretary of the escape committee at the same time. He cannot slide out of his responsibilities at the Department of Energy.
    Important questions are covered by other votes that we have discussed tonight. Colossal questions remain in relation to the remainder of the coal industry, although that is a much shrunken industry at the moment. How do we handle the question of the future of the British coal industry? What about the formulation of a policy for the industry? How can we make reasonable estimates for the coal industry? The Chairman of the Select Committee on Energy, the hon. Member for Havant, raised this matter earlier. Why do we go through this whole annual rigmarole of having two sets of estimates for the coal industry? The Department of Energy always underestimates the size of the restructuring grant and the time within which the industry will break even point. Perhaps the Department of Energy believes that that is the right way to provide incentives for the management and the men in the industry.
    Mr. Allen McKay: Does my hon. Friend agree that the figure of £311 million represents about 15,000 redundancies? If there are 15,000 redundancies and the restructuring money has gone, will there be a new restructuring grant or will we depend on normal redundancies? The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) seemed to say that he did not care what other countries do to subsidise the products of this country provided that his constituents do not pay a subsidy. That appears to be a return to the old days of the empire when the country depended on the empire for subsidies.
    Mr. Morgan: My hon. Friend has raised a very important point. Reading between the lines in the estimates it seems that we can calculate the number of impending redundancies, but the Minister refuses to confirm those figures in parliamentary questions. If the full story about the real number of possible redundancies for the following year was included in the estimates, that would frighten the life out of us. That is why the Minister does not do that. We need a Department of Energy to deal with such questions.
    In addition to the coal industry, the Department of Energy must also consider energy conservation. We do not know the Department's policy on energy conservation. It has reduced expenditure on energy conservation, but it has not said that energy conservation is a less important issue. If we consider the Government's policy according to what is said rather than deeds, it would appear that energy conservation is, in the view of the Prime Minister and her Cabinet, the most important issue facing the planet. However, we are proposing to abolish the Department which should have the clear remit to formulate energy conservation policies.
    We do not know the Department's policies on energy conservation. What are they? How much expenditure is involved? Where would the Department of Energy fit in with the other Departments and make a contribution, for example, with the Department of Education and Science, the Departments of Health and for Social Security—particularly if we are thinking about the implications of hypothermia? We must bear in mind that we have the worst record with regard to hypothermia in western Europe despite having one of the mildest climates. Those are huge issues which make a case for a separate Department to deal with energy matters.
    Another important energy-related matter is the greenhouse effect. That is a top priority issue if we consider the Government's words and not their deeds. The hon. Member for Erewash (Mr. Rost) referred to the need for better technology with regard to energy conservation and efficiency, for example, in connection with combined heat and power and the insulation industries.
    What about the relationship between privatisation and the nuclear industry rump which would remain in the private sector? We understand that even if the bulk of the electricity supply industry is privatised, some vehicle will have to be found to keep the risk part of the nuclear industry in the public sector by loading it into British Nuclear Fuels plc, which would remain under the wing of the Department of Energy instead of being privatised alongside the power stations. The dodgy part of the industry, the equivalent of the sewerage problem in water privatisation, will be kept in the public sector. The private sector will take the assets and profits and poor old Muggins—the British taxpayer—will continue to bear all
    732
    the risks of unexpected rises, which we all know are expected rises, in the costs of nuclear waste disposal, reprocessing and power station decommissioning. The issues related to fairness, handling, monitoring and the estimating of BNFL's costs—as it will have to carry the risks on behalf of the taxpayer—require a separate fully-fledged Department of Energy.
    In the end, we are not primarily concerned with how many nationalised industries come under the wing of the Department of Energy. Rather, we are concerned with the size of the energy questions that it must handle. We know that the price of energy has, in general, been falling since February 1986 in real terms. We have had three mild winters in succession and we do not hear weekly stories about pensioners freezing to death in their council flats as we heard during the harder winters of 1985 and 1986. That has tended to make Ministers believe that those issues are less important now.
    If the Government try to proceed with the idea that they can get rid of the Department of Energy because they have disposed of its major, remaining nationalised industry, they would be very irresponsible, particularly when they are apparently now still thinking of trying to find a way of unloading the industry on to the private sector by guaranteeing or writing off the risks, debts and difficult parts of the electricity supply industry and keeping them with the taxpayer. That is the application of an old principle of Roman law called "nil prospectus desperandum"—in other words, "Do not do anything that frightens off the shareholders," or, "Let us leave something in it for the stags, otherwise it will not seem a popular privatisation."
    If the taxpayer is to continue to carry the can for all the risks involved in the electricity supply industry after privatisation, he must have a proper, fully-fledged Department that can examine the big issues in the industry. Opposition Members do not want the Department to go out in a huge fireworks display involving the employment of expensive advisers and advertisers, and finally see the Secretary of State move on somewhere else, leaving all the problems to his successors.
    7 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Michael Spicer): I am not sure about the implication of the remarks of the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) about hon. Members speaking as private individuals. For my part, I will work on the assumption that, if I get it wrong, I will still be held to ransom by a wide audience and not only by the wonderful constituents of Worcestershire, South, whom I have the honour to represent.
    I congratulate the Select Committee on Energy on yet another thorough report and on the way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Sir I. Lloyd) introduced it. With good reason, much of the debate has been about the coal industry. The first sentence of paragraph 4 of the report states:
    "The Vote for assistance to the coal industry takes up over three-quarters of the money which Parliament is asked to vote in support of the Department of Energy."
    It has been quite apparent from debates in the House and in Committee that a variety of advice is coming forward to the Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) is right to say that the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) made an

    733
    impassioned and fluent speech. We seem to be throwing bouquets across the Chamber, but I must tell my hon. Friend that I disagreed with most of what the hon. Gentleman said. The hon. Gentleman characterised the position of British Coal as one of profitability, were it not for the fact that debt servicing, redundancy costs and one or two other things mean that so-called operating profits are turned into losses. He would not get away with that kind of statement in the private sector.
    The fact is that, over the years, British Coal has accumulated losses of £2·5 billion, and the Government are coming before Parliament for supplementary estimates. I heard the criticisms that were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Havant. Next year we may have to ask for further grants to the industry. The hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) asked about that point in the context of restructuring grant. British Coal's costs are still above those of international competitors. It is not sensible to ask whether British Coal is currently profitable and whether, with all these flush funds, it will now be able to do all sorts of exotic things that it would not be able to do without them.
    The vital question that is being asked by many hon. Members is whether British Coal will be able to compete in the future. My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes made an interesting intervention. The implication behind his views about the future pricing structure of British Coal is that British Coal can compete in the future. That lies at the root of what he said.
    Mr. Leadbitter: The Minister was kind enough to refer to my interpretation of the operation and profitability of British Coal, bearing in mind inflation, high interest rates, changes in the market, oil prices, competition, and so on. He did not really accept my view. I took my information from a letter dated 6 February 1988 from the Secretary of State, which was sent to the Select Committee on Energy on that day for our consideration.
    Mr. Spicer: Some people define profitability to encompass the idea of massive money still being spent on the industry. I have gone through the facts. The industry is costing the taxpayer a lot of money. I know that British Coal defines its present performance in terms of making operating profits. Strangely, as a Minister in the Department of Energy responsible for coal, among other things, I continue to find myself, in the context of this profitable industry, returning to the House and, in effect, begging the House for more money for that industry. Therefore, it is legitimate to ask whether the industry can compete in the future.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Havant said that there is no way that coal can be mined at world prices. To some extent, that brings him into conflict with my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes. It is certainly not my view. As many hon. Members have stressed, there has been a massive improvement in the efficiency and productivity of the industry. There has been almost a 100 per cent. improvement in productivity in the past four or five years. There is no dispute about that.
    The hon. Member for Hartlepool answered his own question about redundancies when he rightly said that there has been almost stable production over that period, with half as many men producing the same amount. That growth in productivity is not only something on which British Coal and those who work for it should be
    734
    congratulated but is evidence that, if the process is continued, the industry will stand on its own feet, particularly when we bear in mind two additional factors. The first was mentioned by the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) in a recent debate—the present difficulties in the world market. The Government accept that difficulties in the world market, perhaps leading to hardening prices, may exist if the electricity industry goes overboard with imports. There is a small world steam coal market because there are difficulties in the international trading of steam coal. That points to yet another intrinsic advantage—the infrastructure of a home-based coal industry. The Government take the view that, if we can continue the admirable process of improving the efficiency of the British coal industry, it can stand on its own feet and compete against foreigners.
    I do not mean to quarrel with my hon. Friend the Member for Havant, as I agree with a lot of what he said. I agree that privatisation of the coal industry cannot guarantee its future, but a policy to privatise the industry is certainly a statement of the Government's faith in the future of the industry. Were the Government not to believe in the future of this industry, they could not properly embark on a policy of trying to sell it to the private sector. Coal is a perfect example of a Government who are backing an industry with massive amounts of money. Hon. Members will have heard Ministers say many times that we are spending £6·5 billion, £2 million every working day, of taxpayers' money on the industry. These are enormous sums of money, but the Government have also shown their faith in the future of the industry and in its ability to stand on its own two feet.
    The second theme of this interesting and wide-ranging debate has been energy efficiency, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Mr. Rost) referred in particular. The Government agree with him about building regulations, and amending building regulations will shortly be laid. As he said, this is an important part of any energy efficiency programme. I do not have time to go back over many of the detailed points that were made, but I shall make this point. Energy efficiency has been properly debated and no doubt will be debated again when the Electricity Bill returns to the House. The hon. Member for Cardiff, West nods his head, and I am not surprised that he will be raising this matter.
    The Electricity Bill can be characterised in terms of an energy efficiency Bill. It is about efficiency in the production of energy. The whole purpose of the radical reform of the generating side of the electricity industry is to produce energy more efficiently. One of the results of that policy, which is a problem for the coal industry, is that in the production of more efficient energy gas-fired systems are coming forward. In their concentration on coal, the Opposition have to contend with the fact that, while Grimethorpe may produce some wonderful answers, the maximum saving of CO2 suggested for the topping cycle at Grimethorpe is between 15 and 20 per cent. In terms of gas over coal-fired stations, the figure would be nearer 40 per cent. We cannot just discard these points when discussing energy efficiency. Nor can we discard the fact that, under a privatised and much freer system, which will exist after the Electricity Bill becomes law, energy efficient production systems will be forthcoming. That needs to be stated, because it seems to have been forgotten that it is critical to our policy.

    735
    If that were not accepted by the Opposition—and they have an interest in not accepting that our Bill will produce greater efficiencies in the production of energy—they have only to look at the wording of the Bill. If, for instance, they wish to concentrate on whether energy will be used more efficiently, which is the other side of the coin from the production side, then they will be pleased to see that, for the first time, the regulator will have a statutory duty to promote the more efficient use of energy.
    Mr. Morgan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Spicer: I shall give way in a moment, when I have finished this point. It may be on this that the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene. I have heard arguments that that duty of the regulator under the Electricity Bill should be further strengthened. We are listening to those arguments. However, I want to make it clear that, for the first time, if Parliament accepts the Electricity Bill, there will be a statutory requirement on a public body to insist on the promotion of the better use of energy.
    Mr. Morgan: I am sorry to disappoint the Minister, but that was not the point I was going to make as it will come up next week. The point I shall make has come up before, and we have not yet had a satisfactory answer. The Minister has the simple-minded, free-market belief that all the provisions to free the electricity supply industry are bound to mean more efficient manufacture of electricity, or there will be no new entrants. Therefore, can he tell us whether there will be any new entrants into electricity generation who will not be doing it simply on take-or-pay contracts, negotiated beforehand so that nobody will know at the point of starting construction whether they will be more efficient?
    Mr. Spicer: Although perhaps, unlike the hon. Member, I do not have a crystal ball, I can say that the circumstances will be such that new entrants can come in. A particular point is the removal of the control of the wires, or the distribution system, from the generators. At the moment, that is not the situation. The major generator, or monopoly generator, controls the wires. The playing field will be set on an even basis for new entrants. We have been given signs that there will be many new entrants into the system.
    Mr. Morgan: On a pay-or-take basis?
    Mr. Spicer: The exact basis on which they finally come in, and the contracts that they strike, will be a matter for them.
    A running theme in the debate is the location and cost of offices. The lease of the offices of the Department of Energy at Millbank ran out in 1982, so that this problem has been with us for some time. Decisions were made in the early 1980s not to move policy-making parts of the Department out of London. To quote the Energy Committee back to itself, it said in another context:
    "This is not the right time to move energy policy away from centre stage."
    The hon. Member for Cardiff, West spoke at length about whether the Department of Energy should be amalgamated with another Department, but that is not a matter for the Department to determine, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes said. Whether or not it
    736
    is, a certain number of policy advisers will need to be based in the capital. For instance, some must be ready to assist in the process of reporting to Parliament—which, as far as I understand it, plans to stay in the capital.
    Mr. Salmond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Spicer: I thought I might prompt the hon. Gentleman to rise to his feet. I have only three or four minutes and the hon. Gentleman has made his point. The House has heard him, and I must carry on.
    For many years, some of the key operational personnel in the Department of Energy have worked outside London. For example, the Offshore Supplies Office works out of Glasgow and Aberdeen, the energy efficiency regional offices are spread throughout the country, as are the electricity meter examining service personnel. We were the first Department to set up a typing pool outside London, in Lytham St. Anne's, and it still exists. However, it has been clear for some time that the major policy-making functions of the Department would need to continue to exist in London.
    It is worth stressing that the Department of Energy is a small Department, with only about 1,000 employees. Therefore, the real question is more about how the functions should be located in London. Some 13 options were considered. The major criterion was that the offices needed to be reasonably close to Parliament so that Ministers and officials could get backwards and forwards to Parliament with relative ease. I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Minister of State agrees with me, but I think that negotiating Parliament square from the top of Victoria street, when on a three-line Whip, will not be as easy as coming down the Embankment from Millbank, but one cannot have everything.
    The costs of rent and refurbishment have risen. The latter, as the Committee noted, is mainly a matter for the Property Services Agency, which is part of the Department of the Environment. In the context of what has been said about energy efficiency, I should put it on record that we shall be moving from what must be one of the least energy efficient buildings in London to one that will incorporate state-of-the-art technology for maximising the efficient use of energy, and will be something of a show case.
    Mr. Salmond rose—
    Mr. Spicer: No, I will not give way as I do not have time.
    The notional rent paid by the Department to the PSA, another branch of Government, will be high because it will reflect market rents, which are high in that part of London. The actual rent paid by the PSA, which negotiated favourable terms with the developers, is about half the current market costs in that part of London. That means that the offices will be an extremely good deal for the taxpayer, although the policy of charging opportunity costs to Departments will mean that the Department of Energy's vote incorporates the full market rent.
    Mr. Salmond rose—
    Mr. Spicer: I am sorry, but I am not giving way as I must give my hon. Friend the Member for Havant time to reply.
    I have been asked what our energy policy is, and I shall give the House the benefit of it. Before I do so, however, I believe that we are entitled to ask the Opposition what

    737
    are their energy policies. A policy that relies on conservation, the abolition of nuclear power and a cut in CO2 from coal all in one breath is likely to lead, at the very best, to the statutory wearing of thermal underwear. It certainly would not produce sufficient energy to satisfy our nation's needs.
    Our energy strategy is extremely clear and it comprises several simple principles. First, customers should be free to choose the energy they want and should do so from a multiplicity of energy sources—coal, nuclear, renewables, oil and gas. Secondly, energy must be supplied as cheaply and efficiently as possible. Thirdly, to that end, we should ensure that those who work in the industry are well motivated and, as far as possible, shareholders in the privatised companies. Fourthly, we want to make an important distinction between the regulatory bodies and the operators. The regulators of safety, the environment and competition should remain in the public sector. Decisions about investment, capital allocation and management should be put in private hands.
    I should have liked to consider the many other interesting and important questions that have been raised, but at this point I will give my hon. Friend the Member for Havant the opportunity to reply.
    7.22 pm
    Sir Ian Lloyd: With the leave of the House, I shall give a few broad conclusions to the debate.
    I appreciate the wide-ranging reassurances that my hon. Friend the Minister has given. He has opened up a number of areas for debate and it is a great pity that we do not have a couple of extra hours in which to explore those important questions.
    The hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) has been one of the most assiduous and persistant gladiators in our Committee for a considerable time. He said that a miner was a very special kind of man. I am sure that the whole House believes that to be true. My hope, as I expressed it once to Joe Gormley, is that the day will dawn, perhaps after Fleischmann and Pons have got it right, when human beings do not have to spend their working lives several thousand feet underground. Until then, however—that goal may be half a century away—the balance between miners' skills and the rewards that society offers must be reasonable, defensible and sustainable. Those words cannot have either a constant meaning or quantum.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Mr. Rost)
    738
    concentrated with great skill, as he usually does, on energy efficiency. He referred in an anticipatory sense to global warming. We are faced with the problem of global warming and the immense problems that that creates versus global stupidity, global self-interest and global nationalism. My hon. Friend also referred to green politics and said that they were here to stay. I believe that the major parties are more likely to accommodate the green criteria than the Greens are likely to develop coherent economic, defence, social, energy and health policies.
    The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) concentrated on support for the Department of Energy and I am glad to have his support on that point.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) disagreed in his usual courteous way with the Committee's view on the future of the Department of Energy. He said that only one person will decide that particular question and I entirely agree with him. We all know who that one person is. The decision is of such immense importance, however, that the nation is entitled to debate the merits of the issue whatever my right hon. Friend's final judgment may be. I have the greatest confidence in that judgment and I believe that it will be used at the right time in the right way.
    The hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) made a most interesting speech in which he said that the future size of the coal industry must be determined by demand. I believe that there is a great distinction between whether demand is the determinant of the future size of the coal industry or a determinant. Never have greater issues turned on the fundamental difference between those two little words, "the" and "a".
    The hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) also concentrated on the contraction of the coal industry. He rightly referred to the young industry, but he also talked about collieries with hundreds of years of reserves being closed. I have no doubt that that is so, but it always raises questions as to how deep one should mine and at what cost. What are the geological problems? Are the seams faulted? I do not believe that one can dismiss such questions simply because it is desirable for social and many other reasons to maintain particular collieries in particular places.
    It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. 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).

ESTIMATES 1989–90

Department of Transport
[Relevant document: First Report from the Transport Committee of Session 1988–89 on Air Traffic Control Safety (House of Commons Paper No. 198) and the Third Special Report: Government Observations on the First Report (House of Commons Paper No. 407)]
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a further sum, not exceeding £156,213,000, 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 Transport on assistance to shipping; civil aviation; central administration; certain licensing and testing schemes; research and development; road safety and certain other transport services; including civil defence, grants in aid, international subscriptions, and residual expenses associated with the privatisation of transport industries.—[Mr. Peter Bottomley]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I remind the House that under the resolution of the House on 27 June this estimate is to be considered so far as it relates to civil aviation services.
7.26 pm
Mr. David Marshall: Select Committee inquiries are often topical at the time when the Committee agrees to carry out an inquiry. However, when the final report is presented to the House the passage of events and of time have usually made the report of little public interest. That is not the case in relation to the report of the Transport Select Committee on air traffic control safety and runway capacity and the Government's response to it.
Our report is even more topical and of greater public interest now than the subject was some 17 months ago in February 1988 when we agreed to conduct our inquiry. We began our inquiry at a time of increasing public concern about the safety of the skies over the United Kingdom following a number of air misses. It quickly became a time of increasing public annoyance at airport congestion, delays to summer holidays and so on.
Now the situation has deteriorated to such an extent that almost all air travellers experience delays at some time, regardless of the month in which they travel. Those of us who travel weekly, and often wearily, are too well aware of the situation which, sadly, I fear will only get worse in the next five years before it starts to get better, if it ever does. I wrote most of my remarks for tonight's debate to pass my time during an air traffic control delay between Glasgow and London today.
Mr. Bill Walker: The hon. Gentleman is probably aware that Edinburgh was also affected by similar delays. The 12.40 British Midland flight finally took off at 3.40, three hours late.
Mr. Marshall: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has made it in time to participate in this debate.
I have already referred to air misses or near misses. Perhaps "air hits" or "near hits" would be more appropriate descriptions. I must stress, however, that Britain has an excellent record of air traffic control safety and that reflects great credit on everyone concerned. I also
740
stress that our inquiry revealed no concrete evidence to suggest that safety was definitely at risk. However, no one can guarantee 100 per cent. safety, 100 per cent. of the time. With ever-increasing demand, pressures on staff, shortages and general all-round pressures, there is always the possibility of an accident occurring. I certainly hope that one does not happen and, if our report goes some way towards preventing any such accident, it will have been well worth while.
This was the Committee's major inquiry during 1988. I am grateful to the Liaison Committee for recommending this estimate for debate today. I am also extremely grateful to the other 10 members, of all parties, of the Select Committee on Transport for the hard work which they put into the compilation of the report and also to the Committee staff for their efforts on our behalf. I should also like to thank our two specialist advisers, Mr. Bill Woodruff, the former group director and controller of National Air Traffic Services, and Mr. David Learmount, the transport editor of Flight International. Thanks are also due to the 11 groups of witnesses who gave oral evidence to the Committee and the 72 individuals and organisations who submitted written memoranda on the subject to the Committee. Those included my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). Our report is published in three volumes and contains 283 pages of evidence, 105 pages of appendices and 47 recommendations from the Committee which were agreed to by all parties represented on the Committee.
No one disputes that transport in Britain is in a mess. Congested airports, overcrowded trains and tubes, motorway tailbacks for miles and traffic jams on all main roads are commonplace. That is hardly surprising in view of almost 10 years of Government neglect in failing to provide adequate infrastructure or to take proper cognisance of the fact that transport policy involves public safety, along with a prolonged ability by almost everyone involved to underestimate the demand for all modes of travel. The present Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon), inherited this bed of nails.
I have the highest regard for the right hon. Gentleman who is the first Secretary of State for Transport in my 10 years in the House to take a genuine interest in transport. Perhaps these kind words will be the kiss of death for him, but I sincerely hope not. However, although he may care deeply about transport and has developed a good working relationship with the Select Committee, which its members appreciate, I cannot agree with or understand many of his decisions, or non-decisions, on transport policies.
The Secretary of State is still not making the right decisions about the nation's transportation needs, or making them fast enough, as our report will show. I had hoped that the Secretary of State would be present to participate in this debate. Unfortunately, he is not here. I understand that the Minister for Roads and Traffic will participate. However, while he will do his best, it will still be only second best, which is typical of the Government's attitude to transport.
Unfortunately, this debate is not about all aspects of transport, but only about the narrow although vital matter of air traffic control safety. However, there is enough evidence in the report to bear out what I have said. No doubt many hon. Members from both sides of the House will pick up many points from the report, as well as

741
making specific remarks about their own localities. I shall concentrate on a few main general points of interest as well as those of interest in Scotland.
In his press release of 15 June, announcing the Government's response to the report, the Secretary of State said that several of the Committee's recommendations corresponded to measures that had already been implemented during the past year. I should like to think that the Committee's deliberations had provided a useful forum for discussion of the issues and been of some use in guiding the Department and the Civil Aviation Authority in their response to the problems of air traffic control as they developed. That is perhaps one of the best and most important roles performed by Select Committees.
The Secretary of State went on to say that he and the Civil Aviation Authority broadly accepted the analysis and agreed with the majority of the Committee's recommendations. I welcome that statement and compliment the Secretary of State on his actions. However, the recommendations not accepted, or continued for further consideration, are those which, perhaps, give greatest cause for concern.
In some of his responses, the Secretary of State appears to accept the 1985 White Paper on airports policy as the be-all and end-all of aviation policy. But it is now four years or more out of date. Since then, the aviation world has moved ahead at a rate that no one forecast or anticipated. The right hon. Gentleman should immediately commission a review and an update of the 1985 White Paper. A 1990 White Paper would come to different conclusions.
Our report contains bad news and good news. The bad news relates to the history of air traffic control since 1975. The good news involves what is being done, and will be done, to deal with the issue, even if those actions are being taken five years or more too late. Sadly, the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, which produced a report on national air traffic services in 1983, noted that the CAA had sought a 15 per cent. cut in manpower between the years 1975 and 1977, and that this had been achieved, although over a longer period. After 1982, there was increased pressure from the Department and the CAA to find further ways of saving manpower and the then five-year corporate plan contained a target reduction in staff of 7·4 per cent.
It seemed to us that little or no account was taken over the years of the possible need for additional and increasing commitments or of the certainty of increasing traffic. In addition, account was not taken of the need for more air traffic control staff to deal with the planning of new systems and developments or of the need to allow for the considerable time that elapses between recruitment and the operational availability of air traffic controllers. The Civil Aviation Authority, under pressure from the Department, continued to seek ways of cutting staff levels and, it appeared to us, adopted recruiting targets on the basis of over-optimistic assumptions about what was practical.
The chairman of the CAA admitted that, with the benefit of hindsight,
"reductions were carried too far"
and that
"the whole thrust of the MMC investigation as late as 1983 was down that road."
The Institution of Professional Civil Servants noted that only three years ago, in 1986, the Civil Aviation Authority stated that it had a surplus of at least 135 air traffic
742
controllers and that early retirement had been proposed to reduce the surplus. Not surprisingly, that led the IPCS to express a lack of confidence in the CAA and its forecasting abilities. With such a history of lack of foresight and undue pressure for reductions in staff levels, it is hardly surprising that there is now a serious shortage of air traffic controllers in this country.
Happily, the Civil Aviation Authority has begun to put its house in order. I believe that the chairman of the CAA, Christopher Tugendhat, is determined to make great improvements. However, that will take time and it will be at least five or six years before everything is completed. I am grateful to him for sending me a copy of his news release of 5 July, detailing 24 points regarding his £600 million investment programme for the next 10 years.
Recommendations 10 and 26 in our report refer to the need for crucial decisions to be made about future runway capacity, especially in the south-east, and add that, despite everything, a second runway should be provided at Gatwick. I accept that there is unlikely to be a second runway at Gatwick, but there should be. The world's airlines estimate that demand for air travel will grow two and a half times between 1989 and 2005. It does not take a genius to realise that more than a fair share of that increase will take place in the south-east of England or to forecast that Heathrow, Gatwick, and even Stansted, will have reached saturation long before the year 2000.
If there is to be no second runway at Gatwick—and it is almost 1990—and as it takes, on average, 12 years from the date of decision to complete a new runway, there will be no new runway in the south-east of England to meet the demand by the year 2000 unless someone somewhere gets his finger out now. I have been told that the cost to airlines of a one-minute delay for a 757 aircraft is £150 and for a 747 aircraft it is £900. If those figures are correct, they are staggering and who knows what the annual cost could be, based on the delays that occur?
We are only too well aware of the problems of congestion and of the massive additional costs that it imposes on airlines, business and industry. It causes extreme annoyance, upset and even heartbreak to passengers. We really need national, European and international aviation policies that will meet the needs of passengers and of safety, not those of vested interests. Speaking of vested interests, the British Airports Authority has been criticised by some Conservative Members on the Committee for acting as a private monopoly and for being more concerned with selling franchises in airports and with increasing profits at the expense of airport users than with furthering the wider interests of British aviation. Perhaps a return to the public sector or the breaking up of its monopoly might find all-party agreement.
Mr. Michael Colvin: Surely one of the reasons why the British Airports Authority has successfully branched out into spheres of activity other than providing services for air travellers is that it operates on a price control of RPI minus 1 per cent. Perhaps we should re-examine that formula; if we give the authority more scope for making more money out of providing the services that it should provide, on which it lost £15 million last year, while making a total profit of £198 million overall it might switch its attention to providing the sort of services that we want it to provide.
Mr. Marshall: The profits just announced by the BAA seem to show general agreement with the points I have made about it. It certainly operates different charging policies at different airports. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will have a chance to say something in support of the BAA later on.
An example of BAA's possible inadequacy relates to new runways and traffic forecasts. Its forecast for growth in traffic is based on an annual average growth rate of 4·5 per cent. for passengers and 2 per cent. for air transport movements. The figures are necessarily speculative, but the Civil Aviation Authority puts the annual growth rate for air transport movements at 2·5 per cent. Although there would appear to be little difference between the two bodies' estimates, the CAA figures clearly show the need for a new runway at the turn of the century. The BAA places undue reliance on the expectation that passengers will travel on larger aircraft. That is the point that it put to us, but the figures do not bear it out.
Over the past 10 years the average number of passengers per aircraft at Heathrow has increased by only 11 per cent., whereas passenger growth in the same period has been 34 per cent. The BAA appears to think that London's existing airports will be able to cope until after the turn of the century, but it is alone in that view, and alone in assuming that a new runway can be conceived, planned and built in less than 10 years.
We heard none of the necessary urgency from Sir Norman Payne or his officials when they appeared before us. I find it hard to understand their attitude unless it is entirely influenced by their desire to develop Stansted more quickly than originally envisaged.
The Secretary of State should go all out to encourage much greater use of regional airports such as Birmingham and Glasgow for international and intercontinental flights. That would help to reduce some of the pressure on the south-east, as recommendation 23 of the report suggests——
Mr. George Foulkes: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Marshall: I shall give way in a moment; I think that my hon. Friend is prejudging what I am about to say.
The decision not to grant gateway status to Glasgow airport and allow transatlantic and intercontinental flights from Abbotsinch is disgraceful. Almost everyone in Scotland wants gateway status for Glasgow and even, perhaps, for Edinburgh. I shall mention only the CBI, the Glasgow chamber of commerce, Glasgow district council——
Mr. Foulkes rose——
Mr. Marshall: I shall give way in a minute. Many more jobs could be created if Glasgow were given gateway status. A number of British, European and American airlines would operate new services and Glasgow would become a minihub providing better services to more destinations for the people of Scotland. I hope that that would also end the scandalous surcharges that holiday companies extort from tourists who have to travel to the south and go on holiday.
Mr. Foulkes: My hon. Friend is talking a load of rubbish. First, he mixed up transatlantic flights and European holiday flights. No one denies that Glasgow airport should have more direct flights to Europe and
744
more European holiday flights, but it should not take away the transatlantic flights which sustain Prestwick airport. That would be the death knell of Prestwick, and Glasgow does not have the runway capacity or terminal and ground facilities to deal with such traffic.
My hon. Friend is wrong to say that opinion in Scotland supports Glasgow airport's bid for transatlantic status. The Scottish Trades Union Congress and the Scottish council of the Labour party, with which my hon. Friend is not unconnected, have made it clear, as have many other bodies, including district councils, Strathclyde regional council and others, that they want Prestwick to remain as Scotland's transatlantic gateway, prospering in association with Glasgow airport in a joint role. I hope that my hon. Friend recognises that and will think again.
Mr. Marshall: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's speech, but he has not got it right. He has allowed his blinkers to conceal the right path from him. Apart from Ayrshire Members of all parties and the Secretary of State for Scotland, very few people in Scotland believe that Glasgow, and perhaps even Edinburgh, should not have gateway status.
Mr. Foulkes: I do not know whether my hon. Friend realises that Sir Norman Payne convened a meeting which 25 Scottish Members of all four parties representing Scotland attended. No one spoke against Prestwick having sole transatlantic status; all speeches were in favour. That proves my hon. Friend entirely wrong.
Mr. Marshall: I, in turn, draw my hon. Friend's attention to the poll of all 72 Scottish Members carried out recently by the Daily Record. It gave the opposite point of view, and it was the first time Members had been asked to state whether they were in favour of gateway status for Glasgow airport. Our hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Lambie) attended the meeting with the BAA a fortnight ago, when we were told that the new generation of aircraft would have no difficulty flying from Glasgow to the west coast of the United States. It is not true that Glasgow is unsuitable for transatlantic flights: it is perfectly suitable.
Glasgow will never be a hub to rival Heathrow, Gatwick or even Manchester, but if it does not get gateway status Manchester will become Scotland's gateway airport. All the additional expense of the road and rail links mooted for Prestwick, which are admirable for the infrastructure for the west of Scotland, will not generate enough additional passengers ever to make Prestwick a hub. To give Glasgow gateway status would not mean the death of Prestwick, as my hon. Friend suggests. Prestwick is an excellent airport with excellent facilities and staff and it will always have a future. About 4,500 jobs are located there—with British Aerospace, the Ministry of Defence and Caledonian Air Motive, and new developments are announced every week. About 250 people are employed—
Mr. Foulkes: Is my hon. Friend not aware that four major announcements have been made—one by the CAA, one by British Aerospace, a third by Caledonian Air Motive and the last by TNT (UK) Ltd? All four decisions follow the wise decision by the Secretary of State for Transport—I never thought I would say that—to maintain Prestwick's sole transatlantic status. The decisions follow

745
that decision and depend on it to a large extent. If the Secretary of State had taken my hon. Friend's advice, these welcome decisions might not have been taken.
Mr. Marshall: I am touched by the unholy alliance between my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), the Secretary of State for Defence, the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Secretary of State for Transport. We are considering what is in the best interests of Scotland's aviation future, and that has to be gateway status for Glasgow. I hope that the Secretary of State for Transport will reconsider his decision and in the fullness of time will change his mind. At the end of the day it is Glasgow's future that matters and the decision is a bad one for Scotland's future in transport.
On another Scottish issue, the Civil Aviation Authority has an initiative to pinpoint flight delays and airline punctuality at selected British airports and publish the figures monthly. Six airports—Birmingham, Gatwick, Heathrow, Luton, Manchester and Stansted—have been chosen, but not a single Scottish airport is on the list. Why is that, bearing in mind that Anglo-Scottish shuttle flights are arguably the busiest domestic services in the United Kingdom? It is still not too late to include Scotland in this initiative and the Secretary of State or the chairman of the CAA should do so as soon as possible.
I am pleased to see that in the response to recommendation (xxxii) National Air Traffic Services is studying the feasibility of a new east coast airway between Newcastle and Clacton. That is urgently needed to relieve some of the pressure on the overcrowded Daventry airway. I should like to see a decrease in the amount of air space reserved exclusively for military use. I would welcome an early announcement on recommendation (xxxviii). That recommendation states that a location for the new London air traffic control centre should be decided upon "without further delay" if it is to be operational by 1996. That is crucial to the whole strategy for the future. When and where is it to be built? Perhaps the Minister will give us some information about that.
I shall now turn to a major recommendation, at least in the areas of organisation and administration. It is the recommendation that the Government examine the possibility of splitting the CAA into two separate self-standing organisations. The CAA would retain all its regulatory functions while NATS would be established as a separate public sector body. I thought that the Department would reject that recommendation out of hand. The House can imagine my surprise at reading the Government's response which states:
"This is an important recommendation which requires thorough consideration. The Government will respond in due course."
Unfortunately, I do not think that that shows a willingness to accept our recommendation. I suspect that it is a hint that the Government have the CAA on their list of targets for privatisation. Perhaps the Minister could clarify the matter.
On Eurocontrol the Government's response to recommendation (xxxi) is encouraging. I hope that they and the CAA will pursue the matter with the utmost vigour as they say they will. A large part of the problem is in Europe which is comparable in size and population with the United States of America where the Federal Aviation Authority standardises equipment and procedures for the whole of the United States. We need and must eventually
746
achieve a similar set-up in Europe. We need a central European system of air traffic control covering all 22 European countries and not just the EC countries. Eurocontrol must become a reality whether one or two of our leaders like it or not.
If our Select Committee inquiry and report have gone even a little way towards making the skies above our country a bit safer, they will have been well worth while.
7.52 pm
Mr. Michael Colvin: I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) and his Committee on their most excellent first report on air traffic control safety. The Committee interviewed an impressive list of experts in the field and the numerous memoranda submitted to the Committee make interesting reading.
We address this subject at a time when a great deal is happening in air transport. We are seeing rapid technological and commercial change. The legal and institutional frameworks are being transformed and the European Community is in the process of getting a single European market in air transport as in other sectors. We have recently had the first measure of liberalisation in Europe which enables small aircraft to fly between regional airports. Another measure is due in 1990. If the internal market in air transport is to be achieved by the target date of 1 January 1993 there must be substantial advance in the next stage of liberalisation that we will see in June 1990. It is within the context of those changes that we are addressing the recommendations of the Committee.
I suggest that the measures that we want adopted in the next stage of liberalisation should include, first, the freedom for airlines to set their own fares, subject only to safeguards against anti-competitive practices. Secondly, we need the opening of all routes between member states and, thirdly, the removal of capacity constraints on services between member states. Fourthly, existing limits on multiple designation should be removed and, fifthly, we need further liberalisation of passenger services. Sixthly, we need the full liberalisation of all cargo services. Seventhly, we want to see endorsed the effectiveness of competition rules by a review of block exemption regulations. Lastly, we must have equality of opportunity between member states, and that must be safeguarded by uniform criteria throughout the Community for route licensing and effective control of state aid to airlines.
Within a liberalised Europe we must have a level playing field, and at the moment too many of our partners in Europe profess to think towards liberalisation while practising state control and assistance against countries such as the United Kingdom where domestic liberalisation has already occurred to a large extent and where the industry is based on free enterprise operating in a free market.
I should like to highlight some of the changes which are currently seen in civil aviation and which are important to bear in mind when considering these recommendations. First, there is strong pressure on airlines, and on those companies and organisations that provide services for airlines, to increase efficiency and to lower costs. We are beginning to see new route planning, operational methods and market domination through the hubs. We are also beginning to see the concentration of market power in the hands of a few very large carriers. That is happening in the

747
United States of America where the six biggest carriers operate more than 50 per cent. of the services. That could happen in Europe through mergers and acquisitions, some of which cross frontiers. We have seen the recent British Airways arrangements with Sabena and perhaps the Select Committee on Transport would like to address that issue next.
We are beginning to see increasing control of feeder operations by the major carriers and increased air space and airport congestion and additional problems about the availability of slots at airports. The circumstances in which the Select Committee looks at those difficulties are trying and the problems are difficult to resolve.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I am trying hard to follow the hon. Gentleman's argument. Does he agree that the matters that he has listed are the result of deregulation, especially in America? Is that not what capitalism is about? What does he object to if on the one hand he says he wants further liberalisation while on the other hand he says that if this happens the largest and strongest will take the best of the market? I am not quite clear about that.
Mr. Colvin: It is difficult to explain, but there is a fundamental difference between liberalisation and total deregulation. In the United States the industry was totally deregulated and that created a free-for-all. One of the experts on the subject is Mr. Michael Levine who is well known to those with an interest in civil aviation. He dreamed up the whole concept of deregulation in the United States and Mr. Alfred Kahn administered it on behalf of President Carter when he was elected. It has not worked out as anticipated by the gurus who dreamed it up. If we had asked them, way back, to use their crystal ball, they would never have envisaged that the industry in the United States would have its present structure.
We want to learn from the American mistakes. I do not believe that Europe should go for a total free-for-all. That is why I carefully used the word "liberalisation" rather than total deregulation. The United Kingdom is in a much stronger position, because of the strength of its domestic carriers, to capitalise on the liberalisation that we hope will take place in Europe. Plenty of our entrepreneurs are beginning to jump the hurdles that are likely to be placed in their way in Europe. Air Europe is a very good example. Majority shareholdings are being taken in companies that are being set up in member countries. The national frontiers that we hope will come down in 1992 are already being jumped by some airliners from a legal point of view. That is thoroughly healthy.
The other problem is the rapid expansion of the industry. The number of passengers using British airports by the year 2005, which is only 15 years away, is expected to double to 123 million. Most of those passengers will use airports in the south-east.
The Committee has carried out its inquiry at a time when there is growing anger over delays at airports and occasional anxiety over safety. However, I stress what the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Shettleston, has just said: travelling by air is still the safest way of travelling and that it is getting safer every year. I have just been told that delays at Heathrow are now up to two hours and that pilots and air traffic control officers are
748
beginning to have rows. The relations between air traffic control officers and the pilots flying the aircraft are normally extremely good, but now the tension is mounting. That bodes ill for safety. When people become edgy and irritable, the safety factor has to be watched extremely carefully.
I hope that the Minister will tell us whether he thinks that the national air traffic control system is coping with the problem at Heathrow. Where is the leadership and the good line management that we need? What about the working practices of air traffic control officers? It is a man management problem at Heathrow as much as any other. I believe that it must be resolved.
Mr. Keith Mans: Does my hon. Friend agree that in many cases the delays are the result of the universal application of flow control, which has detracted from air safety, although the whole purpose of introducing flow control was to increase safety?
Mr. Colvin: I agree. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) will expand on that point later in the debate, if he manages to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I am delighted that in its recommendations the Committee stressed the safety factor. I am also pleased that the Committee dealt first with people when addressing the problem of air traffic control. Air traffic control is an extremely difficult task. People of the highest calibre are required. Those of us who have seen air traffic controllers at work appreciate the stress under which they are put. They must be fully trained, rewarded properly for the task that they do and encouraged to do better. I am glad that the Civil Aviation Authority is to recruit an additional 140 officers to help to put right some of their past mistakes. Pay, promotion prospects and working conditions are all factors that are of the greatest importance if we are to encourage the right sort of people into air traffic control. I am very glad that retired air traffic controllers have been recruited to train the new ones. That is a move in the right direction.
Air traffic controllers have to shoulder terrific responsibilities. If we put in place the right pay structure, working structure and conditions of employment to attract the right people there ought then to be a no strike agreement. I know it will be pointed out that the only country that has a no strike agreement with air traffic controllers is Greece, yet that is the one country where the air traffic controllers are constantly on strike, so a no strike agreement is said to be no good. The fact is that they do not go on strike; they just report sick. The right people who will become responsible air traffic controllers have to be the sort of people who serve in the armed forces and the police. They do not expect to have to go on strike. That is why the pay and working conditions of air traffic controllers must be right.
I am very pleased that the Committee recommended that there should be a second runway at Gatwick. I point out, however, that a second runway at Gatwick already exists, although for most of the time it is used as a taxiway. It would be possible for the British Airports Authority to make a new taxiway at Gatwick. The authority already owns sufficient land to make room for it. The planning consent at Gatwick includes a section 52 agreement under which no second runway should be built for another 40 years or so. However, the runway is already there. All that

749
is necessary is a lengthening of that runway. Then it could be used for one of the purposes for which it was originally intended. There would still be room elsewhere at the airport to taxi the aircraft. The two runways could be used together—one for take-offs and the other for landings without aircraft interfering with one another. It is high time that those hon. Members with constituencies around Gatwick became a little less Luddite in their attitude to a very important asset.
I am pleased about the Committee's recommendation concerning military airports. That recommendation is particularly important for business aviation. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) is in the Chamber. One possibility is that business aviation that at present uses Heathrow should use Northolt. That could work quite well. The runway would need to be realigned, but I am told by executive and business travellers that it would be easy for Northolt passengers to interline with scheduled flights at Heathrow.
I am pleased about the recommendation concerning Bournemouth and Southampton airports, both of which are close to my constituency. A deal between the two airports—for Bournemouth to handle all charter traffic and for Southampton to handle all the scheduled traffic—would mean that those two regional airports could carve up the business between them instead of competing head on and doing each other commercial damage.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: As I am sure that there are no Luddites in the Bournemouth and Southampton areas, could the hon. Gentleman explain what he expects Luddites such as the Foreign Secretary to do in relation to Gatwick? This is a serious problem. What is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that Members of Parliament should do in relation to Gatwick?
Mr. Colvin: Legislation would be needed for a second runway at Gatwick if a completely new runway had to he built. That is why I say that powerful forces within Government are working against that. I take the view that some of them ought to he a little more public spirited. That is what I mean by being Luddite.
As to the key to a better air traffic control system in Europe, I believe that the United Kingdom joined Eurocontrol in 1973. I remember being lobbied as far back as 1975 by air traffic control officers who wanted the United Kingdom to be a full member, not just an associate member, of Eurocontrol. At that time most of the lobby was concerned about pay and working conditions and had very little to do with air traffic control. Now the circumstances have completely changed and there is no doubt that all the people who clamour for a pan-European air traffic control system must have in mind Eurocontrol as the basis for that system.
In May 1988 the European Parliament Transport Committee passed a resolution that Eurocontrol be expanded. It recognised the need for an integrated system of air traffic control in western European air space. It felt that the European Parliament had taken the view that the responsibility for this should be conferred on an enlarged Eurocontrol as that would maximise air transport safety, achieve better utilisation of air space and result in speedier handling of traffic, the reduction of air fares, greater passenger convenience, fewer diversions, sounder coordination of military and civil air transport and a host of
750
other things. A year ago, when the European Parliament debated this important issue, it reached precisely the same conclusions as the Select Committee.
I am glad that the Select Committee recommended that the LATCC II site should go ahead with all possible haste. When my hon. Friend the Minister replies to the debate, I should like to know where the LATCC II site is. In their response to the Committee the Government said that the Department of Transport was working on an initial project investment appraisal, yet I do not believe that a planning application for any site has been submitted.
The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Peter Bottomley): I understand that a shortlist is being considered, and one site is expected to be selected shortly.
Mr. Colvin: That is the prepared answer, for what it is worth.
We have heard some mention of the £600 million that the Civil Aviation Authority has already committed to air traffic control. I am glad to hear that the chairman of the CAA, Christopher Tugendhat, is well on the way to spending that £600 million on his investment programme and other matters. Last year he spent £50 million on a new chain of advanced en route radars, and £10 million on re-equipment at Heathrow. That is all good stuff, but it is chicken feed compared with the £6 billion that the Government have committed to the road system, no doubt thanks to the machinations of the Minister for Roads and Traffic who will reply to the debate. Why can he not do as well for civil aviation? Perhaps the Prime Minister should make him aviation Minister and civil aviation would get more funding. At the moment civil aviation is treated as a poor relation in transport terms. The railways are getting almost as much money as the road system, yet civil aviation has to make do with a paltry £600 million.
Mr. Peter Snape: I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he really should not talk such nonsense. We keep repeating, in the hope that some Conservative Members will absorb it, that the capital investment in British Rail is self-generated. Essential and necessary services, some of which no doubt run through the hon. Gentleman's constituency, receive less than £500 million a year.
Mr. Colvin: We are digressing from air traffic control, but it is a fact that the Government are investing 10 times more in the road system than in air transport.
If a lot more has to be spent, where will the money come from? I have mentioned the taxpayer, via the Department of Transport. Surely if we accelerate the programme of investment and spend more money within Europe, Europe itself could be a source of funding. European money is available now for work on infrastructure. If this is not infrastructure, I do not know what is.
There is also the traveller. Ultimately, following liberalisation, fares within Europe should come down. If that happens, there should be some scope for including further costs on tickets to repay some of the investment in air traffic control. En route charges to airlines could go up to pay for some of the improvements. At present the BAA is tied to the RPI minus 1 per cent. formula. If that were re-examined, there might be some scope for encouraging the BAA to spend more on its investment on airline services including airport ATC rather than on other commercial activities.

751
The importance of good communications for people and goods was recognised by the Romans 2,000 years ago. They gave extremely high priority to their network of roads. Their roads ran straight and true, sometimes a lot straighter than European air routes today which, because of national airspace boundaries and zones closed for military use, often include zigzags instead of straight lines. Surely European Governments have a responsibility to straighten their routes and integrate their services. Only by burying national chauvinism and sharing our sovereignty will we be able to provide the air traffic control services that the travelling public needs and wants.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I remind the House that this is a short debate and many hon. Members wish to speak.
8.16 pm
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: The Romans had many useful forms of traffic planning. They had compulsory purchase which they enforced with the legions, they had centralised planning and they controlled the means by which it was applied, and they made absolutely sure that it fulfilled the purposes for which it was designed—to get their armies from one point of the empire to another as quickly as possible. That is the precise opposite of the Government's attitude to airport planning and air traffic safety.
The Transport Select Committee took a great deal of interesting and worrying evidence from many people who have to deal with the day-to-day chaos in air traffic control. The points they raised were echoed, in careful but clear terms, in the Select Committee report. The Select Committee asked for measures that are needed urgently to deal with a situation that is rapidly becoming intolerable.
Air traffic planning now needs radical and urgent responses. It cannot be dealt with by a minor touch on the tiller or an arrangement with one of the many split parts of Government planning that seem to be all we are being offered. It is important to remind the House of what the Select Committee report said about safety:
"We recommend that the Government provide, without delay, whatever support and financial assistance is needed. The crisis of airspace capacity is unlikely fully to be solved by the present patching-up process and we strongly recommend that, whatever short-term improvements may take place, the provision of LATCC II should proceed with all speed".
The Select Committee then asked for extra money and made it clear that only the Government could take those important and clear decisions.
What was the Government's response? It was:
"Investment in air traffic control services is financed … by airspace users through the charging system without Government subsidy. This ensures that resources are deployed efficiently. The Government will authorise borrowing … to modernise and expand the facilities required to provide air traffic services, provided this investment shows the prospect of an adequate economic return."
The Government are prepared to hand over responsibility for this vital form of transport to anyone who can justify the rate of return. It does not matter whether that calculation includes passengers or whether it shows the cost to British industry of constant delays. The Government believe that the only defining and deciding factor must be the market place, which has proved manifestly inept and incompetent. The Government are in the most unholy mess on traffic control. The decisions that
752
must be taken tend to boil down—the industry loves using initials—to the three Ps, people, planes and planning, none of which the Department of Transport is providing.
The Select Committee was asked about leadership. There will continue to be insufficient male and female air traffic controllers if they are not provided with proper pay and support services. Time after time we were told that they were working under such stress that they were finding it increasingly difficult to maintain existing services. Any hon. Member who uses internal services or travels abroad from Britain knows that there are constant problems with slots and constant delays, and that the pressure being put on air traffic controllers is rapidly becoming intolerable for them and, ultimately, for the travelling public because of sheer stress.
The reality is that we are not coping with today's problems, but tomorrow they will be infinitely worse. The Government's planning of air traffic control seems to be the same as their planning of traffic on the Embankment. When it ceases to move altogether, they will begin to take a mild interest, but until that happens their sole solution will be to say, "We know that you cannot move on the motorways, so we shall simply make them wider", which will make it more difficult for people to get anywhere.
The problem is becoming increasingly worrying for people in the industry. We know that there is no overall airport planning. The Committee agreed that it is essential that another runway at Gatwick is built, yet the Government show no understanding of that and have not said how they will solve problems in the south-east. The Government appear to assume that runways cannot be built in the south-east, which is manifestly a policy of despair and abandon.
Some of the Government's responses to the Committee's recommendations, such as on Eurocontrol and flow control, were smug to the point of astonishment. Anyone who has watched the flow system in operation knows that at best it is simply a means of slowing down and managing existing slots. The system is not a solution to the problem; it simply seeks to manage an intolerable situation.
As the Committee noted, Eurocontrol has had a chequered history. In non-parliamentary language, that means that it is insufficiently controlled, that it does not have political decision-making powers behind it, that it does not have enough trained staff, that it does not have the right equipment and that it is not doing an efficient job. I am complaining not only about Maastricht but also about the many other elements that make up Eurocontrol.
Mr. Mans: Will the hon. Lady explain what she thinks Eurocontrol should do? Why does she think that its equipment is inadequate? It is much better than the equipment available at LATCC.
Mrs. Dunwoody: Eurocontrol has never pretended that it is capable of handling all the traffic that will be controlled by the Eurocontrol unit. It is capable of doing a small job in conjunction with existing air traffic controllers, which it has always done in a slightly uneven fashion. The Government say that they will put much pressure on the unit to ensure that it works better in the future. Is there any reason why the Government have not pressed for Eurocontrol to be built in Britain, given the amount of money that will be needed to construct a new air traffic control centre here? I cannot understand why it

753
should be built anywhere else, but we have not been given a response about the inadequacy of Eurocontrol to deal with the current problem.
When the Department of Transport was asked about the difficulty of dividing traffic in the south-east and sorting out the problems of domestic flights compared with international flights and charter traffic, it said that it was awaiting
"the CAA's advice on the distribution of air traffic between the London area airports"
and that it noted the Committee's view. That is not an acceptable answer. There is not time to wait for a response that says, "If we are lucky, by the time the system has ceased to operate we should have staggered as far as 2005. By then we might need a new runway in the London area, so it might be a good idea to consider the CAA's formal advice before reaching decisions." Those decisions should have been taken a long time ago, but they were not and now the Government are paying for the pressure that they put on air traffic controllers, for the fact that they were not prepared radically to change their terms and conditions and, above all, for the fact that they were not prepared to find some form of retraining. We must have more air traffic controllers, and their equipment must be much more modern. It is no good saying that in 10 years' time we should have a system up and running. The planes stacking up in our airways today, tomorrow and next week will still be there in 10 years' time, but there will be many more of them.
We should like better use to be made of regional airports, but no one pretends for a moment that they will deal with the increasing problems of an air traffic control system that has little room to expand. Closer co-operation between the RAF and civilian controllers might give a little flexibility to the system.
The Government have created a monster, but they do not know what to do with it. Indeed, they are fleeing about two or three years behind the monster, which is galloping into the distance. Soon passengers will at least begin to sense that there is a safety problem. They will not sense it when they are sitting in planes and becoming more and more irritated by the time that it takes to find a take-off slot, but increasingly they will perceive the Government's refusal to train, to pay for that training, to expand planning for airports, to build a new runway and to do something radical about expanding services from the south-east, which will contribute to a dangerous and explosive situation. It may not happen today or next week, but happen it will.
The public will not accept the Government saying, "Thank you for producing a nice report, which we enjoyed reading. We have taken into account evidence from ATCs, the BAA and the CAA. With any luck, they might sort out the problem between them while they are making money." The Government know that that will not do. It is slightly worrying that their attitude is demonstrated by an eloquent, responsible, charming Under-Secretary of State —[Interruption.]—a man who is normally eloquent—but not the man who has responsibility for taking the decisions. The Secretary of State should be here, not least as a matter of courtesy to the Select Committee on Transport, which understands the urgency of this problem.
8.30 pm
Mr. Robert McCrindle: It is timely that we should hold this debate in early July, just as we begin to reach the peak period for air traffic delays. It has always seemed to me, as we have been confronted by news of these delays over the past few years, that they have started to occur partly because of the inadequate air traffic control system—in no way do I equate that with an unsafe air traffic control system—and partly because of insufficient runway capacity.
The Civil Aviation Authority seems belatedly to have recognised the need for more air traffic controllers. We are told that recruitment is increasing, which, of course, is satisfactory. I am bound to remind the House, however, that in 1986 the same Civil Aviation Authority was telling us that there was a surplus of air traffic controllers. I cannot escape the conclusion that there have been elements of poor planning, poor management and poor forecasting which we must lay at the door of the CAA. To be fair, it is probable that inadequate funds have been made available for investment in that aspect of air traffic control. Although I criticise the CAA for its defects, I have a feeling that Government policy towards investment in this vital sphere has not always been what it could be.
There is a need swiftly to minimise the delays that upset our constituents. How realistic is it to expect that that is likely to happen? In my opinion, it is not realistic, although, I am pleased to say, air traffic should improve progressively as more air traffic controllers are taken on stream, more investment in sophisticated equipment becomes available and more liaison with the air traffic control system of Europe becomes the order of the day. I was particularly pleased to note a news item last week that we are—to be fair, on the British Government's initiative—moving more sharply in that direction than before.
I welcome the CAA's decision to publish the punctuality tables. I am informed that that is certainly not the view held by many airlines, whether scheduled services or charter airlines. The publication of the punctuality statistics will give publicity to a situation that has been kept under wraps. If it does what I predict it will do, which is to make the public aware of those airlines that are habitually unpunctual and that there is unpunctuality across the board, whether among charter airlines or scheduled airlines, I hope that pressure will be brought to bear by the public and the airlines on the CAA if it can be proved that a sizeable number of the delays are caused by inadequacies in the air traffic control system. This may mean that the whole thing moves in a circular direction and that the CAA, having decided to publish these punctuality tables for its good reasons, winds up discovering that the resulting criticism comes back to it, leading to pressure to improve its air traffic control facilities more swiftly.
Mr. Mans: Does my hon. Friend agree that the reason for the delays should be published in the punctuality tables? If the CAA, through the air traffic control network, is responsible for the delays, that information should be in the initial tables, so there is no need for this rather long route back to the cause of the problem.
Mr. McCrindle: I would have no objection if the CAA decided that that was a reasonable addition to the publication of the punctuality tables. Unlike the airlines,

755
which seem to be afraid of the publication of those tables, I welcome them as a means of bringing additional pressure to bear in improving the air traffic control system.
The charter airlines must look not just at bringing more pressure to bear to improve the air traffic control system but at their operational patterns. I wonder whether it is realistic to require a swift, three-journey turnaround each day before they can run an economic system. It has long seemed to me that if one slot is missed, progressive delays are almost inevitable throughout the remainder of the day.
I have two points that I should like to put before the House, and perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister might care to comment. First, should not the CAA authorise considerably less capacity than it has been prone to authorise until now? I recognise that this will not be a popular course to follow when enormous pressures are building up all the time for more and more opportunities to fly.
Secondly, the charter airlines may well be advised to reassess the basis of their operations. It has seemed to me over the past few years that, if it is the only way to run economically, we must start looking at the cost of the package tour. That proposal will not be welcomed by consumer groups or the public in general, but I remind the House that we are already on the way towards a Euro-directive that will provide for something close to no-fault liablility in relation to the hotel content of a package tour. The time may well have arrived to face a considerable increase in cost and opposition from consumer bodies because, arguably, the cost of package tours in the past has been too low. These are matters to which the charter airlines and tour operators must progressively turn their attention.
I am particularly worried by one symptom of the pressure on our aviation system. Last week, there were two occasions at Heathrow airport when four aircraft were involved in what I will call wing-clipping incidents. Happily, there were no casualties and no threat to passengers on board and there was only, according to reports, relatively minor damage to the aircraft, yet those incidents are symptomatic of the pressure on the system, caused to a large extent by the limited number of slots and the dash to get to and from the runways. That is another reason for saying that the pressure on the system is such that we should consider whether, in safety—clearly all of us would wish to promote safety—we can continue with the present slot allocation policy.
That leads me to a brief consideration of runways. Unlike British Airways and BAA plc, I believe that there must be an early decision on future runway capacity in the London area. Most commentators, including the CAA, believe that the case has been made for an additional runway at an airport south of the river. That led the Transport Select Committee to conclude that Gatwick would be the appropriate place, but if that should not happen, we must look at an amalgam of military airports south of the river or in some other way recognise that because pressure on the existing runway capacity is considerable—it will not lessen as we approach the 21st century—clear decisions must be taken soon.
Mr. Terence L. Higgins: Can my hon. Friend tell us where in the report we would find the evidence that led the Select Committee to conclude that there should be a second runway at Gatwick?
Mr. McCrindle: As my right hon. Friend knows, the evidence is conflicting. There is no doubt that a case can be made for taking no decision on a second runway in the London area while continuing to emphasise the need for additional terminal capacity.
However, an interim statement was issued by the Civil Aviation Authority in January or February this year, in which it pointed fairly conclusively to its belief that by the time we reached the beginning of the next century the increase in the number of passengers wishing to use London airport would be such that, although terminal capacity was important, the provision of additional runway capacity would be unavoidable. If that is correct and one accepts the CAA's approach—although I must be fair and say that it was an interim report and we are expecting the final report soon—it is difficult to escape the conclusion that we should begin to take decisions now if we are to have an adequate runway system to run alongside the additional terminals that are, understandably, preferred by British Airways and by the British Airports Authority.
I remind the House that the Air Transport Users Committee, which is probably the closest we have to a consumer body in this area, has recently said:
"Flow management is as much a product of inadequate capacity as the inability of ATC to handle the requisite number of movements. If current demands for additional runway capacity in the London area are met, then it will provide some relief to the constant pressure on AT controllers of having to operate 3 of the 4 existing runways constantly at full capacity."
Another runway would provide more options in the event of emergencies and reduce the need to bunch aircraft so closely together, which was the point I made in relation to the incidents last week at Heathrow airport.
BAA plc or, as my hon. Friend the Minister called it, the British Airports Authority, is much maligned. There are many reasons for people making representations against it, and I must take my fair share of the responsibility, having criticised it frequently in the past. If profit maximisation from the London area airports is clouding BAA's judgment about additional runway capacity, that should be taken into account in any decision that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has to announce in relation to additional runway capacity. That is why the BAA would prefer terminal 5 to proceed and I must make it clear that I have no particular objection to that. However, it would not be correct to allow it to proceed without, at the same time, paying suitable attention to the need for additional runway capacity.
It would be fair to say that the BAA is often accused of ignoring the interests of its customers, whether those customers are airlines or people who are waiting to fly from airports. I take the view that, at the least, the BAA's attitude has been somewhat arrogant in the recent past and that that arrogance perhaps stems from BAA's near monopoly of airports in the London area.
I want to make a proposition in the hope that my hon. Friend the Minister may comment on it. When we privatised British Telecom as a near monopoly, we created Oftel. When we privatised British Gas as a near monopoly, we created Ofgas. I cannot see for the life of me, in

757
retrospect, why we overlooked the opportunity to create a similar body so that the clients of the BAA, be they airlines or especially individual passengers, had a specific body to which they were able to complain as dissatisfied customers of British Gas and British Telecom are able to do.
There is no easy solution to the problem of air traffic control. I believe that we shall be near the middle of the 1990s before we have a system which is adequately staffed and which has sufficiently updated computerised equipment. That, in itself, is perhaps a criticism of past decisions or lack of decisions. I warmly commend the idea of having a body to which dissatisfied customers of airports could apply. That does not happen under the present set-up of the British Airports Authority.
8.44 pm
Mr. David Lambie: I want to deal with two specific points. But first I want to congratulate the Select Committee on Transport and its Chairman on the report and the Chairman's speech tonight.
I agree with roughly 95 per cent. of the report's recommendations, but I disagree violently with the remainder. My hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) has already raised the point in an intervention in the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) about the recommendation of the Select Committee to designate Glasgow airport as the gateway for Scotland and to replace Prestwick airport in its present position.
Not only from debates in the House but from your knowledge of Scotland you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the one thing the Scots like is fighting among themselves. No good wedding or funeral in Scotland fails to end up in a fight. Whenever families get together and have all had a good drink, we settle our problems and fight among ourselves. Here tonight the Chairman of the Select Committee on Transport is putting forward a recommendation which he knows is controversial. He has already been attacked by two of his hon. Friends.
I appeal to the Government to stick to their policy because it is correct. The Scottish lowland airports policy is correct. Retaining Prestwick as the international gateway is correct and leaving the internal European routes and tourist routes to Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen is correct. I ask the Minister to sustain that policy tonight.
Mr. Snape: As a mere Englishman, I hesitate to attend this wedding, funeral or other excuse for a punch up. However, does my hon. Friend think that Scottish transatlantic passengers would prefer to fly from Glasgow or Prestwick?
Mr. Lambie: I shall deal with that in the remainder of my speech because it is important.
I have been here long enough to know the history of my hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston and to know the policies he has supported in the past. He has now been elevated to the position of Chairman of the Select Committee on Transport and he is becoming contaminated by mixing with too many English Members. When he was a member of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, which carried out an inquiry into the Scottish lowland airports policy, nearly 100 per cent. of its
758
recommendations were accepted by the Government and the Committee came to a unanimous decision. I do not know why my hon. Friend has now changed his mind.
Mr. David Marshall: The Chairman of the Select Committee at that time was my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Lambie) and it would not be dishonest to say that a fair bit of arm twisting went on. In addition, the situation has changed greatly since then. That recommendation was that Prestwick became a free port and a free trade zone. That was a novel suggestion which was worth trying, but unfortunately it failed. In addition, our hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) said in his intervention that the policy of the Scottish Trades Union Congress was to support Prestwick. The STUC's policy is also to have one lowland airport in central Scotland serving the whole of central Scotland, so there are a number of contradictions in terms. Unfortunately, as usual, we are not addressing the crucial issue of what is in Scotland's best interests—gateway status for Glasgow airport.
Mr. Lambie: Yes, if we were to start again from virgin territory, it is correct to say that we would have only one airport for central Scotland which, in all probability, would be on the site suggested by the STUC, to the east of Glasgow. However, we are not starting from virgin territory. We are starting from having four airports in Scotland, three of which are in central Scotland. Each of those airports is a centre of economic activity and employment. We cannot change at a stroke and make a decision that will remove one of those main centres of activity, especially if it were to be Prestwick, which is in one of the unemployment blackspots of the United Kingdom.
My hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston knows that gateways are not decided unilaterally by the United Kingdom Government. Gateways and routes across the north Atlantic are determined by negotiations between the United States Government and the British Government. At present the Bermuda II agreement, which was signed in 1980 and which designated the routes or the gateways, is being renegotiated. My information is that those negotiations have come to a halt because the Bush Administration in the United States have not yet settled on a policy. Until the Bush Administration reach a decision, we can go only by the negotiations that took place at the beginning of the process.
The main feature of the present negotiations is the desire of the Americans to use Manchester airport more. They want more routes from Manchester into the United Kingdom and into Europe. That would certainly do away with some of the congestion at the London airports, but it would be to the detriment of Prestwick. As far as I know, the only objection by the British Government—or rather, by the Department of Transport—to the Americans having more routes via Manchester is that that might harm, not British airports, but British air companies, and especially British Airways. That is why there is a fight in the negotiations and that is why that fight will continue when the negotiations recommence. There is a fight between the Americans who want to develop out, from Manchester, and between the British Government who are saying, "If you do that, British Airways should have more routes or gateways into the interior of the United States".

759
I make that point because if Manchester develops—it must develop—in the way in which British Airways and certain other parties want, it can only be to the detriment of Prestwick and of every other Scottish airport that might hope to gain gateway status if that status is taken from Prestwick.
Therefore, all that my hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston and his Committee have done in suggesting that we should discuss a new gateway for Scotland is to say that there will not be a gateway for Scotland. Indeed, Scotland has not yet been mentioned in the negotiations. The English officials at the Department of Transport are not interested in Scotland. They are interested only in the south-east and in maintaining British Airways' rights to gain more and more routes into the United States. Manchester will become the gateway to the north of Britain and instead of being able to fly from Prestwick or, as my hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston has suggested, from Glasgow, the people of Scotland will lose the gateway status of the Scottish airports and Manchester will become the gateway for north Britain. I have been to too many meetings at which those representing and supporting Manchester have suggested that Manchester is the gateway or the airport for north Britain not to take that as a serious challenge.
Therefore, I hope that the Government will maintain their policy of following the recommendations of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. I hope that they will follow the present policy on the lowland airports of Scotland and maintain Prestwick as the gateway for Scotland.
I turn finally to British Airports Authority plc. When the Government considered privatising BAA, the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs recommended that it should be privatised as a whole. We based our case on the fact that the Scottish airports had to maintain a connection with the London airports because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston has stated, one of the busiest routes in the world is that from Scotland to London, whether it be from Glasgow or Edinburgh down to London or the reverse. We suggested that BAA should be privatised as a whole so that we could maintain the link between the Scottish airports and Heathrow in particular.
I now realise that that was the wrong decision. If I could start again, I would say that BAA should be broken up and that the individual airports should be privatised and allowed to compete with one another. Of course, as a Labour Member, I cannot accept that policy generally. As a Labour Member, I believe that because the roads and railways are our common features, they belong to the people and should be paid for by the people. Similarly, I believe that airports should belong to the state and that they should be run by the state on behalf of the people. However, accepting the Government's policy of privatisation, I now realise that as Chairman of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs I was conned by Sir Norman Payne into believing that it would be in the best interests of all Scots if BAA were privatised as a whole in order to maintain links with London.
Mr. David Marshall: I was conned too.
Mr. Lambie: My hon. Friend says that he was conned as well. He too signed that report.
760
Like other hon. Members, I received a letter from Sir Norman Payne in which as well as stating:
"I have pleasure in enclosing BAA's 1989 Report and Accounts.",
he stated:
"Passenger numbers rose to a record 68 million and BAA is committed to providing capacity to meet this and future demand with a substantial programme of capital investment: £395 million for the development of Stansted; £110 millon for the redevelopment of Terminal 3 at Heathrow; £47 million at Glasgow".
That was about half the sum that he had told us he intended to commit to investment in Glasgow. Under the original investment plan, BAA was to spend more than £100 million on Glasgow. Glasgow is one of the most congested airports that I use; even compared with Heathrow, it is congested. It takes only one tourist plane to Palma to run late and the facilities at Glasgow airport grind to a halt.
I put it to my hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston that if we are really interested in the development of Glasgow, we should not fight against Prestwick. Instead, we should fight against the British Airports Authority, which is not providing the necessary investment at Glasgow to allow the airport to fulfil even its present role, at the start of the route from Scotland to London and as an airport serving the tourist trade.
Let the Scots unite. Do not let us fight. Politically, we spend most of our time fighting the English in the south-east who vote Conservative and, unfortunately, usually give us a Conservative Government. But on this matter, let us unite to try to maintain not only national transport in and out of Scotland equal to that anywhere in the world but to maintain an international gateway, which I believe should be Prestwick.
9 pm
Mr. Terence L. Higgins: I join in congratulating the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) on his chairmanship of the Select Committee and on the extremely large amount of work that the Committee has done in producing its excellent report. The Select Committees' work and our debates on the estimates give the House the opportunity to consider matters in depth in a way that is not normally possible. I am glad that the Liaison Committee agreed that this estimate should be debated in the terms set out in the Order Paper.
Let me make a couple of procedural points. The first concerns Back-Bench Members' time. We only have three estimate days in the entire year and to put on a major statement at the beginning of such business is very unfair. I hope that the Leader of the House, who I know is sympathetic in general to Select Committees, will bear that in mind in future.
Secondly, it has been pointed out that the Front-Bench representation is a little strange, given that this is a debate on airline safety. My hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic is primarily responsible for roads and the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) has always shown a great interest in railways rather than in aviation. Having said that, I think that there is an important point to be made. One of the major concerns dealt with in the Select Committee's report was the question of delays. Very often such delays occur not at the airport but on the approaches to the airport, so perhaps it is not inappropriate that my hon. Friend and the hon. Member

761
for West Bromwich, East should take part. In that connection, I welcome the announcement made at Question Time today about the improvement of the communications with Manchester airport. I flew into Heathrow myself this morning and the greatest delay that I experienced was in queuing up to get a ticket for the Underground. Had a couple of extra windows been open, the whole process would have been speeded up, but as it was there was considerable congestion.
The subject is of great importance to the public, given their concern about aircraft safety and fear of aircraft accidents. I agree with the view that the Chairman of the Committee expressed earlier—that we should talk about near hits rather than near misses. There is grave concern about the matter, as well as the concern about delay.
This is a short debate and I shall make only one or two points. Although I strongly agree with many of the recommendations made by the Select Committee, I completely disagree with the view expressed in recommendation (x):
"We recommend that, in spite of the many difficulties and obstacles and the inevitable controversy, all efforts should be made to provide a second main runway at Gatwick."
A reference to paragraph 58 follows. By an odd chance, I happened to visit Gatwick on the day when the Select Committee's report was published; indeed, I spent the morning in the control tower. The Committee did not visit Gatwick. No one looking at Gatwick from the control tower could possibly believe that a second runway would be sensible. To start with—this is not mentioned in the report—it would mean destroying and knocking down the second terminal at Gatwick, which has only recently been opened. The idea that the runway could be built at an angle to the other runway does not strike me as feasible. Moreover, the whole of the surrounding area is grossly overheated in economic terms—with serious housing and other problems. I am astonished that the Committee should have come up with that recommendation, which it seems to have done gratuitously and without referring to evidence to support its conclusions.
In my view, we need to press ahead as fast as possible with the development of Stansted. The Secretary of State went to the topping-out procedure at Stansted. We have the prospect of a fine new terminal there, and it is important to proceed with that as rapidly as possible. I certainly do not think that the idea of developing Gatwick by means of a second runway is feasible or sensible.
Mr. McCrindle: Does my right hon. Friend concede the point that I made earlier that the Civil Aviation Authority earlier this year said that, if additional runway capacity was necessary, it was most necessary south of the River Thames?
Mr. Higgins: That may be so. However, as my hon. Friend said earlier, he was referring to an interim report and I do not believe that it was supported by the evidence. The argument is very much along the lines that I have put forward with regard to the development of Stansted airport.
The Select Committee on Transport also considered aircraft routes and I hope that we can consider that matter very carefully. At the moment, aircraft routes very often cross main centres of population. That is an historic accident dating back many years and the routes on the south coast in particular are in the wrong places and cross areas where they cause the maximum noise disturbance.
762
I welcome the Select Committee's conclusion about night flights. The Select Committee took comprehensive evidence, including evidence from the British Airports Authority, that in some places night slots are not taken up and would not greatly help the problem of day-time congestion. We must consider the great noise problems that night flights still cause, despite the increased use of quieter aircraft.
The Select Committee also considered in great detail the use of military air space. It is extraordinary that large areas of air space which could be used are at present taken up for military purposes, not least along the south coast and several other routes to Europe.
I tabled a series of parliamentary questions about that some time ago. It is extraordinary that the Navy, in particular, takes up large sections of the English channel which might otherwise be reasonably used for civil purposes. Some of the replies to my questions about firing ranges seem to refute the old argument that what goes up must come down. I was assured that a great deal of firing was carried out, but no one had the remotest idea where the shells eventually landed. The Select Committee was right to draw attention to that matter because we must deal with the problems with aircraft routes, particularly to Europe. Obviously many other aspects must be considered in the light of the Select Committee report.
This debate gives us the opportunity to consider these matters in depth and in a way which was not possible before we had the Select Committee system set up on a departmental basis. Once again, I congratulate the hon. Member for Shettleston and his colleagues on giving the House an opportunity to debate these matters in a more sophisticated manner than used to be possible.
9.7 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall), my parliamentary colleagues on the Committee and the Clerk of the Committee on producing a first class report. I want to follow the right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) who suggested that if there was any consensus in this debate it might be on the point that the Department of Transport should contact the Ministry of Defence and ask it seriously about its perception of its needs in 1989. There is a widespread feeling among hon. Members on both sides of the House that that should be done.
I want to speak up first of all for the air traffic controllers, those hard-pressed people who suffer enormous strain, who work often in terribly unsatisfactory and claustrophobic conditions in towers and elsewhere. To put it bluntly, some of us marvel at how they perform their jobs as well as they do and that there are not more accidents rather than the near misses and occasional accidents which hit the headlines.
I want to raise two of the Select Committee's recommendations with the Minister. Recommendation (vi) states:
"It seems to us that 17 years is too long for an ATCO II to have to wait to reach the top of the incremental salary scale and we trust that this point will be considered in further salary negotiations."
The answer was:
"The CAA agrees that the current salary scales are too long. Negotiations with the IPCS are well underway and it seems possible that a complex package of changes may lead to a reduction in the number of years."

763
What is the policy on people who reach the peak of the incremental scale? Certainly the anecdotal evidence is that there is great dissatisfaction about the time that people must wait for all kinds of promotions.
I direct the Minister's attention to paragraph No. (xxxv):
"We believe that the operation of ATFMUS"—
that is, air traffic flow management units—
"will now steadily improve. There may well be some difficulties between European states, especially with the central ATFMU and we recommend that the Department of Transport keep a close watch on progress and be ready to step in, if necessary at ministerial level, should there be a need to resolve political problems".
The Government's answer was that the
"CAA and the Department of Transport are keeping a close watch on progress on the central ATFMU. The Department will not hesitate to intervene at the appropriate level, should the need arise."
That is a classic ambiguous statement. What are the Government going to do about the unit? Is the matter being tackled seriously?
Time is short, but I shall quickly raise two other matters. One relates to a question that I asked the Minister on 18 April 1988 about aircraft fire safety. I asked:
"what assessment he or the Civil Aviation Authority has made of the fire safety implications of considerable quantities of duty-free alcohol being carried aboard large passenger aircraft; if he will examine the feasibility of siting duty-free shops in arrival lounges only; and if he will make a statement."
The Minister replied:
"The Civil Aviation Authority is responsible for air safety regulation. It says that there is no evidence that carrying duty-free alcohol on passenger flights is in itself dangerous. We do not propose to review the siting of duty-free shops."
I have a question about that. There may be no evidence, and it may or may not be true that duty-free alcohol is in itself dangerous, but we are not at all persuaded that it is not dangerous. It could be very dangerous. I do not think that I exaggerate in any way what we were told at Heathrow and elsewhere on various all-party visits. It is the considered judgment of many of those who bear major responsibilities in airlines that it is an extra hazard to carry considerable quantities of duty-free alcohol. No one is suggesting that people should not have a drink on board an aircraft. That is not the argument at all. The argument is totally different. It is about carrying enormous amounts of drink in racks and elsewhere, which, if arrangements were properly made, could surely be purchased at duty-free shops on landing. The only argument against it is that, when they land, passengers may be in more of a hurry than when they started out and would not want to go to duty-free shops. That boils down to a clear profit matter.
The issue that we have to face up to is whether profit on that basis is worth the extra possible danger of an accident happening, with heavy bottles tumbling out of racks and injuring heaven knows who, and creating an extra fire hazard.
On 18 April I asked the Minister:
"With regard to the Civil Aviation Authority, Christopher
Tugendhat writes:
Nevertheless, we would be happy to see any international moves to eliminate its carriage, such as may happen in the EEC over the forthcoming period."
764
I asked whether there had been any further EEC discussion on this issue of the dangers of carrying a great deal of heavy alcohol. I went on:
"That quotation was from a letter dated 15 April. Can the discrepancy about the CAA's attitude be cleared up? How much sense does it make to have 500 bottles of booze in the cabin of a jumbo jet during an emergency, bearing in mind the risks with regard to fire and weight?"
The Minister replied:
"The hon. Gentleman does not provide any discrepancy when he reads out the letter from Christopher Tugendhat. Clearly, if 500 bottles are not being carried there could be a saving of £12,000 a year, and that point was made in 'The Green Capitalist', which was reviewed in the New Scientist. The important point is that where there is a safety risk the CAA takes action, but where there is not, it does not"—[Official Report, 18 April 1989; Vol. 151, c. 540.]
Are the Government quite sure that the CAA, when part of it says that there is no safety risk, is correct? What is the assessment of the Department of Transport? The Minister has access to considerable expert opinion, and I hope that he will at least say what the considered view of the Department of Transport is on the risks of carrying this massive amount of heavy glass and liquor hither and thither across the airways of the world. Would it not be much simpler, apart from anything else, in terms of fuel if this were tackled, and some arrangements made by those who want duty free to collect it on landing rather than hauling it across the skies?
In all this discussion, we should take into account that one of the things that would particularly help the Scots and those in the north of England would be greater railway investment. The most recent figures that the Library has for railway assistance as a percentage of gross national product are as follows: in Luxembourg, 2·88 per cent., in Belgium, 1·14 per cent., Italy 0·83 per cent.—
Mr. Peter Bottomley: Are the figures that the hon. Gentleman is reading out those for investment in the railways or those for public spending in the railways, including current subsidy?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the House that the debate is not about railways.
Mr. Dalyell: Others wish to speak, so I shall send this table to the Minister. I should welcome a comment on it. The direct answer is that those are percentages of total state assistance. The grant paid under EEC regulations 1191/69 comes in a different set of figures. I should like some answers to the figures, in writing.
9.17 pm
Mr. Peter Fry: Some of the contributions made tonight have summed up some of the problems facing civil aviation. Far too many decisions are dictated by interests other than that of the future of British civil aviation. We have had some internecine strife between Labour Members over Scotland. One suspects that that has little to do with what is the best answer for civil aviation in Scotland.
I have the greatest respect for my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins). I understand his feelings, and they might be mine if my constituency were his, but many of the proposals about Gatwick are based on considerations other than the future of aviation. Those of us who supported the Chairman of the Select Committee

765
genuinely tried to look at those interests rather than at the partisan interests. We leave it to others to put their gloss on the proposals.
Hon. Members have referred to extra runways in the south-east. We are proud that we have the first and second international airport, in terms of international movements, in Heathrow and Gatwick. We also have a national airline of which we should be very proud. However, the problem remains that if we cannot continue to allow that airline the use of an airport that will enable it to increase the number of flights, and if we try to run the first and second international airports in the world with only three runways each, that policy is doomed to failure. There are many airports in the United States with three or four runways that cater for far fewer passengers than we do and operate fewer movements than we do.
In our report we were not trying to upset the constituents of my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing or trying to undermine the value of property around Gatwick. We merely said that it did not make a lot of sense for the second biggest international airport in the world to try to operate off one runway. If my right hon. Friend considers the evidence we took from witnesses, he will discover that on several occasions Committee members asked witnesses what they thought about the future of Gatwick, and invariably they answered that it should have a second runway.
The report is not just about runway capacity; the main consideration is the state of air traffic control and its future. Despite what my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) said, we had no evidence to suggest that the Government had denied investment to the CAA. What was admitted, of course, was that the CAA was not good at managing what money it had been given. That is the key to it. Governments, quite rightly, are suspicious of giving too much money to those who do not spend it wisely. It is no good wringing one's hands and saying that we should have done this or that in the past, as the CAA has admitted that it had not done enough or was doing enough to prepare for the future.
We must admit that the explosion in travel that we have witnessed in the past few years was not foreseen by many people, least of all the airlines, which only a few years ago bemoaned the fact that the number of passengers was decreasing. When we visited Copenhagen, the head of air traffic control told us emphatically that he and his colleagues had not foreseen the enormous increase in the number of flights and in the number of people who wanted to fly that had occurred in a short time.
Under Mr. Tugendhat the CAA has now addressed itself, albeit late, to the problem. The Government have also suggested that they are willing to see that the CAA invests properly in the future. It will not be until 1994–95 that we have a level of air traffic control that will be able to cope even with current demand. Even then that provision will give us only some 30 per cent. extra capacity.
My main argument in support of the Committee's report is that 1994–95 will answer today's problems. I agree with the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), however, that by then we shall be faced with even greater problems, with a futher increase in demand. Therefore, we must think now about the investment and systems that will increase enormously capacity into the next century.
We were lucky enough to visit the Royal Aeronautical Establishment at Bedford and there we were told about a
766
fourth dimensional system of air traffic control. We were also told, however, that much more research was needed and that it might take up to 15 years before that research became operative.
It is absolutely essential that we ensure that the research undertaken in this country is pushed ahead as far as possible, otherwise I suspect that the kind of problems that we have had with congestion in the air and congestion on the ground will be subjects to which the House will return again and again in the next 15 years.
I agree with those who have mentioned the problems of morale and staffing in air traffic control. I am convinced that, at long last, the CAA has addressed itself to what was becoming a serious issue. Those of us who talked to air traffic controllers became convinced that they were unsure of their future, unhappy about the way in which management related to them and extremely unhappy about their pay structure. The response in the report and the response of the present chairman of the CAA start to address those problems. I admit that, with the best will in the world, it will be impossible in the immediate future to recruit the number of air traffic controllers necessary to meet the anticipated demand.
The Committee says that we are on the right path, but mistakes have been made for which we shall pay dearly. Put in the widest context of moving people and transport generally, we have come to realise that, as the people of this country, Europe and the world become more affluent. they want to travel more and more. It is the Government's responsibility to ensure that they can travel as they wish, safely and without undue delay. It is an enormous challenge, not merely to the CAA, traffic controllers and airlines, but to the Government.
9.25 pm
Mr. Peter Snape: I am sorry that we have been prevented from hearing the contributions of two hon. Members who are still waiting to speak. One of the most annoying aspects of debates in this House is how often people sit patiently without being allowed to contribute. I join other hon. Members from both sides of the House in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) and the Committee on their report, the merits of which can be measured by the fact that the Government's response has been reasonable and detailed. That is not always so when such reports are published. I do not say that the Opposition agree with all the Government's responses, but, unusually, the Government have shown some signs of forethought and many of the Committee's eminently sensible suggestions have elicited reasonable responses from the Department of Transport.
The debate can be broken down into three main sections. We have heard much about the problems of air traffic control. There has been unanimity among Committee Members, and hon. Members in this debate, that the problems of congestion in the air are long standing and are unlikely to be resolved in the near future. Great hope has been put on Eurocontrol for the future. It is worthwhile for all countries, including our own, to give up some sovereignty of their own air space for the common good.
Eurocontrol has been around for almost 30 years. Although Government Ministers these days make optimistic noises and projections for the future, it would

767
have been possible to introduce what they are advocating at virtually any time over the past 30 years. The fact that we appear, belatedly, to be moving forward does nothing to alleviate the enormous congestion problems that we shall face over the next five, six or seven years.
There is some degree of unanimity on the attitude of the Civil Aviation Authority towards air traffic control problems. It was pointed out from both sides of the House that, as recently as two years ago, the authority talked about redundancy and early retirement for air traffic controllers. Belatedly—again, this is welcomed by both sides of the House—the authority has embarked on a detailed recruitment campaign to combat shortages and the overwork from which many air traffic controllers suffer.
Earlier, my hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston referred to safety. He said that there was no concrete evidence to show that safety was at risk. I think that both sides of the House would welcome that. We are all concerned about air safety. For understandable reasons, newspapers pass through phases in which certain issues appear to be topical. Last year, they entered a phase in which air misses or, as my hon. Friend described them, near hits, were thought topical and newsworthy. Thankfully and mercifully, despite the enormous increase in air traffic over the United Kingdom and the rest of Europe, there has never been a collision involving a civil airliner over this country. It is enormously to the credit of those responsible for these matters that travel by air is as safe as it is.
My hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston said that the Secretary of State had reacted reasonably to the report and that the problems were not all his fault because he had inherited them. That is entirely appropriate: the right hon. Gentleman inherited everything else, including his seat, so why not a few problems too? We welcome his fairness in dealing with some of them.
The former British Airports Authority came in for some stick in the debate. BAA plc has few friends these days and probably does not deserve many. I notice that this morning's Daily Mail, under the heading
"Keep your eyes on the runway, BAA",
pans the BAA once again for its obsession with profit making—some might say profiteering—from some aspects of airport management. Yesterday's Observer carried a full article headed:
"The airport authorities regret the late departure of your flight, but will be more than delighted to overcharge you for car parking and duty-free goods, whisky, cigarettes, perfumes. …".
That may sound a bit strong, but it is a view shared by many people.
Many of us believe that the BAA should never have been privatised in the first place, a belief that has been underlined by the sort of complaints—
Mr. Mans: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that all the activities in which the BAA is now involved and about which he complains were carried on before privatisation? They were profitable then and they are profitable now, and there is no evidence to suggest that they affect BAA's role as a provider of airports in any way.
Mr. Snape: I dispute that. Those responsible for running bus and coach services to and from airports
768
owned by BAA plc might well take a view different from the sanguine one advanced by the hon. Gentleman. Privatisation has enabled Sir Norman Payne and his chief executive to do wonders for their salaries and to exploit the captive market of passengers and those who operate airport services.
I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) say that if price restraint on take-off and landing charges and the various other airside charges were eased BAA might not need to fleece the franchisee as it does now. That shows a touching faith in Sir Norman Payne, for which he would be grateful, but I do not share it. Releasing BAA from those constraints would merely enable it to exploit the captive market in the air that it now exploits fairly well on the ground. Any attempt to relax the restriction will, I hope, be opposed by the Minister.
Airport security is also a serious matter. The Minister will know of the degree of public worry about it. I understand from newspaper reports that the United States authorities have developed a machine capable of detecting Semtex in luggage and in the containers placed in aircraft holds. If the Federal Aviation Authority decides to make the use of such machines compulsory, I presume that some of the 40 or so machines that are or order will be installed in Europe. I understand that American airlines intend to install these machines in Paris, Frankfurt and London. What are the Government doing to ensure that passengers on British or other airlines have their luggage screened by these machines? I understand that if the Federal Aviation Authority so rules screening will be carried out only on the luggage owned by passengers on American airlines. That is because the machines will be owned by the American airlines or the United States Government—I know not which. That worries many hon. Members and perhaps the Minister can tell us where we stand on the installation of similar machines and whether passengers on British or foreign airlines using international airports will have their luggage similarly screened.
The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) was critical about some aspects of the charter airline business and I take issue with him on some points. He should bear in mind that for millions of people their one flight per year is by a charter airline to the sun. The suggestion that delays can be laid at the door of the three-round-trips syndrome so beloved of charter airlines is unfair. Britannia Airways supplies many hon. Members, including me, with a parliamentary briefing on air traffic control delays. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman received a copy. Obviously Britannia Airways has its own axe to grind and one reads such briefings with one's tongue fixed firmly in one's cheek. The briefing says:
"Taking a typical Saturday last summer, 23 July 1988, analysis of Britannia's operational records reveals the following data and causes for delays. Total number of flights: 202. Total delays over one hour: 107. Total delays by ATC problems: 104."
It lists the reasons for delays to its other three aircraft, and none of them was due to the three-round-trips syndrome about which the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar complains. The hon. Gentleman knows a great deal about aviation and the travel business generally. I see from the the declaration of Members' interests that he is a director of Hogg Robinson (Travel) Ltd. where I am sure his expertise is welcome. It takes enormous courage for anyone who works in the travel agency business and who

769
presumably benefits from cheaper travel as a result to advocate massive increases for millions of other people. It is a bit foolhardy but, as I say, it demonstrates enormous courage on the part of the hon. Gentleman and I congratulate him on it.
Some Conservative Members made the ritual plea for liberalisation. I hope that in that context we can talk about the additional air traffic control problems that such moves are likely to create for flights originating and terminating in Europe as well as for flights further afield. The problems that liberalisation are likely to bring include an increase in the number of smaller aircraft which, of course, still have to pass through an air traffic control system. I hope that at some time in the future—we shall not have time tonight—we can debate the additional problems that such liberalisation might mean for air traffic control.
I should like to ask about the liberalisation of services worldwide. All too often the Government seem to act as agents for British Airways. I realise that British Airways plays an important role in the British economy, but it is a privatised company and welcomes, as it puts it, the embraces of worldwide competition. For example, there has been pressure and protracted negotiations about increasing capacity on the routes to Singapore which have remained unchanged since 1976. Not a great deal of progress appears to have been made. British Airways objects to an increase in the number of flights by other airlines from Heathrow. If British Airways is to compete in a worldwide market, the competition should include more flights by foreign-owned airlines from Heathrow.
The debate, of necessity, has been somewhat truncated. I join the right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) in deploring the Government's habit of making a statement in prime time, which diverts the attention of the media from important debates such as this and reduces the time that can be spent upon these important matters. The Government are quite good at that, but the practice is to be deplored.
Once again I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston and the Committee on a detailed, cogently argued and well-produced report. It deserves the Government's serious response. I hope that many of its
9.40 pm
The Minister for . Roads and Traffic (Mr. Peter Bottomley): We expect and demand air traffic services to meet a very high standard of safety. The primary function of air traffic control is to prevent collisions and keep aircraft apart. The Committee, as its Chairman, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall), said at the beginning of his very important speech, found that National Air Traffic Services has an admirable safety record. The evidence shows that the number of risk-bearing air misses or near hits has declined substantially over the years, despite the massive growth of traffic in recent years. I join those hon. Members on both sides of the House who have paid tribute to the air traffic controllers and their assistants who have coped with the rapid growth of traffic while maintaining high professional standards.
To respond to a point made by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), since 1987 the Civil Aviation Authority has moved away from a direct link with the Civil Service and towards a communications policy that is spelt out in the appendix to the Government's response to
770
the Select Committee, with the result that morale is improving and the CAA's opportunity to deal with the unions in the interests of those who work in National Air Traffic Services has improved.
Mr. Dalyell: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Bottomley: I do not intend to give way to the hon. Gentleman on that point because I wish to answer some of the other points that have been made in the debate. As he said at the end of his speech, we can follow up some of these points in correspondence.
I am sad that my hon. Friends the Members for Wyre (Mr. Mans) and for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) were unable to make a speech in the debate. Both of them would have been able to contribute a great deal of expertise as they both take a great interest in the subject. However, that is one of the penalties of a relatively short debate. As for the family discussion among the Scots, if we had managed to sort out the previous Chairman of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs and the present Chairman of the Select Committee on Transport through a return to the names that their constituencies bore before they were changed to Cunninghame, South and Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley, we should have had time for speeches by my hon. Friends the Members for Wyre and for Ruislip-Northwood.
The Committee's report and the Government's response have been rightly praised—not that everyone will agree with every point in either the report or the response. Both the Government and the Civil Aviation Authority join the Committee in basing their views on the facts. Perhaps the greatest tribute that I can pay to the Select Committee is that it got at the facts and then introduced personal, local or national interests.
In response to the Committee's report, we made it clear that we broadly agree with its analysis of the problems facing the air traffic control system and that we accept the majority of the recommendations. We have yet to respond to a number of the recommendations because they require further study. We shall be able to go further when we have received formal advice from the CAA.
We are giving careful consideration to the Committee's recommendations about the future status of the National Air Traffic Services. The possibility of splitting off the National Air Traffic Services from the Civil Aviation Authority should be examined. The Committee will not wish us to rush into a snap decision. Reviews are demanding in terms of management effort. National Air Traffic Services has a great deal on its plate at present.
We have also received a copy of the report prepared for Lord Rawlinson's group. We welcome that independent report as a contribution to the current debate on air space issues. We shall study it over the coming weeks, along with the advice of the CAA and the Select Committee.
While acknowledging that the record of air traffic control safety was "extremely good", the Select Committee rightly was anxious to ensure that the reporting and investigating machinery should be as comprehensive and objective as possible. It is worth reminding the House that if all the miles covered on roads were travelled in the air, instead of 5,000 people dying each year, the figure would be about 650. We are dramatically safer in the hands of the airline and air traffic control than we are on the roads. I was reminded by re-listening to "At the Drop of a Hat" by Michael Flanders and Donald

771
Swann that the airline coach drivers have instructions to make sure that statistics are kept the right way round. To make the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) feel more at home, if all the miles travelled on the roads were travelled on the railways only 150 people would die each year, so I pay tribute to the railways too.
The Committee recommended the creation of new, free-standing machinery which would be independent from the CAA. We have not been able to accept that in full. We acknowledge the need to develop the system of reporting, investigation and assessment of air misses to cover incidents reported by controllers as well as those reported by pilots. We believe that the new machinery set up by the chairman of the CAA to deal with controller-reported incidents will complement the highly-respected work which the joint airmiss working group does on pilot-reported air misses. One of the reasons why the media has gone off the over-reporting or hyped-up reporting of near hits is the openness of the system. There is no risk-free way of moving and if we can be open about risks we shall get more common sense and factual reporting rather than exaggeration.
The transfer of responsibility for investigating air misses from NATS to the CAA safety regulation group goes a long way towards meeting the Committee's concern that investigation should be independent and objective. We recognise the important part the Department has played in the work of the air accident investigation branch. That was demonstrated by the report on the air miss over Lydd last year.
The Committee's initial concern was with air traffic control safety and the adequacy of the air traffic control system to provide a safe service. I recognise that many other points have been raised in the debate. I cannot answer them all, so I shall answer some of them by correspondence. I want to ensure that the public expectation that the National Air Traffic Services will handle the traffic expeditiously and efficiently will be achieved with safety as the priority. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made that point repeatedly and he would want me to repeat it tonight.
The system has not been able to keep pace with the rapid growth in traffic experienced in the past few years, mainly because of growth in the economy rather than deregulation or liberalisation. Severe delays were experienced last summer and may emerge again this summer. That is not only a United Kingdom problem. People quote Britannia Airways, but they are not talking about air traffic control in Britain alone. There is similar experience overseas. My hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) was absolutely right in suggesting that perhaps more airlines providing air services to charter companies should build in recovery time as the railways do. Those who expect to run their planes without anything going wrong are working on a false expectation. My hon. Friend's point was brave, sensible and right.
There is a problem with the drive towards further liberalisation if we get things moving wrong. Air traffic control authorities in Europe will find any excuse to cling to outdated restrictions on tariffs and market access. The immediate causes of air traffic control congestion are diverse, ranging from spasmodic industrial action in
772
different parts of the continent to failures which occur from time to time in air traffic control computer systems. But the fundamental cause lies in the shortage of air traffic controllers. For substantial periods of the year the systems all work close to capacity. There is little slack to fall back on when things go wrong. A failure or shortcoming in one place quickly produces a knock-on effect across Europe.
The Government, airlines, airport operators and the providers of air traffic control services have all been planning for years on the assumption that the demand for air transport will continue to rise, but even then there were long delays in airports last summer. It was known that there would be pressure on the system. Air traffic controller disputes in some countries are a sad fact of life in aviation today. Disruption on that scale had not been anticipated and we have all been forced to rethink our approach to the problem of congestion.
The responsibility for planning and operating air traffic services rests on the civil side with the CAA, with Ministry of Defence involvement on the military side. The point which has been made about military air space has been dealt with by the dangerous areas users' group, and perhaps we shall put out a bit more information on that. The possible gains may be mildly exaggerated when one looks into the facts, as I did. We heard about the increased number of trainee air traffic controllers and the bringing back into service of those who are training them; that was a useful point on which the Committee built. Additional resources are available in the United Kingdom.
Last summer's delays have brought home to everyone concerned the interdependence of European air traffic control authorities. I was grateful for the remarks by the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East on that point. Flights could not leave United Kingdom airports because of congested airways on routes to Europe. Flights from the continent to north America were delayed because of congestion in the United Kingdom's air space. Few countries in Europe could genuinely claim to be free from blame, and the problems grew as the summer wore on. The days are past when such problems can be tackled by one country alone. It has been widely recognised that we must improve co-operation and co-ordination between European countries.
Last year, the United Kingdom held the presidency of Eurocontrol. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State decided that we must take the lead in strengthening the organisation and give it the chance to take necessary measures. Last July, my right hon. Friend wrote to all European Community Transport Ministers who had not joined Eurocontrol to persuade them to do so. We were pleased that Italy and Spain subsequently announced that they intended to join, and they are now in the process of doing so. From outside the Community, Turkey and Malta have recently joined and Cyprus is likely to become a member by the end of the year. That increased membership will strengthen Eurocontrol and help it to play the crucial role that we foresee for it.
In September, my right hon. Friend wrote to all west European Transport Ministers proposing the creation of a central flow management unit to co-ordinate flow throughout west Europe. That proposal was unanimously approved at a meeting of the European civil aviation conference in Frankfurt in October. Eurocontrol was given the job of building and operating the system. Last week, Eurocontrol Ministers approved the detailed implementation plan. The nucleus of the central flow

773
management unit has been set up. We now look to Eurocontrol to implement the phased introduction of the system over the next four years.
Many people are calling on us to go a stage further by adopting a unified system of air traffic control across Europe. A sudden transfer of all responsibility to a single European authority is not feasible, but the Government have not ruled it out as a long-term objective. The priority is to devise and implement practical measures that will improve co-operation and co-ordination between national systems. It would be counterproductive to divert the efforts and energies of those working in the sector away from these practical measures on to what might turn out to be an illusory ideal.
One of the most important recommendations in the Select Committee's report was that more emphasis should be placed on Eurocontrol. In our presidency year, we helped to revitalise Eurocontrol, which, as the Committee said, has had a chequered history. The highly successful meeting of Eurocontrol's permanent commisson last week confirmed that Eurocontrol is rapidly assuming a major role. There is now widespread political backing for it throughout Europe, and it seems to be rising to the challenge.
My right hon. Friend's priority, on behalf of the nation, is to improve co-operation, acting through Eurocontrol. If that is successful, Europe's air traffic control systems will become more integrated and interdependent. Increasingly, decisions will be taken on a common basis. Our approach to Europe as a whole is to take practical steps, and, once they are agreed, to make them stick. Experimentation with grand designs is not an option when the safety of air transport is at stake.
We should try to build on practical safety measures. The hon. Member for Linlithgow, if I may have his attention for a moment, again raised the question of bottles, which are normally made of glass and contain liquid oxygen of 40 per cent. proof, dropping on to passengers' heads. It is ludicrous for people who may have spent between £200 and £1,000 on a journey to try to save £1 or £2 by carting a weight from one part of the world to another. It is just as ludicrous that they carry so much luggage. I am concerned about things falling out of lockers on to people's heads, but I am more concerned about a person with a 20 kg suitcase than one person with a bottle. I hope that more people will ensure that the bottles that they carry are made of plastic, and that includes their shampoo bottles. Obviously, there is some risk of carrying such stuff around, but it is pretty small. I have seen one tragic major air crash. I do not think bottles of booze made much difference to it. People should realise that international agreement would be needed for any significant change, because all air lines, not only British ones, must be controlled. The opportunity of more competition and the point about most terminals needing to be rebuilt will not go away. People should follow the example set by the hon. Member for Linlithgow and myself and not buy the stuff. There are better things to do with time and money—
Mr. Lambie: What about Scotch whisky exports?
Mr. Bottomley: Whenever possible, I do drink whisky.
Mr. Dalyell rose—
Mr. Bottomley: I have dealt with two points made by the hon. Gentleman and I have not dealt with some points made by other hon. Members.
The friends of Prestwick—
Mr. Dalyell rose—
Mr. Bottomley: It would perhaps be less selfish of the hon. Member for Linlithgow if he were to let me deal with the points made by three of his hon. Friends.
The Government agree with the majority Scottish view that Prestwick should be the international gateway airport across the Atlantic. Several services available from Glasgow to European destinations have not been taken up. The Government negotiate the routes. It is up to the airlines to use them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) rightly said that much is happening. We want to ensure that the growth in movements is accompanied by increased safety. The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) made a classic speech, starting with the Romans. She went on to talk about the importance of subsidies, but it is investment that is important. That answers another point made by the hon. Member for Linlithgow, if he is still listening. My right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) pointed out that some of the Committee's conclusions would not have the wholehearted agreement of all involved. The Government's policy on Gatwick was made clear in our response to the report.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) talked about some of the issues involved in this form of transport. It is important to make sure that we continue to increase the safety of all forms of transport. I remind the House again that the number of people who tragically lose their life in air and rail crashes pales in comparison with the number killed on the roads. If we can make roads equally safe by paying attention to details, and if we can improve the road network in the same way as air traffic control systems have improved, we will be doing our job. We are not saying to people that they should not travel. More people want to travel and they should have the opportunity to do so safely. We must work in increasing co-operation with our fellow Europeans and others around the world.
I apologise to hon. Members who have not had the opportunity to speak and to those whose points I have not answered in detail. In view of the excellent report and the Government's response, which has generally been welcomed, it is right to allow the Chairman of the Select Committee to have the last word.
9.56pm
Mr. David Marshall: Unfortunately, this has been a short debate, but an important one. I congratulate hon. Members who have participated, and I commiserate with those who could not take part.
I agree with the right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) about the importance of estimates debates. I hope that the House will give serious consideration to increasing the frequency of such debates. That is important and would benefit, in particular, Back Benchers who often do not have the chance to debate the fruits of their labours in Select Committees.
The debate highlighted several matters of concern to hon. Members on both sides of the House. It is

775
encouraging to see how much common ground there is between us on many aviation and transport issues. There is not such a great deal that separates us. Indeed, as the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) said, it was amusing that the greatest disputes and divergences of opinion were between Members of the same parties on two different issues. Scottish Members disagreed on which airport should be Scotland's international gateway and Conservative Members from the south-east on whether there should be a second runway at Gatwick or anywhere else in the south-east.
My hon. Friends the Members for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Lambie) and for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) concentrated on the need for safety, for better man management and for improvements for staff, to make better use of regional airports and to look closely at the operations of the British Airports Authority plc and British Airways. They are all extremely important matters in debates such as this and vital to the future of civil aviation.
The hon. Members for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin), for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) and for Wellingborough and the right hon. Member for Worthing took on board the problems of 1992 and spoke about how Eurocontrol should develop in future, the problems of runway capacity in the south-east, punctuality in chartered airline scheduling, flight paths over major centres of population, night flights, the use of air space, especially military air space, near misses and the BAA.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) summed up the debate from the Opposition Front Bench in his inimitable style and made a number of telling points.
I hope that the Secretary of State will consider anew the points that have been made in the debate. This is one of the few Transport Select Committee reports to be debated on the Floor of the House. With two reports to be published later this year—one, in two weeks, on airport security and the other, at the end of the year, on roads for the future—I am sure that this will not be the last such debate. The Minister tried his best to answer a number of the points made by hon. Members. I hope that he will keep his word and that he will enter into correspondence with hon. Members and let us have the answers to the points that were raised. I am sure that we will all be grateful to him for that.
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 Questions necessary to dispose of the proceedings on Estimates 1989–90, Class VI, Vote 3 and Class VIII, Vote 2.

Class VI, Vote 3
Question put,
That a further sum, not exceeding £24,044,000, 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 Energy on salaries and other administrative costs.
The House divided: Ayes 173, Noes 10.

Division No. 287]

[10.00 pm

AYES

Alexander, Richard

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Hannam, John

Allason, Rupert

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Amess, David

Harris, David

Amos, Alan

Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

Arbuthnot, James

Hayward, Robert

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Ashby, David

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Atkins, Robert

Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

Atkinson, David

Hill, James

Batiste, Spencer

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

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Bellingham, Henry

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Irvine, Michael

Bevan, David Gilroy

Jack, Michael

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Janman, Tim

Boswell, Tim

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Bottomley, Peter

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Key, Robert

Bowis, John

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Brazier, Julian

Knapman, Roger

Bright, Graham

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

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

Knowles, Michael

Browne, John (Winchester)

Lawrence, Ivan

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Buck, Sir Antony

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Burns, Simon

Lightbown, David

Burt, Alistair

Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

Butcher, John

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Butterfill, John

Lord, Michael

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Lyell, Sir Nicholas

Carrington, Matthew

McCrindle, Robert

Cash, William

Maclean, David

Chapman, Sydney

McLoughlin, Patrick

Chope, Christopher

McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

Churchill, Mr

Mans, Keith

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Colvin, Michael

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Miscampbell, Norman

Cormack, Patrick

Mitchell, Sir David

Couchman, James

Morris, M (N'hampton S)

Cran, James

Moss, Malcolm

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

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

Devlin, Tim

Pawsey, James

Dorrell, Stephen

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Rhodes James, Robert

Dover, Den

Riddick, Graham

Dunn, Bob

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Durant, Tony

Roe, Mrs Marion

Emery, Sir Peter

Rowe, Andrew

Evennett, David

Sackville, Hon Tom

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Shaw, David (Dover)

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

Shelton, Sir William

Forman, Nigel

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Forth, Eric

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Fox, Sir Marcus

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

French, Douglas

Speller, Tony

Fry, Peter

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Gale, Roger

Stevens, Lewis

Gardiner, George

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Gill, Christopher

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Summerson, Hugo

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Gorst, John

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Gow, Ian

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Ground, Patrick

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Thorne, Neil

Hague, William

Thurnham, Peter

Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

Townend, John (Bridlington)

777

Trippier, David

Widdecombe, Ann

Twinn, Dr Ian

Wiggin, Jerry

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Wilkinson, John

Viggers, Peter

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Winterton, Nicholas

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Wolfson, Mark

Waller, Gary

Wood, Timothy

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Warren, Kenneth

Tellers for the Ayes:

Watts, John

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle and

Wells, Bowen

Mr. Michael Fallon.

Wheeler, John

NOES

Alton, David

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Wigley, Dafydd

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Dalyell, Tam

Tellers for the Noes:

Hardy, Peter

Mr. Martin Redmond and

Salmond, Alex

Mr. Dennis Skinner.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Class VIII, Vote 2
Question put,
That a further sum, not exceeding £156,213,000, 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 Transport on assistance to shipping; civil aviation; central administration; certain licensing and testing schemes; research and development; road safety and certain other transport services; including civil defence, grants in aid, international subscriptions, and residual expenses associated with the privatisation of transport industries.
The House divided: Ayes 156, Noes 11.

Division No. 288]

[10.12 pm

AYES

Aitken, Jonathan

Cran, James

Alexander, Richard

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

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Allason, Rupert

Devlin, Tim

Amess, David

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Amos, Alan

Dover, Den

Arbuthnot, James

Dunn, Bob

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Emery, Sir Peter

Ashby, David

Fallon, Michael

Atkins, Robert

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Atkinson, David

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Batiste, Spencer

Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Forman, Nigel

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Bevan, David Gilroy

Forth, Eric

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Fox, Sir Marcus

Boswell, Tim

French, Douglas

Bottomley, Peter

Fry, Peter

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Gale, Roger

Bowis, John

Gardiner, George

Brazier, Julian

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Bright, Graham

Gill, Christopher

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

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

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Buck, Sir Antony

Gorst, John

Burns, Simon

Gow, Ian

Burt, Alistair

Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

Butcher, John

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Butterfill, John

Ground, Patrick

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Hague, William

Carrington, Matthew

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Cash, William

Hannam, John

Chapman, Sydney

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Chope, Christopher

Harris, David

Churchill, Mr

Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Hayward, Robert

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

778

Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Irvine, Michael

Speller, Tony

Jack, Michael

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Janman, Tim

Stevens, Lewis

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Key, Robert

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Knapman, Roger

Summerson, Hugo

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Knowles, Michael

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Lawrence, Ivan

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Thorne, Neil

Lightbown, David

Thurnham, Peter

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Lord, Michael

Trippier, David

Lyell, Sir Nicholas

Twinn, Dr Ian

McCrindle, Robert

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Maclean, David

Viggers, Peter

McLoughlin, Patrick

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Mans, Keith

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Waller, Gary

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Miscampbell, Norman

Warren, Kenneth

Mitchell, Sir David

Watts, John

Moss, Malcolm

Wells, Bowen

Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

Wheeler, John

Patnick, Irvine

Widdecombe, Ann

Pawsey, James

Wiggin, Jerry

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Wilkinson, John

Rhodes James, Robert

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Riddick, Graham

Winterton, Nicholas

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Wolfson, Mark

Roe, Mrs Marion

Wood, Timothy

Rowe, Andrew

Sackville, Hon Tom

Tellers for the Ayes:

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Mr. Alan Howarth and

Shelton, Sir William

Mr. Stephen Dorrell.

NOES

Alton, David

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Wigley, Dafydd

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Dalyell, Tam

Tellers for the Noes:

Hardy, Peter

Mr. Martin Redmond and

McCartney, Ian

Mr. Dennis Skinner.

Salmond, Alex

Question accordingly agreed to.
MR. SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Question which he was directed to put pursuant to paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 53 (Questions on voting of estimates, &c.)

Estimates, 1989–90
Question put,
That a further sum, not exceeding £65,359,143,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to complete or defray the charges for Defence and Civil Services for the year ending on 31st March 1990, as set out in the House of Commons Papers Nos. 207, 231, 232, 413 and 442. —[Mr. Norman Lamont.]
The House divided: Ayes 150, Noes 12.

Division No. 289]

[10.24 pm

AYES

Alexander, Richard

Batiste, Spencer

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Amess, David

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Amos, Alan

Bevan, David Gilroy

Arbuthnot, James

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Boswell, Tim

Ashby, David

Bottomley, Peter

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Atkinson, David

Bowis, John

779

Brazier, Julian

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Bright, Graham

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Harris, David

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

Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

Buck, Sir Antony

Hayward, Robert

Burns, Simon

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Burt, Alistair

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Butcher, John

Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

Butterfill, John

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

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Irvine, Michael

Carrington, Matthew

Jack, Michael

Cash, William

Janman, Tim

Chope, Christopher

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Key, Robert

Colvin, Michael

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Knapman, Roger

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Cran, James

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

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

Knowles, Michael

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Lawrence, Ivan

Devlin, Tim

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Dorrell, Stephen

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Lightbown, David

Dover, Den

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Dunn, Bob

Lord, Michael

Emery, Sir Peter

Lyell, Sir Nicholas

Fallon, Michael

McCrindle, Robert

Fenner, Dame Peggy

McLoughlin, Patrick

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Mans, Keith

Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Forman, Nigel

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Miscampbell, Norman

Forth, Eric

Mitchell, Sir David

Fox, Sir Marcus

Moss, Malcolm

French, Douglas

Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

Gale, Roger

Patnick, Irvine

Gardiner, George

Pawsey, James

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Gill, Christopher

Rhodes James, Robert

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Riddick, Graham

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Gorst, John

Rowe, Andrew

Gow, Ian

Sackville, Hon Tom

Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Shelton, Sir William

Ground, Patrick

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Hague, William

Speller, Tony

780

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Stevens, Lewis

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Waller, Gary

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Watts, John

Summerson, Hugo

Wells, Bowen

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Wheeler, John

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Widdecombe, Ann

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Wiggin, Jerry

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Wilkinson, John

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Winterton, Nicholas

Thorne, Neil

Wolfson, Mark

Thurnham, Peter

Wood, Timothy

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Twinn, Dr Ian

Tellers for the Ayes:

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Mr. David Maclean and

Viggers, Peter

Mr. Sydney Chapman.

NOES

Alton, David

Salmond, Alex

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

Bermingham, Gerald

Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

Buckley, George J.

Wigley, Dafydd

Cox, Tom

Dalyell, Tam

Tellers for the Noes:

Hardy, Peter

Mr. Martin Redmond and

McCartney, Ian

Mr. Dennis Skinner.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in upon the three foregoing Resolutions and upon the two Resolutions [6 July] relating to Estimates, 1989–90, by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. John Major, Mr. Norman Lamont, Mr. Peter Brooke and Mr. Peter Lilley.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL
Mr. Norman Lamont accordingly presented a Bill to apply a sum out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the year ending 31 March 1990, to appropriate the supplies granted in this Session of Parliament, and to repeal certain Consolidated Fund and Appropriation Acts: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 117.]

BRUNEI (APPEALS) BILL [Lords]
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 90(6) (Second Reading Committees),
That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
The House proceeded to a Division—
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is not exempted business. Objection having been taken, Second Reading what day?
To be read a Second time tomorrow.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

  SOLICITORS (NORTHERN IRELAND)
  Motion made—[Mr. Lightbown]—and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101 (5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),
  That the draft Solicitors (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1989, which was laid before this House on 22nd June, be approved: —
  The House divided: Ayes 131, Noes 7.

  Division No. 290]

  [10.40 pm

  AYES

  Alexander, Richard

  Gale, Roger

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Alton, David

  Gill, Christopher

  Amess, David

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Amos, Alan

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Arbuthnot, James

  Gorst, John

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Gow, Ian

  Ashby, David

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Atkinson, David

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Batiste, Spencer

  Hague, William

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Harris, David

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Hayward, Robert

  Boswell, Tim

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Bottomley, Peter

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Bowis, John

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

  Brazier, Julian

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Bright, Graham

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Irvine, Michael

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

  Jack, Michael

  Burns, Simon

  Janman, Tim

  Burt, Alistair

  Key, Robert

  Butcher, John

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Butterfill, John

  Knapman, Roger

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Knowles, Michael

  Cash, William

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Chapman, Sydney

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Chope, Christopher

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Lord, Michael

  Cran, James

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

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

  Maclean, David

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Mans, Keith

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Dover, Den

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Dunn, Bob

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Durant, Tony

  Moss, Malcolm

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Patnick, Irvine

  Fallon, Michael

  Pawsey, James

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Rowe, Andrew

  Finsberg. Sir Geoffrey

  Shelton, Sir William

  Forman, Nigel

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Forth, Eric

  Speller, Tony

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  French, Douglas

  Stevens, Lewis

  782

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Waller, Gary

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Watts, John

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Wells, Bowen

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Wheeler, John

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Wilkinson, John

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Thorne, Neil

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Thurnham, Peter

  Wood, Timothy

  Trippier, David

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle and

  Viggers, Peter

  Mr. Tom Sackville.

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  NOES

  Cox, Tom

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Dalyell, Tarn

  Hardy, Peter

  Tellers for the Noes:

  McCartney, Ian

  Mr. Harry Barnes and

  Redmond, Martin

  Mr. Dennis Skinner.

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Question accordingly agreed to.

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

  LIMITATION (NORTHERN IRELAND)
  That the draft Limitation (Northern Ireland) Order 1989, which was laid before this House on 11th May, be approved. —[Mr. Lightbown]
  Question agreed to.

  TRADE MARKS
  Motion made—[Mr. Lightbown]—and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No 102(5) (Standing Committees on European Community documents)
  That this House takes notes of European Community Documents Nos. 8896/84 and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of Trade and Industry on 3rd December 1987, and 4090/86 and the Department's Supplementary Explanatory Memoranda of 6th November 1987 and 3rd December 1987 relating to trade marks; and recognises the importance for the completion of the Single Market of both the creation of a Community trade mark system and the harmonisation of national laws relating to trade marks:—
  The House divided: Ayes 125, Noes 8.

  Division No. 291]

  [10.52 pm

  AYES

  Alexander, Richard

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

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

  Alton, David

  Burns, Simon

  Amess, David

  Butcher, John

  Amos, Alan

  Butterfill, John

  Arbuthnot, James

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Ashby, David

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Carrington, Matthew

  Atkinson, David

  Cash, William

  Batiste, Spencer

  Chapman, Sydney

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Chope, Christopher

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Cran, James

  Boswell, Tim

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

  Bottomley, Peter

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Bowis, John

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Brazier, Julian

  Dover, Den

  Bright, Graham

  Dunn, Bob

  783

  Durant, Tony

  Lord, Michael

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Fallon, Michael

  McCrindle, Robert

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Maclean, David

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Mans, Keith

  Forman, Nigel

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Forth, Eric

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Moss, Malcolm

  French, Douglas

  Pawsey, James

  Gale, Roger

  Rowe, Andrew

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Gill, Christopher

  Shelton, Sir William

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Gorst, John

  Speller, Tony

  Gow, Ian

  Stevens, Lewis

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Hague, William

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Harris, David

  Thorne, Neil

  Hayward, Robert

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

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

  Viggers, Peter

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Waller, Gary

  Irvine, Michael

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Jack, Michael

  Watts, John

  Janman, Tim

  Wells, Bowen

  Key, Robert

  Wheeler, John

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Knapman, Roger

  Wilkinson, John

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Knowles, Michael

  Wood, Timothy

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Mr. John M. Taylor and

  Lightbown, David

  Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory.

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  NOES

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Buckley, George J.

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Cox, Tom

  Dalyell, Tam

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Hardy, Peter

  Mr. Dennis Skinner and

  McCartney, Ian

  Mr. Martin Redmond.

  Question accordingly agreed to.

Planning Restrictions and Crime Prevention
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]
11.3 pm
Sir Anthony Meyer: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister of State for being here at this hour and I apologise to him for not having been able to let him have the-text-of my speech in advance, although I am quite sure that he will provide me with a satisfactory reply.
It is not my purpose to indict Departments, although it may appear that I am being a little critical of them. I should like my hon. Friend the Minister to confirm that all Departments recognise1h importance of crime-prevention measures and the need to ensure that petty bureaucratic restrictions in the name of planning do not get in their way.
The story starts with a chap who runs an antique shop somewhere in my constituency. I am being careful not to identify him because I do not want the press to go sniffing round him. If my hon. Friend the Minister is aware of the man's name, I hope that he will not mention it. His shop has been broken into three times over about the past year; much stock was stolen and much damage done. The cost of insurance was to be so huge that it would have put him out of business, so, sensibly, he installed some iron shutters. There is nothing unsightly about them; they are painted dark green and tone in with the rest of the street. A chap came round from the council and told him that he should not have put up the shutters without planning permission. Council officers cannot authorise such planning permission. It must be put on the agenda of the next planning committee, which inevitably would lead to a delay of a couple of months and allow time for at least one more break in.
I did not intend to raise the matter with the council because it appeared that there was an issue of principle that should be taken up, Accordingly, I wrote to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and sent a copy to my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office. The Department of the Environment replied 15 days later and stated that it had referred the matter to the Welsh Office. The Welsh Office replied another 15 days later and said that it was busy trying to discover the name of the chap concerned. I did not want it to find out his name, so I wrote, almost by return of post, a mildly reproving letter. I wanted a statement from whatever Department was responsible that burglary prevention devices should not be subject to rather footling planning restrictions.
I received a letter on 23 June from my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office, about which I was rather unhappy. It began:
"Thank you for … your letter … about … one of your constituents who put up iron shutters to prevent his shop being burgled."
The second paragraph said that if my constituent wanted advice about how to protect his shop against burglary he should contact his chief constable. He had already put up the shutters and therefore did not need advice from the chief constable. All he wanted was no interference from the local authority.

785
I replied rather tartly to my hon. Friend, for which I apologise because I have the highest regard for his qualities and abilities as a Minister. He is one of the Ministers whom I most admire. His reply to me was manifestly a little hurt. The last paragraph said:
"You may be interested to see a copy of the enclosed circular".
The circular was not enclosed, so I had to ring up to obtain it. My hon. Friend's reply was rather good, but once again he was trying to discover the name of the chap, which is neither here nor there. In fact he referred to him by name, but I shall not do so.
In his reply, my hon. Friend said:
"Under Section 22(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 planning permission is required when the proposed changes would materially alter the external appearance."
I maintain that putting in steel roller blinds of a colour that harmonises with the rest of the building does not materially alter the external appearance. I hope that after the debate my hon. Friend will have a word with the Department of Environment to make it accept that and to instruct local authorities that this should not happen.
This case seems to run counter to everything that the Home Office says. An excellent circular dated 30 January 1984—a little old, I suppose—refers to the need to take effective measures to discourage burglary. These actions run counter to the spirit of that message. Pettifogging local bureaucracy is getting in the way of the admirable efforts of my hon. Friend the Minister to reduce the spate of burglaries.
I want to raise another matter and, for once, no blame attaches to any Government Department. Mrs. Banks, a splendid lady from Kinmel bay in my constituency, brought all her neighbours together to organise a neighbourhood watch scheme—something that my hon. Friend the Minister strongly approves of; indeed, the Department has issued an excellent circular to that effect. To make the scheme effective, Mrs. Banks discussed the matter with the local electricity board and put up signs according to lighting standards. The signs were in accordance with the board's requirements, being the correct size and height. They did not obscure any street signs and clearly stated that the area was a neighbourhood watch area.
The Welsh Office has been very helpful, saying:
"the Department has decided to give automatic approval to any Neighbourhood Watch (or Industrial/Business Watch) signs on trunk roads provided those signs meet simple criteria related to siting and size of signs."
The signs completely fulfilled those criteria. The local borough council, Colwyn council, agreed, but Clwyd county council's area surveyor then came into action. In a letter dated 2 March, headed "Neighbourhood Watch Signs", he said:
"I must advise you not to take any action with respect to the erection of the signs until you have heard from the County Surveyor."
In due course, on 18 April, Mrs. Banks heard from the area surveyor:
"My Assistant … reports that most of the signs in question appear to have been attached to street lighting columns within the highway, and I must ask you to remove these signs immediately, and arrange for their re-erection detailed in the County Surveyors letter dated the 30th March, 1989."
The letter of 30 March said that any signs should be put in people's gardens. Obviously, burglars driving along the highway looking for a suitable area would not see signs in the garden but would see signs on the lamp posts.
786
Once again—this problem is much easier—I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to make it clear that county councils should not throw their weight around in this way, especially when they are acting directly contrary, not merely to the spirit of neighbourhood watch campaigns, but to the explicit instructions issued by the Home Office about the signs. A press release dated 30 March 1988 makes it plain that the Home Office considers that, provided the signs do not obscure street signs and are the right size and height, no planning objection should be made.
I have given two instances of effective measures against crime that have been impeded, if not sabotaged, by the foolish application of planning regulations. I should be grateful to my hon. Friend for anything that he can say now or that he can undertake to do by way of further correspondence to ensure that this form of obstruction does not recur.
11.13 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): It is characteristic of my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer) that he has taken up so much time to look into the welfare of two individuals Mr. A, as I shall call the gentleman who my hon. Friend does not wish to have named, and Mrs. Banks, whose name may be spoken in the Chamber.
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this Adjournment debate so that he can discuss the cases of his two constituents—one named and one nameless—and so that he can raise the important issue of crime prevention. My hon. Friend feels strongly about the issue and I and my 12 colleagues on the ministerial group on crime prevention feel just as strongly that the actions of individual citizens, such as Mr. A and Mrs. Banks, are the type of actions that have done so much collectively to reduce recently the level of property crime and hence to produce an overall decline of some 6 per cent. in crime during the past 12 months, which is the biggest single fall since Winston Churchill was in No. 10 Downing street. We have been saying for some time that a rising crime rate is neither inexorable nor inevitable. The work of individuals is beginning to ensure that that statement will be found to be correct.
The particular cases which my hon. Friend has outlined tonight show that there is still much work to be done. We cannot be complacent or congratulate ourselves when bureaucracies, either national or local, fail to deliver the goods or the requisite information in the way that my hon. Friend has the right to expect.
In the case of Mr. A, the proprietor's understandable wish to protect his livelihood put him at odds not with the security-mindedness of the local planning authority, but rather more with its procedures. All organisations have procedures, regulations and routines and no place has more than the Chamber in which we are speaking tonight. Most have been introduced for sound reasons and some are beneficial. Some can also be tiresome from time to time. Misunderstandings arise and someone needs to step in to untangle the knot of misunderstanding, as my hon. Friend has.
I understand that, happily, the two sides in the case—the constituent of my hon. Friend and the local authority—are now talking to each other with a view to resolving the matter and it looks as if a satisfactory resolution to the case is in prospect. I and my hon. Friend

787
the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales have done all that we can, as outsiders, to ensure that that is the case.
Planning regulations run to the heart of this case. Planning authorities have to balance within their statutory powers the needs of the community at large against the wish of the applicant to receive planning permission. Developers or proprietors of shops are always wise to consult local planning departments and local police crime prevention architectural liaison officers so that crime can, as much as possible, be designed out of new buildings at an early stage. That is not so easy with old buildings when works involve rehabilitation or the bolting on of effective crime prevention devices. However, local authorities have considerable freedom and flexibility and owners contemplating improvements to the security of their premises should always talk to the planning department and to the police.
I will now develop my response to the argument in the case of Mrs. Banks before trying to draw the two cases together in response to my hon. Friend's wish that we should circulate further information. I am sure that people around the country wait eagerly daily for more Home Office circulars. My hon. Friend believes that we should circulate a further statement on crime prevention. The cases of the shop and the signs for the neighbourhood watch scheme both point to the need for more explanation.
Neighbourhood watch signs are an obvious expression of the activities of individual active citizens gathered together to do something to prevent crime. Alas, a few local authorities have taken overall exception to neighbourhood watch signs and have refused permission for such signs to be erected. As a direct response to that bizarre behaviour, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment made regulations early last year—described in the press notice of 1988 to which my hon. Friend referred—enabling organisers of properly organised watch schemes, established in co-operation with the police, to display signs without first having to obtain the local planning authority's consent—here is the twist in Mr. Bank's case—provided the sign is not placed on "highway" land, which has an existence in law. Therefore, the so-called "deemed consent" provision refers to everything in a local authority's area with the exception of highway land. However, my right hon. Friend has encouraged highway authorities to grant automatic permission for signs on the highway—such as on lamp posts—unless they would cause a hazard to traffic or pedestrians. I have no idea whether the signs erected by Mrs. Banks could be judged to cause a hazard to traffic or to pedestrians—
Sir Anthony Meyer indicated dissent.
Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend shakes his head—he feels that they are positively beneficial in their effect. If that is the case, I believe that it is well within the discretion of the local authority—here I speak as a humble Home Office Minister rather than as a Department of the Environment Minister, learned in these things—to allow such signs to be erected on lamp posts on highway land, unless they cause a hazard to traffic or upset pedestrians in some way. Driving around the country, I have seen many such signs, erected on lamp posts to the benefit of local neighbourhood watch schemes and thus of local communities. Provided that it is satisfied that no hazard is caused, I urge the authority to exercise its discretion as soon as possible.
When we consider the shutters outside the shop, in the case of Mr. A and the neighbourhood watch signs that Mrs. Banks has caused to be erected in her area, we come up against the need to issue to local authorities and to other interested parties, such as the police forces, which are in the lead in crime prevention, some further refinement of the advice that we issued in circular 8 of 1984, which my hon. Friend eventually saw. My hon. Friend suggested that we should perhaps issue a circular to local authorities saying that planning permission is not required for crime prevention installations provided that they do not project on the highway or are not obtrusively unsightly.
That is a difficult proposition for me to answer tonight as I am not ministerially responsible for planning issues. However, I will take into account what my hon. Friend has said because I agree with the drift of his argument that it seems necessary to review and update the advice given to local authorities and others in the inter-departmental crime prevention circular 8 of 1984, issued five years ago. We are actively considering how new guidance might be framed, and we will be inviting views on our proposals in a few months' time with the hope of issuing something definitive before the end of the year. When the draft guidance is put out for consultation, I shall ensure that my hon. Friend is sent a copy and has the chance to make his comments. It may become clear that the important issues of detail such as my hon. Friend has identified should be dealt with in that guidance, and I will be happy therefore to consider their inclusion in that framework. I hope that my hon. Friend will take up that offer when he sees the draft guidance and has the chance to comment on it.
I hope that my hon. Friend is reassured by my words. I certainly do not treat his words about Mr. A or Mrs. Banks lightly, as I hope I have shown. My time has been well spent because I have had the opportunity to respond to questions about those two cases and to inform the House that we are intent on reviewing the circular and issuing new guidance towards the end of the year. We shall be guided and educated in that by my hon. Friend's excellent speech, to which I have been pleased to reply.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes past Eleven o'clock.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Tobacco
  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether expenditure on advertising by the tobacco industry is treated as promotional activities for tax relief purposes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  In calculating their taxable profits, all businesses can deduct expenses (other than capital expenses) incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of their trade, including the cost of advertising.

  Government Data Network
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will place the operational specifications of the Government data network and its accompanying management summary in the Library.

  Mr. Brooke
  A copy of the GDN statement of service requirement is in the Library. The service is provided under the terms of a network agreement, the contract between Her Majesty's Treasury and Racal Data Networks Limited, and of access agreements between individual departments and the contractor. I am not aware of other documents which meet the hon. Member's description.

  Balance of Payments
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the actual balance of payments position at the end of each of the last 10 years; and what is his present estimate of the position at the end of the current year.

  Mr. Lilley
  The latest estimate of the current account for each of the last 10 years and the forecast for 1989, published in the "Financial Statement and Budget Report 1989–90", are set out in the table.

  £ million

  Current account

  1Balancing item

  1979

  -496

  1,044

  1980

  3,122

  570

  1981

  6,936

  277

  1982

  4,685

  -2,333

  1983

  3,893

  468

  1984

  2,077

  5,672

  1985

  3,355

  6,150

  1986

  151

  13,700

  1987

  -2,905

  12,356

  1988

  -14,936

  13,878

  21989

  -14,500

  1 Indicates errors and omissions in both capital and current account

  2 Forecast published in Financial Statement and Budget Report 1989–90, rounded to nearest £½ billion.

  Charitable Gifts (Tax Relief)
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, further to his reply to the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing on 6 June,Official Report, column 120, what are his reasons for being unwilling to amend the give-as-you-earn scheme to enable the tax relief to accrue to the benefit of the donor's designated charity rather than to the donor.

  Mr. Lawson
  [holding answer 22 June 1989]: If the donor wishes to benefit the charity further, it is a simple matter for him to adjust the size of the donation, subject of course to the annual payroll giving limit.

  Forestry
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give the annual cost of the tax reliefs available to the forestry industry which were abolished in the Finance Act 1988 for each year 1974 to 1988 at(a) cash prices and (b) 1989 prices.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 29 June 1989]: For recent years the annual revenue cost of the right of occupiers of commercial woodlands to elect to be assessed under schedule D is broadly estimated at £10 million.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what he estimates will be the annual cost to the Treasury of(a) the woodland grant scheme and (b) the farm woodland scheme at 1989 prices; and on what planting assumptions these estimates are made.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 29 June 1989]: Plans in Cm. 604 ("The Government's Expenditure Plans 1989–90 to 1991–92" chapter 4) include the following provision and planting targets for these schemes; costs vary from year to year.

  Table 1

  Woodland Grant Scheme

  Area of new planting (hectares)

  Forestry Commission grants (£ million)

  1989–90

  7,500

  4·4

  1990–91

  16,200

  9·4

  1991–92

  21,180

  12·3

  Notes:—The figures do not include:

  1. Restocking of felled woodland.

  2. Planting expected to be carried out under forestry grant schemes other than the Woodland Grant Scheme.

  3. Planting in Northern Ireland.

  Table 2

  Farm Woodland Scheme

  Area of new planting (hecatares)

  Planting grants (£ million)

  Annual payments (£ million)

  1989–90

  12,000

  6·9

  1·0

  1990–91

  12,000

  6·9

  3·1

  1991–92

  12,000

  6·9

  5·1

  Notes:

  1. The above figures include Northern Ireland.

  2. Annual payments follow 12 months after payment of the planting grants.

  3. The farm woodlands scheme was introduced on 1 October 1988 and is to be reviewed at the end of its first three years. The programme for 1991–92 anticipates that that scheme may be extended after the review.

  Business Expansion Scheme
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will give the total amount of tax relief given to business expansion scheme investment in housing from its inception to the most recent date for which figures are available and for each of the standard regions, Scotland and Wales;

  (2) if he will give the total number of applications approved for housing business expansion scheme investments in housing from its inception to the most recent date for which figures are available and for each of the standard regions of Scotland and Wales.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 29 June 1989]: No information on applications or the cost of the business expansion scheme tax relief for investments in residential property is yet available centrally from official sources.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give the total amount of tax relief given to business expansion scheme investments in each of the years 1983–84 to 1988–89 inclusive and for each of the standard regions, Scotland and Wales.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 29 June 1989]: The estimated cost of relief for 1983–84 to 1987–88 is as follows:

  Companies receiving investments (numbers)

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  South East

  298

  399

  342

  381

  356

  East Anglia

  28

  32

  43

  40

  39

  South West

  56

  64

  64

  57

  68

  West Midlands

  55

  58

  51

  40

  38

  East Midlands

  38

  35

  29

  23

  29

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  43

  45

  35

  49

  42

  North and North West

  51

  86

  56

  76

  68

  Wales

  20

  18

  19

  19

  15

  Scotland

  59

  57

  38

  47

  76

  Northern Ireland

  7

  13

  15

  10

  7

  Unknown

  60

  —

  10

  —

  —

  Total

  715

  807

  702

  742

  738

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give the total number of individuals obtaining tax relief for business expansion scheme investments in each of the years 1983–84 to 1988–89 inclusive and for each of the standard regions, Scotland and Wales.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 29 June 1989]: I regret that information on which to base reliable estimates of the numbers of investors receiving relief is not available centrally.

  Thames Riverbus
  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what sums under the business expansion scheme or any other provision have been paid to those who set up the Thames riverbus service.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 4 July 1989]: I regret that I am unable to provide the information requested on the business expansion scheme as details of the use of the scheme by particular individuals and companies are obtained by the Inland Revenue on a confidential basis. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply
  340

  £ million

  1983–84

  50

  1984–85

  75

  1985–86

  85

  1986–87

  95

  11987–88

  120

  1 Provisional

  A forecast of £100 million for the cost of relief for the business expansion scheme in 1988–89 was published in "The Government's Expenditure Plans, 1989–90 to 1991–92" (chapter 21), but no information is yet available centrally from official sources to provide a reliable estimate of the outturn.

  I regret that reliable estimates of the cost of relief by standard region and country are not available.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 29 June 1989]: Information on companies receiving investments through the business expansion scheme in 1988–89 is not yet available centrally from official sources. Estimates for earlier years are as follows:

  which my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport gave him on 4 July at columns 91–92 regarding a grant to the company from the Department of Transport.

  Taxation
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the latest available figures for the cumulative amounts since 1979 of(a) unclaimed tax relief, (b) tax fraud and evasion and (c) tax cuts expressed in real terms, 1989 prices.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 6 July 1989]: I regret that reliable estimates of the amount of unclaimed tax relief and the revenue lost through fraud and evasion are not possible. For information on reductions in income tax I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) of 4 April at column 8.

THE ARTS

  Arts Funding
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what representations he has received on future funding of the arts in 1990–91 and beyond.

  Mr. Luce
  I announced in November 1988 the provisions for the arts programme for the years 1989–90 to 1991–92.

  Museums and Galleries (Oxford)
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Minister for the Arts when he last visited Oxford to visit museums and galleries there.

  Mr. Luce
  I had the pleasure of visiting the Ashmolean museum in Oxford on 3 July this year. On that occasion I was glad to be able to meet members of the local business community and to support an appeal for £3–2 million for the museum.

  British Library
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Minister for the Arts when he last met the director of the British library to discuss the level of revenue funding for the library.

  Mr. Luce
  I met the chairman and chief executive of the British library on 14 March 1989. Our discussion covered the library's long-term plans and Government funding.

  Arts Groups (Bulwell)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will examine the possibility of direct funding for the Bulwell and district arts groups.

  Mr. Luce
  No. I fund the arts on the arm's-length principle. It is for the Arts Council and regional arts associations to determine the allocation of funds to individual arts groups.

  Sponsorship
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what new measures he is introducing to increase sponsorship of the arts.

  Mr. Luce
  Since its inception in 1984 the business sponsorship incentive scheme has attracted over 1,000 new sponsors. To encourage even more businesses to support the arts, I have agreed that individual arts organisations may receive up to two awards this year instead of one, up to an aggregate of £25,000.

  Merseyside Arts
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Minister for the Arts whether Merseyside Arts will continue to be funded as an autonomous unit; and if he will make a statement on its future.

  Mr. Luce
  I have not yet received Mr. Wilding's report about the structure and organisation of the arts in England. No decisions have yet been taken about the future of Merseyside Arts or any other regional arts association.

CIVIL SERVICE

  Civil Service Careers
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what steps he is taking to promote careers in the Civil Service to students and sixth formers studying in Lancashire.

  Mr. Luce
  The Civil Service Commission, with help from Government Departments, has recently re-established its schools liaison network. The network, which extends to colleges of higher and further education, went fully operational in Lancashire in November 1988 and to date around 35 careers events have been attended. The liaison panel is also establishing closer links with local careers services, for example, by arranging talks and visits to departments.

  The Civil Service Commission is also strengthening its links with universities and polytechnics, including those in Lancashire. This includes increased representation at recruitment events, more visits to the institutions, and more direct involvement with their careers service.

  Additionally, many local departments are establishing and improving their own links with local academic institutions.

WALES

  Environment
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, if he will set out the initiatives(a) he has taken since May 1979 and (b) intends to take on environmental protection and renewable energies; and if he will make a statement on the state of the environment in Wales.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Since May 1979, I have designated two environmentally sensitive areas in Wales. The ESA policy aims to promote the co-existence of conservation and efficient farming in areas perceived to be at risk from increasingly intensive methods of production.

  Emphasis on conservation and the control of pollution caused by farm operations has also been strengthened in the new farm and conservation grant scheme introduced in February this year. Three new conservation grants have been launched. These will encourage the regeneration of native woodland and of heather moors and assist in the cost of repairs to vernacular farm buildings. With a grant rate of 50 per cent. towards the cost of farm pollution control, the United Kingdom now has the most comprehensive anti-farm-pollution grant scheme in the European Community. It is only early days, but farmers are already showing increasing interest in applying for grants.

  I was also involved with the other Agriculture Ministers in the announcement of the United Kingdom set-aside scheme in June 1988. This constituted a practical guide offering advice and encouraging the management of set-aside land in the best interests of conservation and the environment generally.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and I have created a unified inspectorate of pollution with the remit to develop an integrated approach to pollution control. One of our other major initiatives has been to cut the maximum lead content of petrol by 60 per cent. which allied to a reduction in duty on unleaded

  343
  making it some lop cheaper than leaded 4-star, has resulted in unleaded petrol sales increasingly rapidly and currently accounting for almost 20 per cent. of the market.

  As to renewable energies, Wales has significant potential in this field, particularly in terms of wind and tidal power. Studies in these two areas are currently being undertaken at a number of sites throughout the Principality.

  On 19 June 1989, together with my right hon. Friends the other territorial agricultural Ministers, I issued a consultative document inviting comments on ideas for implementing, for beef and sheep, the European Community extensification scheme in the United Kingdom. Wherever possible, I will wish to ensure that extensification brings enviromental benefits.

  Furthermore, together with my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for the Environment, I am proposing to bring forward as soon as the parliamentary timetable allows, major legislation dealing with environmental protection. The Bill, among other things, will include measures dealing with air pollution control and reform of the waste disposal law. It will also introduce a new system of integrated pollution control for industry. In addition, we will shortly be announcing a number of proposals for legislation designed to ensure more effective action to be taken against litterers and litter.

  Business Finance
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consideration he has given to the Welsh Committee for Economic and Industrial Affairs' report "Finance for Business in Wales"; and whether he will act on the recommendations which fall within the remit of his office.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I met representatives of the committee on 19 June 1989 to discuss their report "Finance for Business in Wales". My officials will pursue with officials of the committee points arising out of that meeting.

  Bathing Water (Sewage Outfalls)
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if the proposed one-mile screened sewage outfall from Swansea will enable adjacent beach to meet the standards of European Community Bathing Water Directive 76/160/EEC; and what consideration has been given to the consequential effects on the opposite side of the Bristol channel.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The identified water adjacent to Swansea bay met the standards of the European bathing water directive 76/160/EEC for the 1988 season. The proposed 1 mile long sea outfall will form part of planned improvements designed with the specific aim of achieving the compliance of the identified waters of Swansea bay with the standards of that directive.

  Tidal currents in the Bristol channel, and the enormous dilution afforded, will reduce any impact of this discharge on the north Devon coast to negligible levels.

  Water Pollution
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give a breakdown of the likely chemical composition of the water flowing from the Taff and Ely rivers which are to be contained by the proposed Cardiff bay barrage.

  Mr. Grist
  The 1985 river quality survey showed that the quality of the River Taff varied between classes 1B and 2 and that of the River Ely between classes 2 and 3.

  Water quality modelling associated with the proposed Cardiff bay barrage is still being undertaken. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman write to the chairman of the Welsh water authority to obtain the latest position.

  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give the estimated tonnage of sewage disposed of on an annual basis into the rivers of mid-Glamorgan.

  Mr. Grist
  Information is not available in the form requested. The consented volumes of all consented discharges are entered on to public registers maintained by Welsh Water and available for inspection at its offices during all reasonable hours.

  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list water supplies in South Wales that meet the minimum quality standards set by the EEC.

  Mr. Grist
  All water supplies which have not been notified as being subject to derogations or delays under the EC directive relating to the quality of water intended for human consumption (80/778/EEC) should meet the standards set by that directive.

  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has assessed whether the proposed 1-mile sewage outfall from Swansea will enable local beaches to attain the standard of European Community directive 76/160/EEC.

  Mr. Grist
  No. The specific aim of the proposed outfall is to achieve compliance of the identified waters of Swansea Bay with the standards of the directive, but design is at a preliminary stage and engineering studies have yet to be completed. Other local beaches listed under the terms of the directive complied with its standards during the 1988 bathing season.

  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has made to Welsh Water about sewage contamination on south Wales beaches; and how many of these beaches attain the water standards under directive 76/160/EEC.

  Mr. Grist
  Welsh Office officials are in touch with Welsh Water concerning their capital programme of improvements to bathing waters. Fifteen of the 22 bathing waters in south Wales listed under the directive complied with its standards during 1988.

  Port Dinorwic Yacht Harbour
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many letters his Department has received(a) in favour and (b) against his planning permission sought for the development of Port Dinorwic yacht harbour; and if he will make a statement.
  345
  Mr. Grist
  Following receipt of the planning appeal, the Department received seven letters in favour and 35 against the proposals for the development of Port Dinorwic yacht harbour.

  Planning Procedures
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what new guidelines he has issued to Welsh Office inspectors considering planning appeals since June 1987; and if he will state the nature and objectives of such changes.

  Mr. Grist
  In considering appeals in Wales, planning inspectors follow guidance issued generally by the Welsh Office in the form of circulars and planning and mineral policy guidance notes. The Department issues no guidelines specifically to the inspectorate.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on what grounds a public inquiry into a planning appeal can be reopened, after having been concluded; what are the procedures for permitting the reopening of an inquiry; who is allowed to submit that an inquiry should be reopened; who decides whether or not to reopen an inquiry following such a request; and on how many occasions in the last five years such an inquiry in Wales has been so reopened.

  Mr. Grist
  Where an appeal is to be determined by an inspector the current procedures which govern the reopening of the inquiry are contained in rules 17 and 19 of the Town and Country Planning Appeals (Determination by Inspectors) (Inquiries Procedure) Rules 1988 (SI 1988, No. 945). The decision whether or not to reopen the inquiry would be taken by the inspector except where a decision has been quashed in proceedings before any court, where it falls to the Secretary of State to direct that the inquiry be reopened, if he thinks fit. In cases where the appeal is to be determined by the Secretary of State the current procedures are set out in rules 16 and 18 of the Town and Country Planning (Inquiries Procedure) Rules 1988 (SI 1988, No. 944). The decision whether or not to reopen the inquiry would be taken by my right hon. Friend. Welsh Office records of planning appeals do not include information relating to the frequency of the reopening of public inquiries.

  Date

  Jointly with the Department of the Environment

  40/80

  Development Control—Policy and Practice

  28 November 1980

  46/83

  Planning Gain

  25 August 1983

  17/84

  Planning Controls over Hazardous Developments

  30 March 1984

  34/84

  Industrial Development

  4 September 1984

  1/85

  Use of Conditions

  7 January 1985

  3/85

  Planning Control over Oil and Gas Operations

  15 January 1985

  38/85

  Development and Employment

  16 July 1985

  58/85

  Guidelines for the Provision of Silica sand in England and Wales

  5 November 1985

  69/85

  Aesthetic Control

  10 December 1985

  8/86

  Development by Small Businesses

  20 March 1986

  58/86

  Policy on Major Retail Developments: Town and Country Planning (Shopping Development) (England and Wales) Direction 1986

  18 December 1986

  24/87

  Town and Country Planning (Use of Classes) Order 1987

  6 May 1987

  29/87

  Disposal of Colliery Spoil

  27 July 1987

  25/87

  Development involving Agricultural Land

  8 May 1987

  22/87

  Development of Contaminated Land

  17 August 1987

  54/87

  Opencast Coal Mining

  14 December 1987

  1/88

  Planning Policy Guidance and Mineral Planning Guidance1

  20 January 1988

  23/88

  Environmental Assessment

  12 July 1988

  346
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the general policy guidelines for his Department on town and country planning decisions which may require consideration of whether general economic considerations should overrule phyical and environmental material factors.

  Mr. Grist
  The appeal system operates on the basis of considering each case on its merits. Proper attention is paid to national and local policies, as expressed in circulars, planning and mineral policy guidance notes and development plans, but regard is also had to the individual circumstances of the applicant, to the need to give encouragement to small businesses and to the employment possibilities presented by commercial and industrial development proposals. All these factors are carefully weighed before reaching decision.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many inspectors he has within his Department who hear town and country planning appeals; and how many of these are Welsh speaking.

  Mr. Grist
  Fifteen members of the Welsh Office planning inspectorate held public local inquiries; of these two are Welsh speaking.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales in how many instances during each of the past 10 years the Welsh Office has upheld an appeal against a planning refusal in Wales which has involved the construction of more than one house or other domicile; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  Welsh Office records of planning appeals do not include the information requested.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on what dates since May 1979 circulars have been issued by the Welsh Office on the determination of planning applications in Wales; and if he will list the titles and reference numbers, together with date of issue, for all such circulars.

  Mr. Grist
  The following list is of extant circulars issued by the Welsh Office since May 1979 which gives advice on the determination of planning applications.
  347

  Date

  Jointly with the Department of Transport

  42/88

  Control of Development on Trunk Roads

  30 November 1988

  61/81

  Historic Buildings and Conservation Areas

  Undated

  47/84

  Land for Housing in Wales

  12 September 1984

  30/86

  Housing for Senior Management

  17 June 1986

  53/88

  The Welsh Language: Development Plans and Development Control

  20 December 1988

  1 Since January 1988, the Welsh Office and the Department of the Environment have been issuing policy guidance notes on land-use planning and development control. Planning Policy Guidance notes (PPGs) provide guidance on general and specific aspects of planning policy, while the series of Minerals Planning Guidance notes (MPGs) deals with the control of minerals development.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the average cost of planning inquiries held under section 33 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 to(a) the Welsh Office, (b) local authorities and (c) the applicant.

  Mr. Grist
  This information is not available.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Local Management in Schools
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he last discussed the implementation of local management in schools with representatives of Cleveland county council; and whether he is satisfied with that county's proposals in respect of this initiative.

  Mr. Butcher
  My right hon. Friend has had no meetings with representatives of Cleveland county council specifically to discuss local management of schools (LMS). Officials from the Department's LMS unit have, however, met the LEA and are continuing to offer advice on their proposals. The authority's final scheme will be subject to the Secretary of State's approval; it would not be appropriate for me to anticipate the outcome of the statutory approvals process.

  Staff (Ethnic Minorities)
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many staff from ethnic minorities are employed in his Department in grades 1 to 4.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  None.

  P E Teachers
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received about his proposal to reduce the number of physical education teachers in schools by 20 per cent.; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Butcher
  I assume that the hon. Member is referring to the provisional allocation of intake numbers for initial teacher training for 1990, which my right hon. Friend announced in April. Representations have been received about the proposals for physical education from nine teacher training institutions and five other bodies.

  School Governors (Data Protection)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has issued advice to school governors concerning their legal responsibility to comply with the Data Protection Act when they are in possession 348
  or control of a computerised school admissions register; if school governors may volunteer information from registers for community charge purposes; if school governors may provide information from a register to a local education authority and specify that the information cannot be used for community charge purposes; if he has taken legal advice to ascertain whether each board of governors or school is an independent data user from the local education authority; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend has issued no guidance to school governors on their legal responsibilities to comply with the Data Protection Act, but this complex subject is currently being discussed with the office of the Data Protection Registrar. School governors hold and control school admissions registers for the effective exercise of their functions and all authorised circumstances of inspection or disclosure of content of registers are limited to the purposes of the Education Acts. School governors however have no powers to limit the legal requirement whereby community charge registration officers may require local education authorities to provide them with specified information extracted from school registers which is already in the possession of community charge registration officers.

  Newcastle University Students Union
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will raise with the governing body of the university of Newcastle the recent actions of Newcastle university students union in breach of section 43 of the Education Act (No. 2) 1986.

  Mr. Jackson
  I deplore attempts to restrict the rights of particular students and visitors. I understand that the proposal was unacceptable to the university of Newcastle-upon-Tyne and that the union's trustees, whose approval was required, have since refused to endorse the amendment.

  Soviet Studies
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will provide figures showing the numbers of students working in the field of Soviet studies for each year since 1979 at(a) undergraduate level and (b) postgraduate level.

  Mr. Jackson
  The numbers of students studying Russian language or Russian studies full-time at British universities were as follows:

  Undergraduates

  Postgraduates

  1979

  424

  77

  1980

  410

  71

  1981

  405

  55

  349

  Undergraduates

  Postgraduates

  1982

  403

  57

  1983

  453

  50

  1984

  522

  52

  1985

  516

  50

  1986

  539

  65

  1987

  524

  49

  East European Studies
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps his Department intends to take to give effect to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation council communiqu£ of 30 May, aimed at encouraging an increase of Soviet and eastern studies in universities of North Atlantic Treaty Organisation countries and of corresponding studies in eastern countries.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Department has been concerned for some time to improve teaching and research in Soviet and East European studies, and for this reason encouraged the University Grants Committee to set up a review of the state of undergraduate and postgraduate provision in this subject area. The work of the review working party has been carried forward under the auspices of the Universities Funding Council and I understand that it is due to report shortly. I shall be very interested to see the working party's report and recommendations.

  Teachers (Pay Negotiations)
  Mr. Franks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to hold further discussions with the teacher unions and employers about new pay negotiating machinery for teachers.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  As I told the hon. Members for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) and for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) on 4 July at column 142, I am arranging to have further meetings with the teacher unions and employers later this month. I see our discussions as ranging more widely than the proposal for a teachers negotiating group set out in the Green Paper

  Nursery and primary

  secondary

  Total leavers, numbers

  as a percentage of those in service

  Total leavers, number

  As a percentage of those in service

  1979

  15,030

  8·0

  17,660

  7·8

  1980

  14,970

  8·0

  19,570

  8·5

  1981

  14,790

  8·1

  18,720

  8·0

  1982

  13,980

  7·9

  16,820

  7·2

  1983

  13,120

  7·7

  16,250

  7·0

  1984

  12,660

  7·7

  16,920

  7·4

  1985

  12,680

  7·9

  18,380

  8·1

  1986

  12,450

  7·8

  18,710

  8·4

  1987

  11,880

  7·4

  17,080

  7·9

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Disbarred Lawyers
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Attorney-General how many (i) barristers and (ii) solicitors have been disbarred from practice in each of the past five years for
  350
  of October 1987. I recognise that it will not be easy to find a solution which is acceptable to all parties. It is, however, essential that we get the new arrangements right and I have therefore decided to ask the interim advisory committee to sit for a further year to give time for this. I shall in due course ask the House to approve a one-year extension of the Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act 1987.

  In letters io the teacher unions and employers I have said
  "It was clear from our previous exchanges that there are widely differing views. You already know the importance I attach to getting the new arrangements right. With this in mind I see the agenda for our next round of discussions ranging more widely than the proposals for a Teachers' Negotiating Group set out in the Green Paper of October 1987 and look forward to exploring with you a number of new ideas.
  I hope you will join me in approaching these difficult issues in a constructive and open minded way, working together towards an objective we can share. I recognise, however, that it will not be easy to get things right. I have therefore decided to ask the IAC to sit for one more year, to deal with the 1990 pay settlement, to give us time to reach an agreed basis for stable, permanent new pay determination arrangements for the future. I will be asking Parliament later this year to agree to the necessary extension of the Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act 1987 and will announce the Committee's new remit in the early autumn."

  Teachers' Resignations
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many teachers in(a) primary schools and (b) secondary schools have submitted resignations in the last 12 months; what are the comparable figures for each preceding year since 1979, and what percentage of each total these figures represent.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  [holding answer 29 June 1989]: Information on the number of teachers resigning in the last 12 months is not yet available.

  The numbers of teachers leaving full-time service in the maintained nursery, primary and secondary sector in England in the years ending March 1979 to March 1987 (the latest year for which data are collected by the Department) are as the follows:

  (a) embezzlement, (b) incompetence, (c) criminal convictions other than fraud and (d) other reasons; and what percentage of total practising membership of each profession each annual total represents.

  The Attorney-General
  The number of barristers disbarred in each of the past five years is as follows:
  351

  Year

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  (d)

  Total

  Total Number

  Percentage

  1984

  0

  0

  2

  0

  2

  5,203

  0·04

  1985

  0

  0

  1

  1

  2

  5,367

  0·04

  1986

  0

  1

  0

  1

  2

  5,494

  0·04

  1987

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  5,642

  0·02

  1988

  0

  4

  2

  2

  8

  5,902

  0·14

  Total

  0

  5

  6

  4

  15

  —

  —

  (a) = Embezzlement,

  (b) = Incompetence,

  (c) = Criminal convictions other than fraud,

  (d) = Other reasons.

  The information requested on the reasons for solicitors being struck off is not available, but the total number of solicitors struck off in each of the past five years is as follows:

  Year

  Struck off

  Total

  Per cent·

  1984

  18

  44,837

  0·04

  1985

  22

  46,490

  0·05

  1986

  20

  47,830

  0·04

  1987

  32

  48,937

  0·07

  1988

  29

  50,684

  0·06

  In the year ending 30 April 1989 a total of 49 solicitors were struck off. Practising certificates are issued during the period 1 November to 31 October and therefore the figure for the number of practising certificates issued in 1989 is not yet available.

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Attorney-General what information he has as to the average cost to the Crown Prosecution Service of employing(a) a non-civil servant solicitor, (b) a civil servant solicitor and (c) a barrister in magistrate court prosecutions.

  The Attorney-General
  The Crown Prosecution Service employs both barristers and solicitors as Crown prosecutors to conduct prosecutions in the magistrates courts. The average annual cost outside London of employing a Crown prosecutor is £29,004 and for a senior Crown prosecutor the cost is £35,805. These figures include general administration expenses and accommodation costs as well as salary costs. In London the average costs are higher.

  The Crown Prosecution Service also instructs solicitors and barristers in private practice to conduct prosecutions in the magistrates courts on an ad hoc basis as occasion requires locally. The fees paid to a solicitor in private practice lie between £85 and £150 for a half-day session and £125 and £300 for a full-day session (excluding VAT and s
  travelling expenses) depending on the area of the country and the work involved. The average fee paid to a barrister in private practice for a half-day session is £95 and for a full-day session is £150 (excluding VAT and travelling expenses).

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Policies (Environmental Impact)
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the environmental impact of his Department's policies, in 352
  terms of noise pollution, toxic waste and radioactive waste management and disposal, requisition of land suitable for agricultural use.

  Mr. Ryder
  In exercising its responsibilities, including those relating to radioactive and other waste disposal, my Department takes account of the need to protect the environment and people. ADAS advises farmers, where appropriate, on ways to reduce noise levels. The Ministry's powers to requisition land suitable for agricultural use have not been used for some years.

  Food Labelling
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has any plans to introduce legislation to make supermarkets use labels to show whether the meat they sell has been reared and slaughtered humanely; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  I have no plans to introduce such legislation which would, I believe, give rise to considerable practical problems regarding compliance and enforcement since it is impossible to distinguish analytically between meat from animals slaughtered or reared in different ways. There is nothing to prevent the provision of this type of information on a voluntary basis.

  Horticultural Development Council
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has completed his consultations on the future of the Horticultural Development Council.

  Mr. MacGregor
  My right hon. Friends, the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales, and I have now completed consultations with the council and with organisations representing those carrying on business or employed in the horticultural industry. The National Farmers Union of England and Wales and of Scotland, the Farmers Union of Wales, the Horticultural Trades Association, the Transport and General Workers Union, and the Horticultural Development Council itself, are all in favour of the continuation of the Horticultural Development Council. My right hon. Friends and I have, therefore, decided that it should continue provided it is clear that it has the support of growers themselves. This will be tested by an independent poll to be undertaken in October of all growers registered with the council. Final decisions about the future of the Horticultural Development Council will be taken once the results of the poll is known, and parliamentary approval for the decisions will then be sought.

  Near Market Research
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the proposals in his reply of 21 March,Official Report, column 515, to the hon. Member for Daventry to close in 1989–90 the experimental centres at Brogdale, Liscombe, Luddington and Rosewarne.

  Mr. MacGregor
  There have been full consultations about alternative funding of the experimental centres proposed for closure in my statement of 21 March 1989.

  As regards Liscombe experimental husbandry farm, a local industry consortium called Liscombe Research has secured a significant level of commitments by industry to fund a programme of near-market research and development. In view of the progress that has been made, 1 have decided that Liscombe experimental husbandry farm will not close in 1989–90 as originally proposed, in order to give the consortium more time to collect the balance of funds needed to meet the costs of such a research and development programme in 1991–92. A decision on whether Liscombe experimental husbandry farm can be kept open will be taken later this year when we have reviewed with Liscombe Research the funding arrangements which it is able to agree to for the next few years.

  No viable industry funding proposals have been received in relation to the experimental horticultural

  Thousands

  Country

  January

  February

  March

  April

  1May

  France

  972

  286

  15

  8,445

  734

  Belgium and Luxembourg

  491

  516

  334

  1,183

  700

  Netherlands

  8,547

  2,839

  3,588

  19,716

  19,603

  Federal Republic of Germany

  2,692

  2,698

  2,199

  7,522

  5,064

  Italy

  —

  —

  388

  280

  —

  Irish Republic

  21

  524

  485

  743

  1,133

  Denmark

  1,635

  680

  929

  2,139

  882

  Sweden

  —

  —

  —

  —

  54

  USA

  13

  10

  18

  45

  2

  Total Imports

  14,371

  7,553

  7,956

  40,073

  28,172

  1 May figures are latest available, subject to alteration.

  Source: HM Customs and Excise

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will list those points of entry into the United Kingdom used for shell-egg importation and the percentage of imports at each location(a) inspected and (b) tested;

  (2) what action his Department is taking to ensure the quality and wholesomeness of eggs imported into Britain;

  (3) what are the arrangements under which his Department ensures the quality and wholesomeness of eggs imported into Britain.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Shell-eggs may be imported through all ports handling food. Arrangements have been made for the port health authorities and the public health laboratory service to monitor imported consignments for salmonella. This is done by taking a sample of 60 eggs from each lorryload tested.

  Imported eggs are also checked for compliance with the EC quality requirements by the agricultural Departments. But this checking is carried out at wholesale distribution points.
  354
  stations at Luddington and Rosewarne. These stations will accordingly be closed for research and development purposes by 30 November 1989 and arrangements put in hand for disposal of land and facilities surplus to requirements.

  Nor has any viable industry funding proposal been received in relation to the Brogdale experimental horticultural station. A decision on the details relating to the closure of this station will be announced later in 1989 when the Government have completed their discussions on arrangements for preserving the national fruit collection and its associated records which are currently located at Brogdale.

  Eggs
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he has taken to ensure the import of shell-eggs takes place only through ports of entry where inspection facilities exist.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  It is possible to take samples of eggs for inspection at all ports handling food.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will state for each month of the current year to date the number of eggs imported into the United Kingdom by country of origin.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The figures are as follows:

  Quangos
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list all the appointments he has made to quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisations together with the salary payable since June 1987.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I regret that I cannot provide a list except at disproportionate cost. However, much information about appointments is given in Ministry press notices and details of remuneration are set out in "Public Bodies 1988", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Food Act 1984
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has any plans to amend either section 1 or section 2 of the Food Act 1984.

  Mr. Ryder
  The Government made detailed proposals for re-enacting and updating the powers in sections 1 and
  355
  2 as part of their consultations with a large number of organisations on the review of food legislation. We shall be bringing forward a food Bill as soon as the parliamentary timetable permits, which will take account of the responses we have received.

  Greenhouse Effect
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if his Department is sponsoring or conducting any research into the cultivation of genetically engineered atmospheric carbon dioxide, as part of the Government programme to combat greenhouse global warming.

  Mr. Ryder
  I assume that the hon. Gentleman is referring to research into the cultivation of genetically engineered plants to use up atmospheric carbon dioxide, in which case the answer is yes. My Department is supporting research in this area in the context of work on genetic improvement of trees for farm forestry.

  Richmond Committee
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the report of the Richmond committee on food safety will be published.

  Mr. Ryder
  The committee on the microbiological safety of food, chaired by Sir Mark Richmond, has said that it aims to submit its first report to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health as soon as possible probably towards the end of 1989, and that it does not intend to make any interim statements before then. The report will be published.

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  Chief Information Officer

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Principal Information Officer

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Senior Information Officer/Senior Executive Officer

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Senior Information Officer

  —

  —

  —

  4

  4

  Information Officer/Higher Executive Officer

  2

  2

  1

  1

  1

  Information Officer

  —

  —

  1

  4

  4

  Higher Executive Officer

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Assistant Information Officer/Executive Officer

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  Executive Officer

  5

  5

  6

  3

  1

  Administrative Officer

  5

  5

  5

  5

  5

  Administrative Assistant

  4

  4

  4

  2

  2

  Senior Paperkeeper

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  Paperkeeper

  3

  3

  3

  2

  2

  Personal Secretary

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Total

  24

  24

  27

  27

  26

  The change in the grade structure of the press office reflects the development of a more professional service in line with the demands of the modern media

  London Food Commission
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last received a request from the London Food Commission for a meeting; what the stated purpose of the meeting was; whether he agreed to the meeting; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  On 15 June the London Food Commission sought a meeting to discuss food irradiation prior to a formal announcement of Government policy on the subject. As this was received only very shortly before the date on which the announcement was due to be made, it was not possible to meet this request. I did, however, arrange for the commission to be sent a copy of the report by officials on the control framework that would be necessary for the introduction of this process.

  Intervention Board
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to relocate jobs in the intervention board to the northern region; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I and my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland, for Wales and for Northern Ireland are considering with colleagues the board's proposals to locate part of its work away from the south-east of England.

  Press Office
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many people have been employed in his press office by grade for each year for the last five years; what is the current total; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The complement for the press office by grade at 1 April for the last five years is as follows. The current total staff in post is 24, but equivalent information is not available for previous years.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Greenhouse Effect
  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what specific proposals his Department has put forward for consideration and enactment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, such as carbon dioxide and tropospheric ozone, since the seminar on the greenhouse effect held by the Prime Minister on 26 April.
  357
  Mr. Newton
  The Department is actively involved in the Government's consideration of the United Kingdom and international response to the greenhouse effect. As part of this, we have commissioned studies on CFCs aimed at determining the most effective means of achieving the reductions in the production and use of CFCs to which the Government are firmly committed. More generally, the DTI environmental programme lauched on 10 May is aimed at increasing business awareness of environmental issues and encouraging firms to recognise and respond positively to both the problems and the opportunities they present.

  Carpet Industry (Unfair Competition)
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what action is being taken by the EEC Commission to stop the Belgian Government from subsidising that country's manufacturers of carpets.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Commission has found that the aid granted to the two subsidiaries, Idealspun and Fabelta, of the Belgian textile concern, Beaulieu, is illegal and incompatible with the Common Market, and has ruled that it must be repaid. In the Idealspun case, the European Court of Justice upheld the Commission and, because the aid has not yet been recovered, the Commission has now instituted legal proceedings against the Belgian Government for failing to fulfil its obligations under the treaty of Rome. In the Fabelta case, misleading assurances were given that the aid had been recovered and the Commission has now taken the Belgian Government to the European Court of Justice for failure to comply with its decision ordering recovery of the aid.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has received from the

  United Kingdom crude balances of trade with EC partners 1980–88

  £ million

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  France

  -254

  -353

  225

  608

  1,111

  1,136

  -1,177

  -600

  -1,120

  Belgium/Luxembourg

  -122

  -357

  -548

  -554

  -636

  -667

  -251

  -504

  -704

  Netherlands

  441

  124

  131

  337

  12

  792

  -1,181

  -1,293

  -2,696

  Federal Republic of Germany

  -587

  -425

  -1,993

  -3,597

  -3,604

  -3,689

  -5,589

  -6,379

  -8,145

  Italy

  -394

  -588

  -712

  -918

  -905

  -827

  -1,203

  -1,071

  -1,711

  Irish Republic

  870

  1,031

  886

  766

  759

  814

  499

  343

  178

  Denmark

  -76

  -123

  -237

  -353

  -464

  -344

  -545

  -643

  -57

  Greece

  91

  92

  104

  115

  75

  15

  47

  89

  111

  Portugal

  56

  35

  49

  -79

  -258

  -256

  -296

  -148

  -117

  Spain

  -95

  -48

  -70

  18

  -369

  -221

  115

  65

  209

  Source: Overseas Trade Statistics.

  Note: 1988 figures are provisional.

  Foreign Investment
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he is able to make an estimate of the level of(a) Japanese, (b) German and (c) American investment in the United Kingdom for each year from 1978 to date.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 7 July 1989]: Information is available only triennially on the level of Japanese, West German and United States direct investment in the United Kingdom. The latest available figures relate to the end of 1984. These, together with figures to the end of 1978 and end 1981, were published in table 11 of "Business Monitor MO4" (census of overseas assets).
  358
  British carpet industry about unfair overseas competition, especially from Belgium, arising from state subsidies available to the Belgian carpet industry.

  Mr. Atkins
  I am well aware of industry's concern about the provision of state aid to the Belgian carpet industry as a result of various representations received by my Department.

  Car Industry (EC Instructions)
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what information he has received from the European Economic Community Commission about the respective responses of the French and United Kingdom Governments to the representation and instructions issued by the Commission on British Leyland and Renault cars respectively.

  Mr. Atkins
  The United Kingdom's 1988 state aid application in respect of the Rover Group was the subject of a Commission decision on 13 July 1988. The Commission has the right to monitor certain aspects arising out of the decision and I have no reason to believe that it is other than satisfied with the current position. In the Renault case I understand that discussions are continuing between the Commission and the French Government on the implementation of the conditions attached to the Commission's decision of 29 March 1988.

  Trade Deficit (EC)
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will publish figures showing the trade deficit or surplus of the United Kingdom with each of its EC partners for each year since 1980.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  [holding answer 7 July 1989]: The figures are given in the table.

PRIME MINISTER

  "Who Framed Colin Wallace?"
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will acquire for the Library of No. 10 Downing street a copy of the book, "Who Framed Cohn Wallace", by Paul Foot, published by Macmillan's.

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Overseas Visits (Gifts)
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list all those gifts she has received in her official capacity over the past 12 months while on overseas visits.
  359
  The Prime Minister
  No.

  EC Membership
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Prime Minister what benefits have been brought to(a) Greenock and Port Glasgow and (b) Strathclyde from membership of the European Community.

  The Prime Minister
  Strathclyde has received substantial benefits from Community membership. Details of major financial awards are as follows:

  Award (£ million)

  European Regional Development Fund (Grants) (1979–88)

  367

  European Investment Bank (Loans) (1978–88)

  237

  European Coal and Steel Community 1 (Loans) (1979–88)

  88

  692

  In addition, Strathclyde receives substantial grants for employment and training initiatives under European social fund (£31·52 million for 1987–89). A regional breakdown of the grants from the agricultural guidance fund is not available, but Strathclyde has shared in the Scottish total of £385 million3 (1979–88).

  The European Commission has also approved the Strathclyde integrated development operation worth over £270 million in regional and social fund grants up to 1992. A decision is awaited from the Commission on the Government's bid to establish Strathclyde's eligibility under the RENAVAL community programme for shipbuilding areas.

  Greenock and Port Glasgow have shared in these awards, although separate statistics for the area are not available. Inverclyde district, however, has received some £34 million in regional fund grants since 1979.

  Notes:

  1 Figure relates to Article 56 reconversion loans. Regional breakdown of other ECSC assistance is not available.

  2Excludes Strathclyde share of UK-wide schemes.

  3 Excludes Scottish share of market support expenditure incurred by the Intervention Board for Agriculture.

  Cenotaph (Illumination)
  Mr. Allen McKay
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will set in train a study with a view to illuminating on a permanent basis the Cenotaph in Whitehall prior to Remembrance day 1989.

  The Prime Minister
  Such a study is already in hand. If the outcome is favourable the aim will be to have the lighting installed before Remembrance day 1989.

  Sewage Pollution
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to her answer of 4 July, if she will require Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution to consider and report on both the 2km sewage outfall from Swansea and the 900m outfall proposed adjacent to Royal Portbury dock in Avon.

  The Prime Minister
  Before granting a discharge consent for any new sea outfall scheme, Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution must be satisfied that any discharges will not cause identified bathing waters in the 360
  vicinity to fail to meet the standards of the EC bathing water directive. The length of the outfall required to achieve this will depend on local factors such as tides, currents, depth of water and prevailing winds. Studies to determine the optimal length of the sewage outfall at Royal Portbury dock were carried out prior to the granting of the discharge consent; and similar studies will be carried out for any proposed outfall at Swansea.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Wandsworth Prison
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many inmates were working in prison workshops at Wandsworth prison on 29 June.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  A total of 207 inmates were employed on 29 June as follows:

  Workshops

  Inmates employed

  Laundry

  66

  Tailoring

  36

  Light textiles

  36

  Leatherwork

  22

  Woodwork

  17

  Brushes

  30

  Sunday Trading
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many representations he has recently received about Sunday trading.

  Mr. Renton
  Between 1 January 1989 and 3 July 1989 we have received 863 written representations broadly in favour of Sunday trading and 1,211 against.

  Prison Officers' Houses
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of the prison officers' houses, which were vacant in Culcheth, have now been sold; how long they had been empty; what his Department received for the sale of this property; how many houses remain to be sold; when he expects these to be disposed of; if the prison officers' hostel is unsold; how long it has been unused; and what are the plans for this.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  All the 39 empty prison officer houses at Culcheth have been sold. Most have been vacant for seven to eight years. These properties, together with the prison officers' hostel, were sold for £540,000. Under the terms of the sale, the purchaser will bring the roads and other services on the whole estate up to the standard required for adoption by the local authority at nil cost to the Home Office. Six further houses that became vacant during 1988–89 are to be sold as soon as possible on the open market. The remaining 67 properties on the estate are used as prison officers' quarters, 47 of which are the subject of applications under the prison service discount sales scheme. The prison officers' hostel, which the purchaser proposes to demolish, has been unused for about seven years. The purchaser proposes to build houses on the site.

  Chinese Students
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will establish a special fund to assist Chinese students in the United Kingdom who experience financial difficulties as a result of deciding not to return to China; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  Chinese nationals who do not qualify under the immigration rules but who do not wish to return to China are being allowed to remain here exceptionally for a further six months. Employment restrictions will be removed in such cases, which will allow those concerned to claim benefit if they are available for employment.

  Wakefield Prison
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for each month since April(a) the minimum staffing levels agreed under fresh start and (b) the actual staffing levels, for Her Majesty's prison, Wakefield.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The minimum staffing levels agreed under fresh start at HMP Wakefield as at April 1988 were:

  Morning

  Afternoon

  Evening

  Saturday and Sunday

  80–84

  91–99

  72

  Monday and Friday

  99

  98

  78

  Tuesday

  101

  101

  82

  Wednesday and Thursday

  101

  119

  82

  The only subsequent change to these levels is that since April 1989 the provision for Saturday and Sunday
  362
  mornings is now 80 to 82. The number of officers in post (including principal and senior officers) at HMP Wakefield in each month since 1 April 1988 is as follows:

  Numbers

  1988

  April

  406

  May

  420

  June

  423

  July

  425

  August

  425

  September

  424

  October

  423

  November

  422

  December

  422

  1989

  January

  417

  February

  418

  March

  418

  April

  426

  May

  425

  June

  425

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions since April 1988 it has not been possible to undertake routine strip searches on prisoners in Her Majesty's prison, Wakefield, following domestic visits, because of staffing shortages.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Strip searches are in most cases carried out at the discretion of local management, and have been conducted as considered necessary.
  363
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions since April 1988 the association time of rule 43 prisoners in Her Majesty's prison, Wakefield, has been curtailed due to staffing shortages.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand that loss of association for vulnerable prisoners occurred on four occasions, none of which was due to staff shortages.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the frequency of routine cell searches at Her Majesty's prison, Wakefield.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  It is not the practice to disclose detailed information about security arrangements such as the frequency of cell searches.

  Eversure Textiles (Dispute)
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief constable of the South Yorkshire police giving the latest estimate of the total cost of policing the dispute over trade union recognition at Eversure Textiles in Sheffield; how many police were on duty throughout the first day of the dispute; what has been the minimum and maximum number of police officers on duty each day, to date; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand from the chief constable that the estimated additional cost of policing the dispute up to and including 6 July is £4,300. There were 34 officers on duty throughout the first day of the dispute. Since the third day, the number of officers deployed has been between eight and 11.

  Wrongful Imprisonment
  Mr. Terry Fields
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list by constabulary for the past 10 years the number of persons who have been released after wrongful arrest, the numbers of persons who have sued the police for both false imprisonment and injury whilst in custody and the amounts recovered in compensation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Drugs
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons have been prosecuted for possessing the drug Ecstasy.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The drug MDMA (commonly known as Ecstasy) has been separately identified in the statistics seizures dating back to 1 January 1988. Our provisional figures show that as a result of such seizures made in 1988, a total of 10 persons have been prosecuted for possession.

  Private Events (Control)
  Dr. Glyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has come to a conclusion on the implications of the report from the chief constable of 364
  Thames Valley on the incident which occurred on the industrial estate at White Waltham on Saturday 24 June in relation to police powers and penalties.

  Mr. Hurd
  I have received a further report from the chief constable of Thames Valley police on the events of the weekend of 1 and 2 July 1989. The police were able to take action against a number of parties. The chief constable emphasised the need for good intelligence about the likely location of the parties as the basis for successful enforcement action both by police and local authorities. In at least one case the environmental health officer of the local authority obtained an injunction under the noise control provisions of the Control of Pollution Act 1974. In other cases, the owners of premises have co-operated by withdrawing permission or denying access where no authority had been sought be the organisers.

  I set out in reply to earlier questions from my hon. Friend on 29 June at columns 517–18 the comprehensive set of controls which already applies to parties of this kind. It is clear that the main need is for those with advance knowledge of any such party to tell the police so that these controls can be enforced. On this basis, the police in Thames Valley and other police force areas have been able to prevent in advance or shut down a number of such parties which had the potential for disorder recently, some of them potentially large ones.

  The police have a range of powers to deal effectively with any criminal offences which may be committed. Steps have been taken to strengthen the police co-ordination and intelligence handling arrangements in order to target enforcement action better.

  The public entertainment law already requires organisers to provide adequate standards of safety and hygiene at events of this kind. If that law is ignored, adequate hygiene and safety arrangements may not be made. I am therefore giving further consideration to the need to strengthen the penalties available for breaches of the public entertainment law.

  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is now in a position to give his Department's provisional response to public requests for further actions to control so called acid house parties and similar pop concert type events.

  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to give powers to the police to control an ostensibly private party numbering more than 1,000 people which takes place on private land but without the consent of the landowner; and if, where the landowner has agreed to the party taking place, the Secretary of State will provide powers of enforcement for lavatory or first aid facilities to be available and to inform the local constabulary or the local authority in whose area the site for the party is situated.

  Mr. Hurd
  There is already a comprehensive set of controls which applies to parties of this kind. I refer my hon. Friends to the reply given to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Dr. Glyn) today.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  German Reunification
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received about German reunification; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave to a question from the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) on 7 June at column 161.

  Grenada
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make representations to the Grenadan authorities for the restoration of a constitutional court system; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  No. As an independent Commonwealth country, it is for Grenada to determine its own judicial system.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make representations to the Grenadan authorities to lift the death sentence imposed on the defendants in the Grenada 17 trial; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  The appeals of all 17 persons convicted in Grenada of the murder of Prime Minister Bishop and of other crimes in 1983 are currently being heard in Grenada's court of appeal. It would be improper for Her Majesty's Government to make representations to the Government of Grenada concerning the 14 appellants sentenced to death while the legal process continues.

  Diplomatic Relations
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of state for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consideration he has given to the re-establishment of diplomatic relations with(a) Libya and (b) Syria; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We could not consider restoring diplomatic relations with either Libya or Syria without firm evidence that those countries had given up support for international terrorism.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consideration he has given to the return of British diplomats to Afghanistan; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  The embassy will reopen as soon as circumstances permit it to do a useful job. It is still too early to predict when this will be. Meanwhile, officials may from time to time have to visit Kabul to deal with matters relating to the administration and maintenance of our embassy compound. But such visits will in no way affect our attitude towards contacts with the Kabul regime.

  Bulgaria
  Dame Jill Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on the numbers of the Turkish minority population of 366
  Bulgaria who have been obliged to leave in the course of 1989; what representations he has made to the Bulgarian Government, and with what effect; in which international fora Her Majesty's Government have raised this abuse of human rights; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We understand that over 100,000 members of Bulgaria's Turkish minority have fled to Turkey since mid-May. It is probable that the first wave, perhaps several thousand, were deported and that the rest have left voluntarily (albeit as a consequence of long-term harassment), taking advantage of a recent relaxation in Bulgaria's laws on travel.

  We have made representations bilaterally to the Bulgarian authorities, invoking stage 1 of the "human dimension" mechanism of the CSCE Vienna concluding document. Numerous other countries have made similar demarches. We also drew attention to the plight of Bulgaria's Turkish minority during the recent conference on the human dimension of the CSCE in Paris. The Bulgarian authorities have provided some information on their policies, but have not so far taken steps to improve the lot of the Turkish minority. We have also raised this matter regularly in UN fora.

  We call on the Bulgarian authorities to ensure that those who wish to leave for Turkey may do so in an orderly fashion, and that the rights of those who wish to remain in Bulgaria are respected.

  Drugs
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will arrange for inquiries to be made by Her Majesty's representatives in Lisbon as to the manufacturers' list price in Portugal for the drugs listed and ensure that the information contains details of pack size, whether any discounts are available and the terms Adalat 10 mg caps, Adalat retard 20 mg caps, Aldomet 250 mg caps, Amoxil 500 mg caps, Brufen 400 mg tabs, Capoten 25 mg tabs, Feldene 10 mg caps, Feldene 20 mg tabs, Gaviscon liq 250, Inderal LA 160 mg tabs, Natrilix 2·5 mg tabs, Prothiaden 75 mg tabs, Septrin tabs, Serc tabs, Tagamet 200 mg tabs, Tagamet 400 mg tabs, Timoptel eye dps 0·5 per cent., Ventolin inhaler, Zantac 15 mg tabs and Zyloric 300 mg tabs;

  (2) if he will arrange for inquiries to be made by Her Majesty's representatives in Brussels as to the manufacturers' list price in Belgium for the drugs listed and ensure that the information contains details of pack size; whether any discounts are available, and the terms Adalat 10 mg caps, Adalat retard 20 mg caps, Aldomet 250 mg caps, Amoxil 500 mg caps, Brufen 400 mg tabs, Capoten 25 mg tabs, Feldene 10 mg caps, Feldene 20 mg tabs, Gaviscon liq 250, Inderal LA 160 mg tabs, Natrilix 2·5 mg tabs, Prothiaden 75 mg tabs, Septrin tabs, Serc tabs, Tagamet 200 mg tabs, Tagamet 400 mg tabs, Timoptel eye drops 0·5 per cent., Ventolin inhaler, Zantac 150 mg tabs and Zyloric 300 mg tabs;

  (3) if he will arrange for inquiries to be made by Her Majesty's representatives in Paris as to the manufacturers' list price in France for the drugs listed and ensure that the information contains details of pack size; whether any discounts are available, and the terms Adalat 10 mg caps, Adalat retard 20 mg caps, Aldomet 250 mg caps, Amoxil 500 mg caps, Brufen 400 mg tabs, Capoten 25 mg tabs, Feldene 10 mg caps, Feldene 20 mg tabs, Gaviscon liq 250, Inderal LA 160 mg tabs, Natrilix 2·5 mg tabs, Prothiaden

  367
  75 mg tabs, Septrin tabs, Serc tabs, Tagamet 200 mg tabs, Tagamet 400 mg tabs, Timoptel eye drops 0·5 per cent., Ventolin inhaler, Zantac 150 mg tabs and Zyloric 300 mg tabs;

  (4) if he will arrange for inquiries to be made by Her Majesty's representatives in Madrid as to the manufacturers' list price in Spain for the drugs listed and ensure that the information contains details of pack size; whether any discounts are available, and the terms Adalat 10 mg caps, Adalat retard 20 mg caps, Aldomet 250 mg caps, Amoxil 500 mg caps, Brufen 400 mg tabs, Capoten 25 mg tabs, Feldene 10 mg caps, Feldene 20 mg tabs, Gaviscon liq 250, Inderal LA 160 mg tabs, Natrilix 2·5 mg tabs, Prothiaden 75 mg tabs, Septrin tabs, Serc tabs, Tagamet 200 mg tabs, Tagamet 400 mg tabs, Timoptel eye drops 0·5 per cent., Ventolin inhaler, Zantac 150 mg tabs and Zyloric 300 mg tabs;

  (5) if he will arrange for inquiries to be made by Her Majesty's representatives in Athens as to the manufacturers' list price in Greece for the drugs listed and ensure that the information contains details of pack size; whether any discounts are available, and the terms Adalat 10 mg caps, Adalat retard 20 mg caps, Aldomet 250 mg caps, Amoxil 500 mg caps, Brufen 400 mg tabs, Capoten 25 mg tabs, Feldene 10 mg caps, Feldene 20 mg tabs, Gaviscon liq 250, Inderal LA 160 mg tabs, Natrilix 2·5 mg tabs, Prothiaden 75 mg tabs, Septrin tabs, Serc tabs, Tagamet 200 mg tabs, Tagamet 400 mg tabs, Timoptel eye drops 0·5 per cent., Ventolin inhaler, Zantac 150 mg tabs and Zyloric 300 mg tabs;

  (6) if he will arrange for inquiries to be made by Her Majesty's representatives in Rome as to the manufacturers' list price in Italy for the drugs listed and ensure that the information contains details of pack sizes whether any discounts are available and the terms Adalat 10mg caps, Adalat retard 20mg caps, Aldomet 250mg caps, Amoxil 500 mg caps, Brufen 400mg tabs, Capoten 25mg tabs, Feldene 10mg caps, Feldene 20mg tabs, Gaviscon liq 250, Inderal LA 160mg tabs, Natrilix 2.5mg tabs, Prothiaden 75mg tabs, Septrin tabs, Serc tabs, Tagamet 200mg tabs, Tagamet 400mg tabs, Timoptel eye drops 0·5 per cent, Ventolin inhaler, Zantac 150mg tabs and Zyloric 300mg tabs.

  Mr. Eggar
  No. Her Majesty's embassies do not have the resources to undertake inquiries of this nature which, in any case, can be pursued through normal commercial channels.

  Iraq
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if Her Majesty's Government will reconsider the imposition of economic sanctions and the ending of export credits to Iraq in the light of the mass evictions of Kurdish Iraqi citizens from border areas and the Iraqi Government's refusal to allow independent observers into the depopulated area.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We do not believe that unilateral economic measures would be effective in ending human rights abuses in Iraq. It is better to maintain a working relationship if we are to influence Iraq's behaviour. We continue to press the Iraqi authorities for full details of their present resettlement programme, and to allow diplomats and journalists to be able to visit the areas concerned.
  368
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) whether he has obtained details from the Iraqi Government on which towns and villages in Iraqi Kurdistan have been depopulated in recent weeks;

  (2) whether, in the light of the Iraqi ambassador's recent statement of the Iraqi Government's intention to depopulate an additional stretch of Iraq's border, he has obtained the names of the towns and villages within this area which now face imminent eviction of the population.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We continue to press the Iraqi authorities for details of their Kurdish resettlement programme. The Iraqi Government also issued a statement on 26 June providing some further information.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the eviction of Kurds from border areas in Iraq.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We remain seriously concerned at allegations of forced resettlement of Kurds in northern Iraq. We continue to press the Iraqi authorities to allow journalists and diplomats to visit the areas concerned to see for themselves.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the report of European Community representatives in Baghdad on the human rights situation in Iraq will be made available in the Library.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Reports compiled by EC ambassadors are confidential documents under the rules of European political co-operation. It is not, therefore, open to us to make such reports publicly available.

  European Court
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many of the decisions of the European Court have not yet been implemented by each of the member states of the European Economic Community; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  According to table 10 of the "Official Journal of the European Communities" C310, volume 31 of 5 December 1988 (available in the Library), at 31 December 1987 the information was as follows:

  Number

  Italy

  28

  Belgium

  10

  Germany

  9

  France

  5

  Netherlands

  4

  Greece

  4

  Denmark

  2

  United Kingdom

  2

  Ireland

  1

  The two judgments listed against the United Kingdom have now been implemented.

EMPLOYMENT

  Accident Rates
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the accident rate per 1,000 trainees on YTS and for employees generally.

  Mr. Cope
  The rate of accidents reported to the Training Agency per 100,000 trainees on YTS in the year ended 31 March 1988 was 804. This includes types of accidents which would not be reportable to HSE in the case of employees generally. The rate of accidents to all employees reported to HSE in the same year was 734 per 100,000, but this figure does not allow for the known substantial under-reporting, so the figures are not comparable.

  Detailed research shows that YTS trainees are no more at risk than employees generally and could be less so.

  1970

  1971

  1972

  1973

  1974

  1975

  1976

  1977

  1978

  1979

  Average number of establishments found per inspector not displaying notices or having inadequate notices

  105

  96

  80

  76

  73

  74

  69

  61

  57

  54

  Average number of establishments found per inspector not keeping time records or keeping inadequate time records

  200

  191

  164

  161

  146

  143

  123

  114

  108

  105

  Average number of establishments found per inspector not keeping wage records or keeping inadequate wage records

  40

  46

  41

  40

  36

  35

  28

  26

  26

  26

  Average number of establishments found per inspector not giving statutory customary holidays

  <1

  <l

  <1

  <1

  <1

  <1

  <1

  <1

  <1

  <1

  Average number of establishments found per inspector not giving statutory annual holidays

  <1

  <1

  <1

  <1

  <1

  2

  2

  4

  5

  7

  Average number of establishments found per inspector underpaying holiday remuneration

  28

  23

  23

  26

  28

  31

  31

  30

  26

  21

  Average number of establishments found per inspector underpaying (other than holiday remuneration)

  38

  37

  45

  53

  47

  66

  72

  72

  62

  61

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  Average number of establishments found per inspector not displaying notices or having inadequate notices

  59

  58

  57

  64

  74

  70

  87

  84

  117

  Average number of establishments found per inspector not keeping time records or keeping inadequate time records

  102

  98

  88

  98

  101

  94

  114

  90

  106

  Average number of establishments found per inspector not keeping wage records or keeping inadequate wage records

  27

  23

  20

  22

  17

  13

  15

  17

  23

  Average number of establishments found per inspector not giving statutory customary holidays

  <1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  2

  not applicable

  Average number of establishments found per inspector not giving statutory annual holidays

  6

  6

  5

  4

  5

  4

  6

  not applicable

  Average number of establishments found per inspector underpaying holiday remuneration

  21

  26

  26

  25

  29

  25

  31

  not applicable

  Average number of establishments found per inspector underpaying (other than holiday remuneration)

  69

  73

  61

  64

  53

  50

  58

  59

  82

  Factory Inspectors
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the number of factory inspectors in post(a) in 1979 and (b) currently; and what are the reasons for the change.

  Tourism
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the future of the section 4 tourism grant scheme.

  Mr. Lee
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan) on 6 July.

  Wages Councils
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many firms have been discovered in contravention of wages council legislation, per inspector, for each year since 1970.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Wages inspectorate statistics are compiled in terms of establishments rather than firms. With this proviso, the information requested is in the following tables. The figures under each heading are not mutually exclusive.

  Mr. Nicholls
  On 1 April 1979, 742 factory inspectors were in post in the Health and Safety Executive. On 1 July 1989, the total was 621·5 compared with 592 on 1 April 1988.

  In order to contain public sector manpower and spending there were staff reductions in HSE, as in the Civil Service as a whole. HSE continues to meet its responsibilities with improvements in efficiency brought about by the use of careful targeting.
  371
  Increased Government provision to the Health and Safety Commission and Executive over previously planned levels of £6·7 million gross for 1988–89 and £8·3 million gross for 1989·90 have allowed the Executive to increase factory inspector numbers. The Executive plans to have 640 factory inspectors in post by April 1990.

  Employment Training
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment which of those local authorities listed as participating in employment training,Official Report, 27 February, columns 34–38 as training managers and training agents have now withdrawn from the scheme.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The following local authorities participating in employment training as training managers have now withdrawn from the scheme:

  Barrow borough council

  London borough of Barnet

  London borough of Merton

  Nottinghamshire county council

  Rochdale Metropolitan borough council.

  Wolverhampton metropolitan borough council will not be renewing their existing contract at the end of August 1989. Similar action is expected from Leicester city council and Cleveland county council.

HEALTH

  Administrative and Clerical Staff
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many whole-time equivalent administrative and clerical staff were employed in the National Health Service in England on(a) 30 September 1979, (b) 30 September 1987 and (c) 30 September 1988.

  In-patient waiting list1,by Regional Health Authority, England 1974–1988

  Region

  31 December 1974

  30 September 1975

  30 September 1976

  30 September 1977

  30 September 1978

  30 September 1979

  30 September 1980

  30 September 1981

  30 September 1982

  30 September 1983

  30 September 1984

  30 September 1985

  30 September 1986

  30 September 1987

  30 September 1988

  Northern

  29,178

  32,435

  34,364

  33,659

  35,677

  42,288

  35,538

  33,105

  49,958

  44,478

  38,798

  36,154

  36,880

  34,898

  36,044

  Yorkshire

  31,468

  32,877

  34,689

  37,165

  39,903

  47,223

  40,982

  37,701

  53,033

  49,363

  47,026

  45,763

  46,597

  47,689

  51,279

  Trent

  44,717

  46,867

  50,885

  52,154

  58,516

  66,498

  57,895

  56,851

  73,509

  69,156

  65,324

  62,190

  60,842

  54,442

  55,076

  East Anglian

  19,390

  18,106

  22,031

  22,408

  25,636

  27,971

  25,772

  25,596

  32,935

  33,080

  31.148

  27,388

  27,860

  30,960

  33,417

  North West Thames

  37,939

  38,563

  43.421

  41,640

  42.870

  43.595

  42.476

  41,587

  40,785

  41,015

  40.022

  40,265

  43,710

  40,273

  44,770

  North East Thames

  37,622

  35,570

  41,077

  43,543

  46,045

  53,146

  49,032

  48,515

  58,207

  58,911

  63,563

  66,406

  74,926

  71,812

  79,384

  South East Thames

  39,286

  38,793

  45.797

  43,798

  47,398

  49,920

  45,484

  45,559

  51,820

  51,627

  51,642

  50,087

  56,768

  56,794

  55,619

  South West Thames

  25,767

  25,093

  30.295

  30,579

  33,538

  37,244

  34,540

  33,923

  36,456

  37,470

  35,389

  36,752

  36,073

  34,185

  41,005

  Wessex

  29,148

  29,669

  32.591

  32,533

  35,809

  40,222

  38.173

  40,275

  45,317

  46,879

  45,227

  42,003

  42,726

  42,217

  41,607

  Oxford

  28,913

  25,972

  31.606

  31,480

  36,065

  36,180

  33,900

  32,562

  35,734

  36,082

  35,339

  33.309

  33,249

  31,343

  32,996

  South Western

  40.842

  42,718

  44.389

  46,177

  45,175

  45,876

  43,691

  42,821

  47,142

  47,534

  46,562

  43,639

  43,686

  40,094

  43,411

  West Midlands

  60,766

  63,351

  72,536

  74,662

  79.397

  87,693

  80.937

  79,952

  86,544

  83,598

  83,119

  80,974

  79,261

  74,965

  72,461

  Mersey

  24,813

  25,344

  30,221

  28,803

  31.165

  38,572

  34.060

  33.105

  37,674

  34,274

  31,400

  30,141

  30,126

  30,245

  32,121

  North Western

  60,236

  58,168

  66,893

  64,560

  63,123

  71,948

  65,513

  60,252

  69,697

  62,525

  59,417

  58,465

  61,143

  62,099

  63,839

  Special health authorities

  7,339

  6.026

  7,469

  7,935

  8,044

  7,350

  7,888

  7,589

  7,054

  7,763

  8,623

  7,713

  8,054

  9,145

  8,044

  England

  517,424

  519,552

  588.264

  591,096

  628,361

  695,726

  635,881

  619,393

  725,865

  703,755

  682,599

  661,249

  681,901

  661,161

  691,073

  Nurses
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give for the latest available date and for each district health authority and regional health authority the total number of nursing posts, the number of vacant nursing posts and the latter as a percentage of the former; and the number of nursing posts for qualified nurses, the number of vacant posts for qualified nurses and the latter as a percentage of the former.

  Mr. Mellor
  The information requested is not collected centrally.
  372
  Mr. Mellor
  The information is shown in the table.

  NHS staff in post in England at 30 September Whole-time equivalents1

  Administrative and clerical2 3

  1979

  103,000

  1987

  114,600

  19884

  116,300

  1 Figures are rounded to nearest one hundred (100) whole-time equivalents.

  2 Includes general managers.

  3 Figures for 1987 and 1988 include some "Other Statutory Authorities" staff not included in previous years (some 700 WTE in 1987).

  4 1988 figure is provisional.

  Source: Department of Health annual census of NHS non-medical manpower.

  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give for each regional health authority and for England as a whole the total in-patient waiting list recorded in each hospital waiting list return since 1 January 1974.

  Mr. Mellor
  The total in-patient waiting list for each regional health authority and for England in each year since 1974 is given in the table.

  Hospital Closures
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list for each health region the complete hospital closures since January 1979 giving, in each case(a) the name and address of the hospital, (b) the area health authority or district health authority, (c) the number of beds, (d) the type of hospital and (e) the date of closure;

  (2) if he will list for each health region the partial hospital closures since January 1979 giving, in each case (a) the name and address of the hospital, (b) the area

  373
  health authority or district health authority, (c) the number of beds, (d) the type of hospital and (e) the date of closure.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) on 11 May at column 497 which refers to lists, placed in the Library of all hospitals/units approved for full or partial closure, by region and district and in year order, since 1979. The further information requested is not available centrally.

  Prescriptions
  Sir Neil Macfarlane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the number of prescriptions dispensed and the total net ingredient cost for England and Wales, for the years 1977 to 1988.

  Mr. Mellor
  The number of prescriptions dispensed in England during the period together with the net ingredient cost before discounts and excluding dispensing fees are:

  Prescriptions millions

  Net ingredient cost£ million

  1977

  311·1

  456·3

  1978

  323·6

  544·7

  1979

  321·3

  623·4

  1980

  320·4

  754·6

  1981

  317·3

  880·3

  1982

  329·5

  1,031·8

  1983

  333·9

  1,157·6

  1984

  340·6

  1,252·1

  1985

  339·9

  1,329·0

  1986

  344·4

  1,453·1

  1987

  358·5

  1,636·1

  1988

  371·0

  1,852·2

  The information relating to Wales is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Medical Records
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received concerning the right of access of patients to medical records; what replies he has made; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  There have been a number of representations over the years. The number increased after the Access to Personal Files Act became law. During its passage through the House medical records were excluded from its provisions but the Government undertook to have talks with the medical profession about a voluntary code of practice on access to medical records. These talks have resulted in a draft code, on which the Department is consulting interested parties such as doctors, dentists, nurses, midwives, health visitors, patient interest groups and NHS management. As soon after that consultation as is practicable the Department will issue the code. A copy of the draft code is in the Library.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been during each of the last three years(a) the total assistance and grants given by his Department to help disablement organisations and (b) grants given in each of these years to the British Council of organisations of disabled people; and if he will review his adequacy of
  374
  support being given to those organisations which involve disabled people directly, in the policy development and decision taking affecting the well-being of disabled people.

  Mr. Freeman
  With regard to grants to help disablement organisations, I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), on 18 April 1989 at columns 133–34. Grants to the British Council of Organisations of Disabled People have been as follows:

  Year

  £

  1986–87

  10,000

  1987–88

  4,500

  1988–89

  10,000

  We do support the work of many organisations which involve disabled people directly and expect to do so increasingly in the future as new bodies become established.

  Eye Tests
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will extend his Department's definition of a near relative of glaucoma sufferers in his criteria for free eye tests to include nephews and nieces.

  Mr. Mellor
  The criteria that free NHS sight tests should be available to parents, brothers, sisters or children aged 40 years or over of diagnosed glaucoma sufferers was reached after advice from doctors and full consultation with other interested parties. We have no plans to change or extend this definition to include nephews, nieces, any other relative or age group.

  Cook-Chill Food
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has carried out into the health effects of nutrient depletion on long stay patients in hospitals whose diet is mainly cook-chill meals.

  Mr. Freeman
  The recent review of cook-chill and cook-freeze guidelines by an expert group took into account relevant scientific papers and drew upon its expert knowledge. The expert group concluded that, providing the guidelines are followed, food produced by the cook-chill system is as good nutritionally as food from conventional catering.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he intends to introduce the temperature regulations recommended in the Social Services Select Committee report on listeria in respect of cook-chill retailed food and cook-chill catered food.

  Mr. Freeman
  Draft regulations which embody new storage temperature requirements were issued for consultation on 4 July 1989. We intend to make new regulations later this year.

  Dental Charges (Refunds)
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many applicants for a refund of their dental charges have been turned down since the introduction of charges on the grounds that they did not claim within one month of the original payment; and if he will make a statement.
  375
  Mr. Feeeman
  I regret that the information requested is not available.

  Blood
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the profit made by the blood transfusion service on each 1,000 pints of donated blood bought by private sector health institutions; what method is used to determine the price at which blood will be sold to the private sector; how much blood was sold in total for each of the last 10 years to the private sector for all blood groups and the rarest blood groups; what was this as a percentage of total blood donations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  No profit is made on any blood or blood components supplied to non-NHS hospitals by the national blood transfusion service. Since 1 April 1984 charges have been made to the private sector to recover the cost to the NHS of collection, processing, handling and transport. No charge is made for the blood itself. Information about the groups supplied is not held centrally. Blood issued to non-NHS hospitals is shown in the table.

  National Blood Transfusion Service: England and Wales1

  Year

  Total blood donations

  Units of blood issued to non-NHS hospitals

  Units of blood issued as a percentage of total donations

  1979

  2,020,919

  n/a

  n/a

  1980

  2,094,177

  n/a

  n/a

  1981

  2,127,432

  n/a

  n/a

  1982

  1,942,997

  31,437

  1·6

  1983

  2,017,018

  40,786

  2·0

  1984

  2,038,937

  49,232

  2·4

  1985

  2,007,931

  54,327

  2·7

  1986

  2,023,841

  64,040

  3·2

  1987

  1,989,779

  84,361

  4·2

  21988

  2,033,005

  75,961

  3·7

  1 The figures relate to Wales and 12 regions in England as information is not available for Oxford region.

  2 Provisional.

  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether blood donation shortages have been reported to his Department in any of the last 10 years by any public body for use by National Health Service institutions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  I regret that systematic information about representations received over the last 10 years could not be supplied except at disproportionate cost. Up to 1 October 1988 the day-to-day responsibility for maintaining blood supplies rested with regional transfusion centres (RTCs) and the Department would not necessarily have been informed of any local shortages. The national directorate of the blood transfusion service was established from 1 October 1988, and arranges the transfer of blood to RTCs experiencing temporary shortages.

  Eggs
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many consignments of imported eggs have been impounded on the grounds of poor quality since 1 December 1988;
  376
  (2) how many consignments of imported eggs have been condemned by officials of his Department since 1 December 1988.

  Mr. Mellor
  It is not practicable for port health authorities to impound or condemn any imported egg consignments because of the time needed by public health laboratories to produce confirmation test results.

  The arrangements are that any positive findings are reported to the Department and the relevant producer country is then advised so that action can be taken to deal with the contamination at source.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those public health laboratories which participate in testing consignments of imported eggs.

  Mr. Mellor
  Reports on tests on samples of imported eggs have so far been received from public health laboratories at Ashford, Hull, Ipswich and Norwich.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what arrangements he has agreed with port authorities for the testing of samples of imported eggs at public health laboratories.

  Mr. Mellor
  Since 4 April 1989 port health authorities have agreed to check as many consignments of imported eggs as practicable and to notify the Department where public health laboratory reports of contaminated eggs are received.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what resources he has made available to public health laboratories specifically to enable them to conduct tests on samples of consignments of imported eggs.

  Mr. Mellor
  Funding for public health laboratories involved with the testing of imported egg samples is contained within their overall resource allocation.

  Children Bill
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his estimate for the costs of staff training arising from the provisions of the Children Bill.

  Mr. Mellor
  One off costs of staff training arising from the Children Bill are estimated at £4·6 million at 1988–89 levels for local authority staff. The estimates have been dicussed with the local authority associations and will be reviewed when the level of central Government support for local authority expenditure is determined. There will also be costs of training judicial and court staff which are a mater for my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

  Community Care
  Mr. Allen McKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will outline the procedure he will be establishing for inspecting and monitoring the quality of community care services provided by the private and voluntary sectors;

  (2) under the new arrangements, which agency will have primary responsibility for people who are mentally ill and are also either elderly or have a physical handicap;

  (3) what safetguards will be established to protect consumer should services provided by private or voluntary organisations for community care go out of business or fail to meet national quality standards.
  377
  Mr. Mellor
  The Government have been considering the future organisations and management of community care services following Sir Roy Griffiths report "Community Care: Agenda for Action" and the many views received in response to it. Its deliberations are now complete and we hope to make a statement this week.

  Mr. Allen McKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has for ring fencing National Health Service resources to ensure funding released by the closure of wards and hospitals will be directed towards community care.

  Mr. Mellor
  Health authorities must remain responsible for determining their own expenditure priorities in the light of their knowledge of local needs and circumstances.

  OPCS
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will announce the result of his review of the future location of the work of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys.

  Mr. Freeman
  Yes. The Office of Population Censuses and Surveys (OPCS) has three main sites in London, Titchfield and Southport where there are about 660, 840 and 600 staff respectively. The number of staff at the Southport site is expected to fall by about 250 during 1991 as a result of the computerisation of the NHS central register.

  I have concluded that most of the division which oversees the registration of births, marriages and deaths, now based largely in London, should move to Southport. It is having great difficulty in recruiting and retaining administrative staff in London, and the effectiveness and efficiency of its operation is being jeopardised. about 170 posts from London and about 80 posts from Titchfield will move to Southport. Some other services at present based in London, mainly in central support areas, will move to Titchfield when accommodation becomes available there. The moves will be co-ordinated with the planned run-down of other Southport work and will probably be completed by mid 1992.

  Both the public search room and the OPCS library, which are used regularly by the public, will remain in London. The professional statistical work of OPCS, covering population and medical statistics, the census and social surveys, will also remain in London because of the importance of day to day links with customers in Government Departments, which have been strengthened in accordance with the machinery of Government review in 1986.

ENERGY

  British Petroleum
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will use his departmental shareholding in British Petroleum to put pressure on British Petroleum to stop its destruction of parts of the Jamari rain forest in Brazil.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I have been asked to reply.

  No. The Government now hold only about 2 per cent. of the ordinary share capital of British Petroleum plc. Even when their shareholding was much larger, the Government did not use their rights as a shareholder to intervene in the commercial decisions of the company.

  Research and Development
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) if he will list Government expenditure on research and development in the area of energy efficiency for the years 1981, 1983, 1985, 1987 and 1989;

  (2) if he will list the proposed funding for research and development in the area of energy efficiency for the years 1990–91 and 1991–92;

  (3) what amount of funding is being allocated to research and development in the area of energy efficiency in the current financial year.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The information requested is as follows:

  Expenditure on energy efficiency research, development and demonstration1 2

  Year

  £'000s

  1980–81

  2,015

  1982–83

  6,841

  1984–85

  6,564

  1986–87

  8,197

  1988–89

  9,077

  1989–90

  8,850

  1 For the year 1989–90 the figure is the estimate provision. Prior years are outturn.

  2 All figures exclude expenditure on the monitoring and targeting programme.

  Figures for future years will be published shortly in the 1989 Annual Review of Government-Funded R & D.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will give a breakdown of his Department's spending on research and development in the following sources of energy for 1988, its plans for 1989 and its plans for future years(a) nuclear fission in thermal reactors, (b) nuclear fission in fast breeder reactors, (c) nuclear fusion, (d) renewable energy sources as a whole, (e) tidal power, (f) solar, (g) windpower, (h) wave power, (i) hiofuels, (j) wet rock geothermal, (k) dry rock geothermal, (l) other renewable sources, (m) conventional fossil fuel sources and (h) any other sources of energy; and whether he will give comparable figures for other European Economic Community countries.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The figures requested are as follows:

  Expenditure in £ million

  1988–89

  1989–90

  Thermal reactors (safety research only)

  19·53

  17·27

  Fast breeder reactor

  104·55

  98·58

  Fusion

  26·21

  26·60

  All renewables

  15·01

  16·80

  Tidal

  1·18

  1·00

  Solar

  1·42

  1·90

  Wind

  3·91

  5·00

  Wave

  0·14

  0·20

  Biomass

  1·48

  2·00

  Wet rock geothermal

  0·06

  0·15

  Dry rock geothermal

  3·50

  2·90

  Other renewable

  3·32

  3·65

  Fossil fuels

  0·72

  2·56

  Other sources of energy

  —

  —

  Figures for future years will be published shortly in the 1989 Annual Review of Government Funded Research and Development, in the usual format for that publication.

  Figures for other European Community countries can be found in the annual review published by the

  379
  International Energy Agency "Energy Policies and Programmes of IEA Countries", the most recent of which was produced in 1988. Expenditure figures and forecasts for other countries may not be on the same basis as for the United Kingdom.

  Nuclear Generating Stations
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list the estimated value of the nuclear generating sectors of the Central Electricity Generating Board and the South of Scotland Electricity Board.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) on 19 October 1988 at column 859.

  Nuclear Power Stations
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list the estimated operating lifespans of the United Kingdom's remaining nuclear power stations in commission.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  This is an operating matter for the utilities concerned. I have asked the chairmen of the CEGB and SSEB to reply to the hon. Member.

  Electricity Privatisation
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he intends proceeding with his plan to include the nuclear power plants within electricity privatisation; whether he intends transferring the ownership of physical assets of nuclear power plants currently owned by the Central Electricity Generating Board to the private sector; what is his latest estimate of the costs of decommissioning nuclear power stations and disposing and reprocessing of nuclear waste; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Parkinson
  The Government's plans for privatising the electricity industry were set out in the White Paper, "Privatising Electricity" (Cm. 322) and in the Electricity Bill, and were debated at length during the passage of the Bill. These remain the Government's policy.

  The CEGB estimates that the average cost of decommissioning each of its existing nuclear power stations, in current prices and assuming a delay of around 100 years before the final stage of decommissioning, will be about £300 million, including the costs of disposal of waste arising. The costs of reprocessing spent fuel will depend on the commercial negotiations between the CEGB and BNFL which are currently underway.

  Electrical Appliances (Efficiency)
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he has any plans(a) to introduce legislation to ensure that electrical appliances are labelled to give details of their energy use so that consumers may choose the most energy efficient brand of any given type of appliance and (b) to press the European Communities to regulate to ensure labelling of electrical appliances.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers given to the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) on 16 May 1988 at column 299 and to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) on 20 February 1989 at columns 470–71.
  380
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he has any plans to press the European Communities to regulate the energy efficiencies of electrical appliances to ensure that they achieve minimum efficiency standards that would be set by the EC and updated along with technological developments.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  No.

  Mr. Elliot Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether his Department has evaluated claims that use of electricity could be reduced by 70 per cent. without reducing the present level of electricial services if the most energy efficient electrical appliances currently available were used throughout the country, and if other conservation measures including combined heat and power/district heating schemes, prohibiting wasteful energy systems, tightening building regulations' were introduced.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  My Energy Efficiency Office is in the process of commissioning a study on the energy efficiency of electrical appliances. However, improvements in efficiency in domestic appliances, as with improvements in industrial processes, and construction and use of combined heat and power systems, do not necessarily lead to a reduction in the use of electricity. The increased efficiency may be taken as increased warmth or increased production, and increased energy efficiency may mean changing from another fuel to electricity.

  Environmental Damage
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will set out the conclusions of his Department's evaluation of the environmentally damaging aspects of(a) nuclear power, (b) coal-fired power plants, (c) oil-fired power plants, (d) gas-fired power plants, (e) large scale inland hydropower, (f) low-head hydropower, (g) estuarial power generating tidal barrages, (h) wind power, (i) solar water heating, (j) photoelectric solar power, (k) pump-storage power schemes, (l) off-shore wave power, (m) on-shore wave power, (n) ocean thermal electric power, (o) geothermal power, (p) refuse fuelled power plants, (q) biomass fuelled power plants and (r) combined heat and power pebble-bed/fluidised bed plants; and if he will make a statement on the benefits of each type of plant in regard to mitigation of greenhouse global warming.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The latest comprehensive and systematic evaluation of the full range of energy supply technologies undertaken for my Department was reported in Energy Paper 54 and its complementary "background papers" volume ETSU-R-43. Both of these publications are available in the Library of the House. Thy describe in general terms the principal environmental impacts of each technology. Environmental considerations form an integral part of many of the Department's R & D projects.

  As part of the study leading to Energy Paper 54, consideration was given to the additional benefits of these technologies if restrictions on CO2 emissions were necessary. However, the results were not quantified. The current United Kingdom work in support of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Working Group on "Response Strategies" should improve our analysis of the cost and benefits in regard to climate change for many of the technologies listed.

  Fusion
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his latest estimate of the likely cost of electricity produced from fusion sources.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  At present, work on fusion is still at the stage of establishing whether fusion is a scientifically feasible source of power. It is too soon to make any reliable estimate of the likely cost of electricity from fusion sources.

  Offshore Wind Generation
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether his Department has any plans to fund the setting up of a pilot programme of offshore wind generation.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The chairman of the CEGB announced in 1988 the proposal to build an offshore wind turbine generator as part of a joint programme with the Department. Following withdrawal of the prospective industrial partner from wind turbine manufacture, alternatives are now being considered.

  Department of Energy research, development and design expenditure on renewable energy (£ million)

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Wind

  0·6

  0·8

  0·9

  2·5

  2·5

  4·8

  5·4

  3·7

  4·0

  3·9

  Wave

  3·0

  3·3

  4·4

  3·1

  1·0

  0·4

  0·4

  0·1

  0·2

  0·1

  Geothermal aquifers

  1·3

  1·7

  2·6

  1·5

  1·8

  1·1

  0·3

  0·1

  0

  0·1

  Geothermal hot dry rocks

  0

  0·6

  5·6

  3·0

  2·9

  4·6

  3·5

  3·5

  3·6

  3·5

  Solar

  1·2

  0·9

  0·7

  1·4

  0·9

  0·5

  0·7

  0·9

  1·1

  1·4

  Biomass1

  0·1

  0·4

  0·4

  1·2

  0·7

  1·1

  0·8

  1·3

  2·2

  1·5

  Tide

  0·6

  1·4

  0·4

  0

  0

  0·3

  0·1

  0·1

  1·4

  1·2

  Hydro/General studies

  0·8

  0·8

  Technology transfer and promotion

  0·7

  1·0

  ETSU services

  1·4

  2·2

  2·3

  2·0

  1·9

  2·1

  2·0

  2·3

  2·3

  2·5

  8·2

  11·3

  17·3

  14·7

  11·7

  14·9

  13·2

  12·0

  16·3

  16·0

  1 Includes expenditure on "waste as a fuel" projects under the Energy Efficiency Office demonstration scheme·

  Note: Up to 1986–87 total for research and development also includes expenditure on low head hydro and general studies· These are separately identified for 1987–88 onwards· For 1987–88 onwards general studies includes work by the chief scientist's group.

  Department of Energy expenditure on nuclear programmes (£ million)

  Fast reactor

  Fusion

  Thermal reactor

  Other

  Total

  1979–80

  76·4

  13·0

  17·2

  38·9

  145·5

  1980–81

  90·8

  14·8

  22·8

  57·8

  186·2

  1981–82

  98·2

  22·5

  35·7

  49·0

  205·4

  1982–83

  96·4

  21·6

  36·0

  60·8

  214·8

  1983–84

  114·9

  22·1

  30·5

  36·3

  203·8

  1984–85

  102·5

  25·6

  25·6

  32·4

  186·1

  1985–86

  102·0

  21·1

  29·1

  37·4

  189·6

  1986–87

  99·4

  18·9

  15·6

  50·0

  183·9

  1987–88

  75·8

  20·8

  16·7

  59·0

  172·3

  1988–89

  182·5

  24·9

  17·4

  132·0

  1256·8

  1 Excludes restructuring costs·

  Note: All figures are in cash of the day.

  Safety Inspectors
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list the number of safety inspectors employed by his Department to look after offshore oil safety.

  Mr. Parkinson
  The number of safety inspectors employed by the Department of Energy to look after offshore oil safety was 41 at 1 July 1989.

  Non-fossil Fuel Sources
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list the amount of public sector support given directly or indirectly since 1979 to each non-fossil fuel source of power including all forms of renewable energy.

  Mr. Parkinson
  Expenditure since 1979 by the Department of Energy on its renewables programme and payments made to the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA) in support of its nuclear energy programme are set out in the tables. Other public sector contributions towards the renewables programmes in which the Department is involved are mainly from the Central Electricity Generating Board, together with other parts of the electricity supply industry, the Science and Engineering Research Council and the Natural Environment Research Council. Other public sector contributions to the UKAEA's nuclear energy programme are from the Department of the Environment, British Nuclear Fuels, the electricity supply industry and NI R EX. Figures for these other public sector contributions are not readily available over the period and could not be provided without incurring disproportionate cost.

  Magnox
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if the timetable for closing the Central Electricity Generating Board's magnox nuclear power stations will alter as a result of privatisation.

  Mr. Parkinson
  This is a matter for the CEGB.

  Electricity Generation
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the latest estimate of the cost per kilowatt hour of generating electricity by(a) nuclear plant and (b) coal-fired power stations.

  Mr. Parkinson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that my hon. Friend gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, North (Sir T. Skeet) on 15 December 1988 at column 679.

  Electricity Council
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when the Electricity Council intends to publish its annual accounts for the electricity supply industry.

  Mr. Parkinson
  This is a matter for the Electricity Council. I shall ask the chairman of the council to write to the hon. Member.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Disabled People
  Mr. Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he has any plans to change the earnings rule to increase the amount which disabled persons may earn before losing benefits.

  Mr. Scott
  People receiving sickness benefit, invalidity pension or severe disablement allowance can do work of a therapeutic nature with their doctor's approval without affecting their benefit entitlement, provided that their earnings do not exceed £28·50 per week. This level was last increased in April 1989 and is reviewed annually.

  The amount that disabled people can earn without affecting their income support was increased from £4 to £15 per week in April 1988. The same disregard of £15 applies also to housing benefit and will be extended to the community charge benefits. There are no current plans to increase these disregards.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth, 11 April,Official Report, column 500, when sections 2, 3, and 8 (ii) of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 will be implemented.

  Mr. Scott
  We are still in detailed discussions with the local authority associations about section 7; these will be followed by work on the remaining sections.

  Fraud (North West)
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what has been the rate of successful prosecutions for social security fraud in the North West since the inception of the scheme offering £75 payments to those who supply relevant information to investigating officials;

  (2) what was the rate of successful prosecutions for social security fraud in the North West prior to the introduction of the £75 inducement;

  (3) when his Department's inducement programme in the North West was introduced.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Department does not operate such a scheme.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make it his policy to introduce poll tax rebates for those who care for the elderly within the family home.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Community charge rebates may be claimed by all people who are liable for a full personal community charge or for collective community charge contributions, including people who are caring for the elderly within the family home. The amount of rebate will depend upon the claimant's financial resources, personal circumstances and community charge liability.

  Food Vouchers
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what powers social fund officers have to make payments by means of food vouchers; and what guidance they have received on the use of such powers.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Social fund officers are empowered by section 33(1A) of the Social Security Act 1986 (as amended by the Social Security Act 1988, schedule 3, paragraph 10) to make social fund payments in the form of vouchers.

  Guidance on the issue of vouchers is contained in the social fund manual, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Leaflets
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total cost of production and distribution of the leaflet entitled, "Our Business Is Service."

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) on 26 May at columns 749–50.

  Benefit Costs
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what has been the per capita level of spending on social security benefits(a) in real terms and (b) indexed with 100 as 1979, since 1979.

  Mr. Scott
  I regret that it is not possible to provide the information requested. There is no reliable precise estimate of the total number of people who receive social security benefits. Many people receive more than one benefit at the same time and detailed records of the numbers of all multiple beneficiaries and the various combinations of benefits held by them is not kept. Information is collected on the numbers in receipt of each individual benefit (table 15.6 of Cm. 615) and some combinations of benefit but it is not sufficiently comprehensive to determine a per capita level of spending.

  Caerphilly Local Office
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what information he has on the reasons why 8·5 per cent. of the annual social fund budget for loans and grants was unspent during 1988–89 in the Caerphilly office; and how many applications for loans or grants in that office during the year in question were refused.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  During the financial year 1988–89 the Department's office at Caerphilly made awards which
  385
  accounted for 98·6 per cent. of the loans budget allocation, and 91·5 per cent. of the community care grants budget allocation.

  The underspend on the community care grants budget occurred because the office had anticipated the need to fund start up grants arising from two local housing developments. In the event, the Wales and West housing association development did not result in any applications and the Newydd housing association development was cancelled.

  Information about the number of loan and grant applications which were unsuccessful may be obtained from data in the Library.

  Private Residential Care
  Mr. Allen McKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will outline the mechanism for ensuring that social security resources currently spent on private residential care and nursing homes are directed towards community care.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Income support remains available both to those in need of the high levels of personal care provided by independent homes and to those in need of care who remain in their own homes.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether social grant is counted as income for the purpose of calculating poll tax rebate entitlement for the spouse of a student.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Yes.

  Giro Cheques
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will instruct the Department of Social Security offices to post giro cheques to claimants on Thursdays to increase the chance of their arriving before post offices close at midday on Saturdays.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Paydays for claimants are allocated evenly across the week to spread the work for the benefit of Post Office and local office staff alike. However, it is not normal practice to issue giro cheques on a Friday for the reason cited in the question.

DEFENCE

  Soviet Submarine (Accident)
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when Her Majesty's Government were informed by the Soviet Government of the disabling accident to the nuclear reactor of the Echo-2 class Soviet submarine which occurred on 26 June.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I have been asked to reply.

  This accident was of such a minor nature that no notification from the Soviet Government was expected and none was received.

  Low Flying
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many air-misses involving military aircraft operating in the night low-flying system were reported(a) between 10 October 1987 and 31 May 1988 and (b) between 10 October 1988 and 31 May 1989.

  Mr. Neubert
  There were no air miss reports involving military aircraft operating in the night low-flying system for the period 10 October 1987 to 31 May 1988, and one reported for the period 10 October 1988 to 31 May 1989.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the refinements made to the revised night low-flying system with effect from 1 June.

  Mr. Neubert
  The major refinement made to the revised night low-flying system, with effect from 1 June, was to centralise the co-ordination of the system and the responsibility for deconfliction at the tactical booking cell at RAF West Drayton.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures have been taken since October 1988 to separate rotary and fixed-wing low flying over the United Kingdom(a) at night and (b) during the day.

  Mr. Neubert
  As with all aspects of low flying training, flight safety is under continuous review. Since October 1988, greater separation of rotary and fixed-wing low flying at night has been achieved through the designation of specified geographical areas for either predominantly fixed-wing or predominantly rotary-wing activity. No additional measures to separate fixed-wing and rotary-wing aircraft during daytime operations have been considered necessary since October 1988.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which units were responsible for(a) co-ordination of the night low-flying system and (b) deconfliction in the night low-flying system prior to the introduction of the revised system on 1 June.

  Mr. Neubert
  Co-ordination and deconfliction of night low flying during the trial period, to the introducion of the revised night low flying system on 1 June, were the responsibility of HQ strike command, RAF Germany and HQ 3rd air force.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the number of low-flying sorties over the United Kingdom in each year since 1979 by United Slates air force aircraft, providing a breakdown of the figures by aircraft type.

  Mr. Neubert
  Central records are not held in a form which would allow the data requested to be provided.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the scope and purpose of the additional low-flying activity in the Wash area at weekends between 6 May and 25 June.

  Mr. Neubert
  The only unusual military low flying activity identified in the general area of the Wash over the period in question was of Hercules transit activity on 3-4 June associated with exercise Blue Lanyard, about which those hon. Members, whose constituents were likely to be affected were notified in advance in the customary manner.
  387
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the figure for the proportion of RAF Germany low-flying training in 1988 which made use of the United Kingdom low-flying system, provided in the answer from the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert) to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy of 10 May,Official Report, column 475, included low-flying sorties by RAF Germany aircraft which originated from and terminated at airfields in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Neubert
  Yes.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the differences, in terms of the nature and force of their applicability to military low-flying aircraft, between(a) restricted areas for aviation, as shown on Civil Aviation Authority maps, (b) prohibited areas for aviation, as shown on Civil Aviation Authority maps, (c) provost-marshal prohibited areas, (d) provost-marshal restricted areas, (e) avoidance areas and transit areas in the United Kingdom low flying system, as shown on the Civil Aviation Authority chart entitled "Chart of United Kingdom Areas of Intense Aerial Activity and Military Low Flying System", and (f) military low-flying avoidances in force around individual installations and sites but which are not shown on the Civil Aviation Authority chart entitled "Chart of United Kingdom Areas of Intense Aerial Activity and Military Low Flying System."

  Mr. Neubert
  All restrictions applying to military low flying aircraft are detailed in United Kingdom military low flying regulations and marked, as appropriate, on military low flying charts. There are no differences in the nature and force of the applicability to military aircraft of the categories of restriction listed.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration is being given to authorising low flying at less than 250ft over the United Kingdom during exercises other than work-up training for exercises in the United States of America and Canada.

  Mr. Neubert
  Training in tactical training areas consists mainly of work-up training for operational low-flying exercises in the United States and Canada. Occasional continuation training may also be carried out to maintain aircrew skills between such exercises, thereby reducing the quantity of work-up training required. There are no plans to change this.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's policy on retaining central records of requests from foreign air forces, including the United States air force in the United Kingdom, for authorisation to fly in the United Kingdom low-flying system at less than the normal minimum height; and when this policy was first established.

  Date

  Place

  Accident

  Category

  Cause

  Red Arrows aircraft crashed during

  1. 17/5/1980

  Brighton Seafront

  display

  5

  Aircrew error

  2. 19/8/1980

  Valley Airfield

  Tyre burst on landing

  4

  Not positively determined

  3. 28/7/1982

  Valley Airfield

  Aircraft stalled

  5

  Aircrew error

  4. 20/10/1982

  Chivenor

  Birdstrike caused loss of power

  5

  Birdstrike

  5. 24/6/1983

  Isle of Man

  Flew into a ridge

  5

  Aircrew error

  6. 29/7/1983

  40 NM SWP Brawdy

  Engine surge, failed to relight

  5

  Not positively determined

  7. 29/7/1983

  Barnstaple Bay

  Mid-air collision (2 Hawks)

  5

  Aircrew error

  8. 21/3/1984

  Akrotiri

  Hit ground

  5

  Aircrew error

  9. 31/8/1984

  Sidmouth, Devon

  Engine surge, failed to relight

  5

  Technical fault

  388
  Mr. Neubert
  Records of any formal requests by foreign air forces for authorisation to carry out training in the United Kingdom at less than normal height would be handled in accordance with the normal and long-standing arrangements applicable to public records in the Ministry of Defence.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the approximate proportion of RAF Germany low-flying training in each year between 1979 and 1987 which has made use of the United Kingdom low-flying system.

  Mr. Neubert
  As my answer to the hon. Member on 11 May 1989 at column 475 made clear, accurate figures are not available prior to 1988. It is assessed, however, that for 1987 the proportion of RAF Germany fixed-wing low level sorties that made use of the United Kingdom low flying system was between 20 per cent. and 30 per cent.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of available flying days in the revised night low-flying system from 1 June are allocated to(a) RAF strike command, (b) RAF Germany, (c) RAF support command, (d) the United States air force, (e) other NATO air forces and (f) other users.

  Mr. Neubert
  With the recent centralisation of co-ordination of night low flying at the tactical booking cell at RAF West Drayton, the use of the United Kingdom night low flying system is not allocated to commands on a daily basis.

  Provost-Marshal Areas
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will list all provost-marshal prohibited areas which have been(a) established and (b) disestablished since 1979, stating the reason for establishment or disestablishment in each case;

  (2) if he will list all provost-marshal restricted areas which have been (a) established and (b) disestablished since 1979, stating the reason for establishment or disestablishment in each case.

  Mr. Neubert
  It is not our practice to release detailed information about the United Kingdom low flying system.

  Hawk Aircraft
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many accidents have occurred involving RAF Hawk aircraft since 1979; and if he will indicate the causes of such accidents where possible.

  Mr. Neubert
  Details of major accidents to RAF Hawk aircraft since 1979 are as follows:
  389

  Date

  Place

  Accident

  Category

  Cause

  10. 25/10/1984

  4 NM SW Port Madoc

  Control restriction

  5

  Not positively determined

  11. 7/11/1984

  Near Mona Airfield

  Birdstrike

  5

  Birdstrike

  12. 30/1/1985

  Bristol Channel

  Reported aileron restriction

  5

  Not positively determined

  13. 17/4/1985

  Wattisham Airfield

  Canopy came off aircraft

  5

  Aircrew error

  14. 26/9/1985

  Decimomannu

  Mid-air collision (2 Hawks)

  5

  Aircrew error

  15. 7/7/1986

  Valley Airfield

  Tyre burst on take off

  5

  Not positively determined

  16. 3/11/1986

  Scampton

  Engine surge, incorrect relight

  5

  Aircrew error

  17. 16/11/1987

  Welton

  Mid-air collision (2 Hawks)

  5

  Aircrew error

  18. 22/1/1988

  Scampton Airfield

  Red Arrows display practice

  5

  Aircrew error

  19. 13/5/1988

  ½NM S of Brawdy

  Engine failure on take off

  5

  Servicing error

  20. 24/6/1988

  Scampton Airfield

  Accident on take off

  4

  Aircrew error

  21. 14/6/1989

  15 NM SE Llanbeder

  Mid-air collision

  Under investigation

  Notes:

  1. Category 4 Damage not repairable on site.

  2. Category 5 Aircraft damaged beyond repair.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Hawk training aircraft are operating with the RAF and other air forces; and what design modifications have been made to the aircraft as a result of accidents.

  Mr. Neubert
  A total of 172 Hawk aircraft have been taken into service by the Royal Air Force. The aircraft has met fully its original design specification. As with all aircraft, modifications are introduced from time to time in the light of operational experience. The number of Hawk aircraft operational with other air forces is not a matter for my Department.

  Cardigan Bay (Accident)
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he is now in a position to publish in the Official Report details of the military aircraft accident which occurred on 14 June over the Cardigan bay area.

  Mr. Neubert
  On the afternoon of 14 June, while engaged on a training flight under instruction and practising a formation rejoin at 10,000 feet, two RAF Hawk aircraft from RAF Valley collided some 15 miles south-east of Llanbeder. One pilot, a Royal Navy officer, ejected successfully. Unfortunately, the pilot of the second aircraft—a Royal Air Force officer—did not eject and was killed. Wreckage fell on two sites about eight miles apart. A board of inquiry was convened in the normal way. A summary of the results of the inquiry will be published in due course.

  Smoking
  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give the figures for smoking prevalence in the armed forces; if he will estimate the number and type of smoking-related diseases prevalent in the armed forces as a result of these smoking rates; what plans he has to reduce the incidence of smoking in the armed forces; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neubert
  There are presently no current figures available for smoking prevalences in the armed forces. A recent survey into the health of service men, once analysed, will provide a comparison of smoking rates within the services at home and abroad. A British regional heart survey in 1981 produced the following statistics on smoking incidence in the armed forces: Never smoked 12 per cent, Ex-smokers 30 per cent., Current smokers 58 per cent. Service statistics on illness and causation are not kept in a manner which would enable a true identification of 390
  smoke-related illness. The Ministry of Defence is ever aware of the need to reduce cigarette smoking by service men and has a continuing health education campaign aimed at all ranks and levels.

  Nuclear Submarines (Decommissioned Reactors)
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence where the decommissioned pressurised water reactors removed from British nuclear submarines are stored; and what is the method of that storage.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Only one nuclear-powered submarine Dreadnought, has so far been decommissioned. The defuelled reactor belonging to this vessel is inside the reactor compartment which remains an integral part of the submarine. Dreadnought has been berthed at Rosyth naval base since 1983.

  HMS Southampton
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he hopes to announce the contract for the refit of HMS Southampton.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Shortly.

  Defence Land
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the total area of defence lands in 1979 and to date; and what plans he has to(a) release more, or (b) acquire further such lands.

  Mr. Neubert
  On 1 April 1979 the total freehold and leasehold land and foreshore held by the Ministry of Defence was 621,118 acres (251,358 ha). The equivalent figure on 1 April 1989 was 596,265 acres (241,300 ha); some 79 per cent. of this consists of ranges, training areas and airfields.

  The MOD continues to keep the size of its estate under review. Land which is surplus to defence requirements is disposed of; receipts from the sale of land and buildings were £150 million in 1988–89, nearly double that of any previous year.

  There remains, however, a shortage of training land for the Army and additional areas are being acquired when they become available.

SCOTLAND

  Community Charge
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects the information on how many people in Scotland have and have not paid the poll tax to be available.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  It will be some while yet before reliable information becomes available from local authorities on payment levels of the community charge. Such information as is available from local authorities is not a reliable guide to the numbers of people who are declining to pay, because it cannot as yet take account of those who, for example, have decided to pay by lump sum, who may still be awaiting rebated bills or who have decided to delay their first payment until the last moment before they become liable to pay the full annual amount. Local authorities recognise these factors and are, I understand, generally satisfied with the progress so far made in collecting the community charge.

  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what guidance has been given to Scottish members of Her Majesty's forces living in Germany about requirements to pay the community charge in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Guidance prepared by the Ministry of Defence on all aspects of the community charge as it affects service personnel has been issued to all units and commands at home and overseas. Copies of this guidance have been placed in the House of Commons Library.

  River Pollution
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the level of nitrate pollution in each of Scotland's river purification board areas.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested on levels of nitrate pollution in Scotland is not held centrally. Individual river purification boards will have information on nitrate levels in their areas; a number of boards publish this in summary form in their annual reports which are available in the Library.

  Warrant Sales
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many warrant sales were granted each year from 1979 in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The numbers of warrants of sale and reports of warrant sales from 1979 to 1987 (the latest year for which figures are available) are set out in the table below.

  Warrants to sell

  Reports of sale

  1979

  3,838

  226

  1980

  5,829

  231

  1981

  4,634

  287

  1982

  4,886

  477

  1983

  5,195

  403

  1984

  5,644

  512

  392

  Warrants to sell

  Reports of sale

  1985

  5,916

  693

  1986

  5,836

  678

  1987

  6,927

  650

  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take steps to abolish warrant sales in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Arrangements for the enforcement of court decrees for debt were recently reformed in the Debtors (Scotland) Act 1987 following a detailed review by the Scottish Law Commission. The Government have no plans at present for further major reform of these arrangements.

  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has as to how many persons have finance companies initiated proceedings against in each year since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information is kept on which finance companies have been successful in getting orders for warrant sales in Scotland since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This information is not collected centrally.

  AIDS
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish in the Official Report the number of patients who have died as a result of AIDS-related diseases in 1989, and for each other year for which figures exist.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The numbers of AIDS deaths in Scotland reported to the Communicable Diseases (Scotland) Unit in each year for which figures are available are given below.

  Number

  1984

  3

  1985

  2

  1986

  6

  1987

  12

  1988

  14

  19891

  14

  1 End of June.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish in the Official Report the numbers of patients in Scotland diagnosed as having developed AIDS in 1989, and for each other year for which statistics exist.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The numbers of AIDS cases in Scotland reported to the communicable diseases (Scotland) unit in each year for which figures are available are as follows:

  Number

  1984

  3

  1985

  2

  1986

  7

  393

  Numbers

  1987

  25

  1988

  36

  19892

  27

  1 End of June.

  Hospices
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow,Official Report, 19 June, column 49, he will outline the reasons for the delay in answering the hon. Member's letter of 28 March regarding Scottish hospices.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The reason was simply the careful consideration that I gave to the hon. Member's letter, to which I have now replied.

  Tree Planting
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has evaluated the effect of the withdrawal of tax incentives for the private planting of trees upon the rate of new tree planting.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North on 9 May 1989(Official Report, column 332).

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the progress of his Department's reforestation programme introduced to help combat the greenhouse effect.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Although forestry policy has not been aimed specifically at combating the greenhouse effect, over the past 10 years nearly 250,000 hectares of land has been afforested in Great Britain.

  Labour Statistics
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list in respect of Strathclyde(a) the average rate of unemployment and the European community average in the last three years and (b) the percentage of industrial employment in total employment and the European Community average.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 7 July 1989]: The figures are as follows:

  (a) Unemployment

  Annual average percentage

  1986

  1987

  1988

  Strathclyde region

  19·2

  18·4

  15·8

  European Community

  10·8

  10·4

  10·0

  (b) Industrial employment

  Share of industrial employment in total employment percentage

  1984

  Strathclyde region

  37·3

  European Community

  34·3

  Note: The figures are not directly comparable as a result of definitional differences.

  Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Redundancies)
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total number of redundancies in the shipbuilding and ship repair industries in Strathclyde since 1 January 1984.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 7 July 1989]: There are no comprehensive statistics on redundancies. The number of redundancies involving 10 or more workers confirmed to the Employment Department/Training Agency as having occurred in Strathclyde region in the shipbuilding and shiprepairing industry since 1 January 1984 was 4,221. This figure relates to redundancies confirmed up to 31 May 1989 and figures for 1989 are provisional.

ENVIRONMENT

  Atmospheric Pollution
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he plans to undertake any joint initiative to further reduce lead in the atmosphere.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  At the end of 1985, the maximum amount of lead permitted in petrol was reduced by 0·4 to 0·15 grammes per litre: This produced a 50 per cent. drop in airborne levels. However, lead from petrol still accounts for about 80 per cent. of lead in the air. The Government therefore fully support the move to unleaded petrol. The chancellor's budget incentive has resulted in unleaded petrol being on sale at about lop per gallon cheaper than leaded fuel. The Government funded a major advertising campaign in April; further promotional initiatives are co-ordinated by the unleaded petrol group which I chair. The measures taken so far have contributed to the rapid uptake of the fuel which now accounts for over 20 per cent. of the market; the average for last year was just 1 per cent.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is yet able to indicate what the average poll tax for England would be based on 1989–90 local government expenditure; and which local authorities would be above or below that figure.

  Mr. Gummer
  The Government have no plans to introduce a poll tax.

  Illustrative 1989–90 community charges will be published in due course.

  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether a community charge registration officer asking for telephone numbers on the same form as chargepayers are meant to sign certifying that the information given on the form is complete is operating within the limits of his Department's guidelines.

  Mr. Gummer
  A registration officer may require only such information as is necessary to enable him to compile and maintain the community charges register. In the case of the personal community charge this will usually consist of the names and addresses of adults living in a particular poperty and the dates of birth of those who will become 18 during the lifetime of the register. Information about telephone numbers need not be provided to a registration
  395
  officer, and the Department's model form and guidance advise registration officers that if they seek any additional information of this kind they should make it clear that there is no obligation on individuals to provide it, and that no penalty can or will be imposed if they do not.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps to ensure that(a) merchant seamen and (b) Royal Navy seamen, who are away from shore for more than six months in a year, are treated equally in respect of liability for the poll tax.

  Mr. Gummer
  The Government have no plans to introduce a poll tax.

  The determination of a person's sole or main residence is a matter for community charges registration officers. I have no reason to believe that registration officers will adopt different criteria in relation to the two groups of people mentioned by the hon. Member.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the leaflets on the business rate and the collective community charge will be available; for what reasons the leaflets on(a) poll tax rebates and "You and the Community Charge" and (b) "Exemption Students, Second Homes and Appeal" were produced in different styles; and what are the estimated production and distribution costs of (i) the rebate booklet, (ii) "You and the Community Charge" and (iii) the other leaflets referred to above.

  Mr. Gummer
  As the information which the hon. Member requests is very detailed I am writing to him.

  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce legislation to exempt children on approved full time courses at colleges of further education, and who are not in receipt of any maintenance grant, from the poll tax; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 4 July 1989]: The Government have no plans to introduce a poll tax. Most young persons will be liable to the community charge either upon reaching their 18th birthday or at the date on which their parents are no longer entitled to child benefit, whichever is the later. Full time students will pay only 20 per cent. of the charge whilst others on low incomes can claim rebates of up to 80 per cent.

  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce legislation to prevent landlords making an additional charge for poll tax purposes where rates were previously included in rent; what steps he is taking to ensure that appropriate reductions in rent are made when rate revenue ends; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 4 July 1989]: The Government have no plans to introduce a poll tax. Legislation would be neither necessary nor appropriate in this area. The Department will be producing shortly a booklet on the impact between the community charge and rents in the series "You and the Community Charge".

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent discussions his officials have had with the office of the Data Protection Registrar; and what steps he is taking to monitor the information being requested by community charge registration officers as a part of the registration process in England and Wales.
  396
  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 6 July 1989]: My officials are in regular contact with the office of the Data Protection Registrar. It is for individual community charges registration officers to ensure that their requests for information are within their statutory powers and that they comply with the Data Protection Act 1984.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any plans to introduce a community charge concession for those who care for elderly friends or relatives in the community.

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer, 6 July 1989]: No special provisions are necessary. I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave on 29 June 1989 to the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) Official Report, column 502.

  Mr. Couchman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has on the extent of mischievous registration for community charge in each local authority.

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 6 July 1989]: I understand that the registration process is proceeding in a generally satisfactory manner. A few mischievous responses to registration forms have been reported in the press.

  Football Spectators Bill
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many Football League clubs have indicated their support for the Football Spectators Bill[Lords]; and if he will indicate those doing so in the Official Report.

  Mr. Moynihan
  My consultations on the FSB have been with the Football Association and the Football League, who were represented on my working party on the national membership scheme last year. I have not formally consulted individual League clubs.

  River Calder (Pollution)
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will ask the North West water authority to implement the necessary work to prevent pollution of the River Calder in Burnley from Black Clough.

  Mr. Howard
  I understand that the North West water authority is considering measures to remedy this pollution. Under the provisions of the Water Act, it will become the responsibility of the National Rivers Authority.

  Clifton Marsh Sewage Works
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what the effect would be on bacterial levels in the River Ribble of uprating Clifton Marsh sewage treatment works to include full conventional treatment and disinfection using environmentally benign methods;

  (2) If he willprovide estimates of what proportion of sewage pollution experienced by Lytham St. Anne's is due to (a) bacterial levels in the River Ribble and (b) existing local discharges of sewage.

  Mr. Howard
  Details of how much of the bacterial content of the bathing waters at Lytham St. Annes
  397
  emanates from local discharges or from the river Ribble are not available. I understand that the North West water authority believes that the Ribble is a major influence and that the output from Clifton Marsh sewage treatment works is a major component of the bacteriological levels in the river. They are investigating a number of options for improving the quality of the discharge from Clifton Marsh sewage treatment works, including secondary treatment and disinfection.

  Rate Arrears
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list in the Official Report the 30 local authorities in England with the largest amounts of rate arrears, with the amounts outstanding and the number of people owing in each case.

  Mr. Gummer
  The latest information from CIPFA published statistics on gross rate arrears, including non-domestic rate arrears, show that the 30 local authorities in England with the largest amounts of rate arrears are as below. Information about the number of people and businesses owning rates is not available.

  Gross arrears outstanding

  £1000

  Lambeth

  233,263

  Liverpool

  25,230

  Brent

  16,661

  Southwark

  313,856

  Camden

  13,085

  Newham

  211,284

  Manchester

  310,702

  Westminster

  9,816

  Hackney

  19,559

  Birmingham

  8,490

  City of London

  7,828

  Lewisham

  7,419

  Ealing

  7,242

  Leicester

  6,796

  Tower Hamlets

  5,443

  Waltham Forest

  25,410

  Wandsworth

  5,390

  Bristol

  5,315

  Islington

  5,185

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  25,031

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  4,943

  Greenwich

  4,544

  Haringey

  4,323

  Barnet

  14,007

  Wirral

  3,856

  Kensington and Chelsea

  13,756

  Doncaster

  3,743

  Harrow

  13,704

  Wolverhampton

  3,301

  Sefton

  2,947

  Notes: Gross arrears are at 31 March 1988 unless otherwise indicated:

  1 As at 31 March 1987.

  2 As at 31 March 1986.

  3 As at 31 March 1985.

  Inspectorate of Pollution
  Mr. Bell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the impact on dealing with emergencies of the regionalisation of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The inspectorate has no general responsibility for dealing with emergencies.
  398
  However, one of the objectives of the proposed reorganisation is to increase the effectiveness of the inspectorate across the whole range of its activities, which includes for example the control of emissions from scheduled processes and discharges from premises subject to the Radioactive Substances Act 1960.

  Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution's responsibility for dealing with the consequences in the United Kingdom of overseas nuclear accidents remains as set out in the Department of the Environment publication "The National Response Plan and Radioactive Incident Monitoring Network (RIMNET)—a Statement of Proposals", a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Bell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what impact his proposed structural changes to Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution will have on the county of Cleveland; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what impact the regionalisation of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution will have on the county of Cleveland; by what extent field work will be reduced as a result of increased travelling; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Cleveland will be the responsibility of the Northern region of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution, based in Leeds. The detailed working arrangements that are being drawn up for each region are being designed to facilitate the integration of pollution control, and thus increase the effectiveness of the inspectorate.

  Mr. Bell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what proposals he has to place Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution on a regional basis; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what structural changes he proposes to make to Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Proposals are being developed for the reorganisation of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution in order to integrate its responsibilities for air pollution control, radioactive substances, water pollution and other wastes on a regional basis.

  Three regions are being established to cover the North, South West and South East. This approach was adopted to ensure sufficiently large management units to secure an adequate mix of skills.

  Toxic Waste
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the future policy of the Government with regard to toxic waste incinerators.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Incineration will continue to play an important role in United Kingdom waste disposal arrangements. It is the only safe disposal route for some toxic wastes and it can reduce the volume and toxicity of many other wastes thus helping to conserve landfill capacity.
  399
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his best estimate of the species of mammals and birds most at threat from the dumping of toxic waste in the North sea.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Present levels of toxic waste entering the North sea do not represent a general threat to sea birds or marine mammals resident in United Kingdom waters. Moreover, as a result of important measures agreed at the second North sea conference in 1987 levels of toxic substances discharged to the North sea will fall substantially.

  Persistent organic contaminants, including PCBs and pesticides, can accumulate in the blubber of marine animals which are at the top of the food chain. They have been implicated in damage to local populations of marine mammals in parts of the Wadden sea off the German and Dutch coasts. It has been shown that the heavy load of contaminants in this area comes largely from the Rivers Rhine, Weser and Elbe.

  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his priority to seek to ensure that each county authority has a toxic waste disposal facility capable of meeting the requirements of indigenous industries in each county.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  No. Waste disposal authorities have a responsibility to ensure that there are adequate safe disposal facilities for all waste arising in their areas, but they are not precluded from making agreements with other authorities. They are required to submit plans to my hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment showing that satisfactory arrangements are in place or in prospect.

  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps to tighten up and enforce existing regulations governing the disposal of toxic and other dangerous waste substances so as to safeguard the public from the effects of unsupervised disposals of these substances.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Stringent controls over the disposal of waste already exist. Waste disposal authorities (WDAs) are responsible for supervising disposal and safeguarding public health and the environment. Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution monitor the performance of WDAs and aim by reports and advice to secure improvements. Legislation to strengthen and enhance existing controls is to be introduced at the earliest opportunity.

  Bristol Channel (Pollution)
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what reports he has received and what reporting system is in the use from Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution, in relation to pollution by sewage of beaches along the coastlines of the Bristol channel.

  Mr. Howard
  Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution does not report on bathing water quality or beach pollution. Water authorities report to the Department of the Environment on the quality of bathing waters under the terms of the EC Bathing Water Directive and local authorities are responsible for dealing with the pollution of beaches.
  400
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the water pollution inspectorate last reported on the water quality in the Bristol channel and the degree of sewage deposits on the beaches; when the inspectorate will next make such a report, and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave him earlier today.

  Radio 1 Green Week
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about the "green week" held by Radio 1, beginning 26 June; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  None.

  Nature Reserves
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make a statement concerning the proposed sell-off of national nature reserves.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer the hon. and learned Member to the statement made by my noble Friend the Minister of State for Housing, Environment and the Countryside on 3 May in another place.

  Cacti
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment why his Department, to avoid the risk of rabies being introduced, requires a prospective importer of a cactus plant to notify the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food of his intention.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The requirement to consult the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food about rabies controls applies only to imports of live animals. I will ensure that this is made clear in the Department's standard letter acknowledging applications for import permits.

  Possession Orders
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give the latest available figures on the number of possession orders awarded to building societies and banks against mortgage holders during 1988 and the first two months of 1989.

  Mr. Trippier
  The number of possession orders awarded in England and Wales during 1988 against holders of private sector mortgages was 43,108. The figures do not distinguish between building societies, banks and other private mortgage lenders. The provisional figures for the first two months of 1989 are 3,819 during January and 3,564 during February. Most possession orders do not result in properties being taken into possession.

  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the likely impact of the rise in interest rates on the number of mortgaged properties that will be taken into possession or where possession will be granted during 1989.

  Mr. Trippier
  Evidence available for the United Kingdom in the last decade does not indicate any simple
  401
  correlation between changes in the number of mortgaged properties taken into possession and changes in interest rates.

  Defective Houses
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will waive the age limitation on defective timber framed houses purchased by residents under the right-to-buy legislation from Ashford council in Kent so that they can be designated as defective under the Housing Act 1985.

  Mr. Trippier
  There are no age limitations on the types of houses which can be designated as inherently defective under the housing defects legislation. Proposals to remove the current age limits under the home improvement grant system are contained in the Local Government and Housing Bill.

  Land, Dorset
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list in the Official Report, for each of the last three years, details of all sites in Dorset, on the register of public unused and underutilised land, stating the ownership thereof, and the number of acres of each site.

  Mr. Trippier
  I am arranging for copies of tables giving this information in the most convenient form available to be placed in the Library of the House. Details of sites removed from the register are based on information provided by 30 June 1989.

  Endangered Species
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether products made from the skin of the Nile crocodile require an import licence under CITES.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Yes.

  Emergencies
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether expenditure incurred by a local authority in dealing with a major emergency, for which the Secretary of State provides discretionary financial assistance under the Local Government and Housing Bill, will be immune from grant penalties.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  There are no grant penalties under the new local government finance system.

  Environmental Impact Assessment Seminar
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether his Department will be represented at the 10th international seminar on environmental impact assessment to be held in Aberdeen during July.

  Mr. Chope
  No.

  National Park Quarries
  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the impact of the construction of de-sulphurisation plants at power stations on the demand for limestone from quarries in national parks.
  402
  Mr. Trippier
  No assessment has been made of the demand for limestone from quarries in national parks arising specifically out of the the CEGB's flue gas de-sulphurisation programme, although my Department has commissioned a research project into high purity limestone resources and the demand for non aggregate uses. The report will be published at the beginning of next year.

  The CEGB has indicated that the complete 12 GW retrofit programme would account for less than 2 million tonnes of limestone per year (less than 2 per cent. of current production). The board also announced in August 1987 that it would not take limestone from quarries in national parks for the three existing power stations selected for retro-fitting with the flue gas de-sulphurisation process. The board went on to state that it hoped to follow a similar policy when obtaining limestone for new stations. That assessment was made in the knowledge of the Government's policy on mineral working in national parks set out in the statement by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West on 9 April 1987 (HC 393/394). I understand that the board's policy towards limestone supply has not changed since their August 1987 announcement.

  Returnable Glass Bottles
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made on the implementation of directive 339–185.

  Mr. Atkins
  I have been asked to reply.

  Good progress is being made under the United Kingdom's programme for implementing the Beverage Containers Directive. For glass, we are on course to achieve the target of doubling the number of bottle banks to 5,000 by 1992, and the volume of glass being recovered is increasing rapidly: 275,000 tonnes were recycled in 1988. The amount of metal recovered from cans is also increasing and will be boosted still further by the Aluminium Can Recycling Association's recent launch of a nationwide scheme with 250 collection centres. British Steel is encouraging local authorities to become involved in extracting steel cans from household waste and about 900 million cans are now being recovered annually in this way. For plastic containers, both the British Plastics Federation and the British Soft Drinks Association are supporting recycling schemes and are actively participating in the Sheffield Recycling City experiment involving door-to-door collection and separate plastics bottle banks.

  Packaging
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what research he has commissioned into the environmental benefits of bio-degradable packaging and shopping bags.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 6 July 1989]: None. The plastics industry is continuing to develop bio-degradable plastics. We expect manufacturers and users of packaging to take advantage of such developments in responding to the demands of consumers.

  Regent's Park
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the acreage of land leased with St. John's lodge to which the public do not have free access; what was the equivalent acreage in 1979; and whether any changes have been requested by the current lesses.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 6 July 1989]: St. John's lodge with its associated buildings and private gardens occupy approximately 24 acres and are owned by the Crown Estate. That position has not changed since 1979. The Government have agreed with the Crown Estate that the present access route from the Inner Circle to the gardens behind the lodge will be closed to the public and a new public access route provided further to the east. This will not affect the area of Regent's park to which the public are admitted.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total land acreage of Regent's park to which the public have free access and what was the equivalent figure in 1979.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 6 July 1989]: The public have free access to approximately 253 of the 358 acres of Regent's park.

  The figures have not changed since 1979.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what was the total income from Regent's park in the way of leases, concessions, franchises and charges, respectively in 1978–79 and each successive year;

  (2) what was the total spending by his Department on Regent's park in 1978–79 and each succeeding year.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 6 July 1989]: Detailed income and expenditure figures for individual Royal parks are available only from 1987–88. The figures for Regent's park are as follows:

  1987–88

  1988–89 (provisional)

  £

  £

  Total Expenditure

  1,884,902

  2,027,222

  Total Income

  137,485

  144,631

  These figures exclude some items of income and expenditure, such as the costs of policing the Royal parks, which are recorded centrally.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) when London zoo first asked to be allowed to take over a further 10 acres of Regent's park;

  (2) whether any users of Regent's park have been consulted about the use of an extra 10 acres of the park by London zoo;

  (3) what considerations his Department will use in assessing which 10 acres of Regent's park can be taken over by London zoo.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 6 July 1989]: The suggestion that the Zoological Society of London should take over an extra ten acres of land under the terms of the Crown Estate Act 1961, arose in considering the consultant's report on the scope for improving the zoo's financial performance and led to my right hon. Friend's announcement on 11 May 1988. In agreeing the location of
  404
  the ten acres we shall be concerned to minimise the impact on the park and to protect the historic landscape as far as possible. The Zoological Society of London has consulted local residents and amenity groups on the principle of the 10 acres. As soon as further plans have been developed, the Society will ensure that the views of local individuals and groups are sought again.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether any request has been received by his Department to take over part of Regent's park besides the request by London zoo.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 6 July 1989]: The Crown Estate has asked to take over a piece of parkland of approximately 50 square metres on the edge of the Outer Circle near Hanover Gate Lodge. This will allow access to six villas being built by the Crown Estate on land that it owns. In exchange, the Crown Estate is making available for park use a small section of garden of similar size next to Chalbert Gate footbridge. This will improve the presentation of that area. There will be no loss of public amenity.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether any request has been received to block any path, entrance or route within the outer circle of Regent's park.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer, 6 July 1989]: No such request has been receiwd. London zoo's proposals to use an additional ten acres of Regent's park currently include an extension of the southern boundary of the zoo. This would require the rerouting of the existing footpath outside that boundary along the new perimeter line.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether his Department has any plans to charge for access to any part of Regent's park to which the public have free access at present.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 6 July 1989]: No.

  Severe Mental Impairment
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consideration he has given to the joint Department of Health/Department of the Environment working party to consider development in the assessment of severe mental impairment.

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 7 July 1989]: There is, and will continue to be, close liaison between my Department and the Department of Health on this matter.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Electricity Privatisation
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the cost to date of advertising by his Department on the privatisation of the electricity supply industry; and what is the estimated total cost.

  Mr. Viggers
  Nothing to date—as expenditure on advertising is not likely to be incurred until well into the privatisation process, no estimate of the cost has yet been made.
  405
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the estimated cost of the privatisation of the electricity supply industry in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Viggers
  It is not possible to say at this stage since advisers have not yet been appointed.

  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the predicted number of consultants who will be required to assist in the development of proposals for the privatisation of the electricity supply industry.

  Mr. Viggers
  It is expected that consultants will be required to advise on financial, legal, technical and accounting matters.

  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the salary for the position of the financial adviser to assist in the development of proposals for the privatisation of the electricity supply industry.

  Mr. Viggers
  The fees will be negotiated at the time of appointment.

  Students
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the current number of(a) full-time and (b) part-time students in Northern Ireland; and what are the projections for these figures for the next 10 years.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 6 July 1989]: Figures for enrolment on higher education undergraduate and postgraduate, and vocational further education courses in 1988–89 are as follows:

  Full-time

  Part-time

  32,734

  48,239

  In addition, there are an estimated 80,000 part-time enrolments on continuing education and non-vocational further education courses.

  Projections for these figures for the next 10 years are not available.

  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the number of people who applied for educational maintenance allowances in each of the last seven years.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 6 July 1989]: The figures for 1982–83 are not readily available, but the applications for educational maintenance allowances in Northern Ireland for the succeeding six years are as follows:

  Number

  1983–84

  5,973

  1984–85

  5,219

  1985–86

  4,420

  1986–87

  3,599

  1987–88

  3,206

  1988–89

  2,446

  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has received 406
  from the Fair Employment Agency regarding the White Paper, "Top-up Loans for Students"; and if he will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 6 July 1989]: The agency wrote to me on 13 March expressing concern that the partial substitution of loans for grants could discourage poorer people from entering university, and could therefore have the effect of diminishing Catholic participation in higher education. In noting the agency's view, I remain convinced that its fears are misplaced. In any event, as already indicated in the White Paper, the Government intends to monitor the introduction of the new funding arrangements, so as to measure their effects on such matters as participation by social class or gender.

  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what would be the cost at 1988–89 prices of introducing educational maintenance allowances for 16 and 17-year-olds in full-time education in schools and colleges at(a) the same rates as income support for young people and (b) the same rate as training allowances paid to 16 and 17-year-olds on YTP schemes.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 6 July 1989]: The estimated costs would be (a) £22 million and (b) £31 million.

  Veterinary Services
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he estimates that officials from the Department of Agriculture (Northern Ireland) will complete their considerations regarding the future needs on veterinary manpower and training in the light of the Riley report of 1989.

  Mr. Viggers
  [holding answer 6 July 1989]: The Government announced on 7 June 1989 a review of veterinary manpower needs in both the public and private sectors. The review will be conducted by a committee under the chairmanship of Dr. E. S. Page. The Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland will be contributing as required to the committee's work, which it is hoped will be completed by the end of the year.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Short Money
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what representations he has received about the amount paid in assistance to Opposition parties.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Since 21 June 1988, when the House approved the existing arrangements for payment of financial assistance to Opposition parties, I have corresponded with a right hon. Member and an hon. Member from the party opposite on two separate matters and answered two parliamentary questions.

  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Lord President of the Council by what percentage assistance to Opposition parties increased in the last year for which figures are available; and to what amount.

  Mr. Wakeham
  In accordance with the Resolution of the House of 21 June 1988, the amount of Short money
  407
  paid to Opposition parties in 1988 was £1,203,322·97p, which includes arrears of £319,000 due in 1987. The amount paid in 1987, in accordance with the previous Resolution, was £597,741·27p. This represents a percentage increase of 101·3 per cent. between the calendar years 1987 and 1988. However, because of the change in basis of calculation of Short money, this comparison is of limited value.

  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Lord President of the Council by how much assistance to Opposition parties increased in the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I refer my hon. Friend to my answer earlier today to the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Carrington). The amount paid increased by £605,581·70.

  Questions
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Lord President of the Council whether he proposes to make any changes in the question rota for the next Session of Parliament.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I have no such plans at present.

  European Legislation
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what progress he has made in his review of the consideration of European legislation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I am still considering the issues involved, taking account of the views of the Procedure and European Legislation Committees.

TRANSPORT

  Disabled People (Mobility)
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures his Department has taken to increase mobility for people with disabilities.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The many measures that we have taken and our plans for the future are set out in "Transport and Disability, a Statement of Aims and Priorities" recently published by the Department. Copies have been placed in the Library. Drawing on the expert advice of the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee, Britain is a world leader in improving mobility for disabled people.

  British Rail (Privatisation)
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has now formulated a timetable for the privatisation of British Rail.

  Mr. Portillo
  No decision has been taken on privatisation. My right hon. Friend has made it clear that privatisation could not take place during the current Parliament, although the necessary studies are already in hand.

  Mr. Snape
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received about proposals to privatise British Rail.

  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received about proposals to privatise British Rail.
  408
  Mr. Portillo
  A small number from interested organisations and from individuals.

  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent discussions he has had concerning the possible privatisation of British Rail.

  Mr. Portillo
  The work which is currently being undertaken on the possible privatisation of British Rail has been discussed fully with British Rail. In addition a small number of representations has so far been received from interested organisations. My right hon. Friend expects to consult widely in due course if a decision is made to privatise.

  Rail Services
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has had from the Better Rail Campaign for improved services; and if he will make a statement.

  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.

  Road Traffic
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he plans to take steps to slow the increase of motor traffic on roads.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  No. It would be neither proper nor popular to try to stifle economic growth or to deny more ordinary people the freedom that car use brings.

  We encourage the movement of freight by rail where there are clear environmental reasons. Investment in public transport is rising to record levels.

  We do much to promote measures to reduce vehicle speeds and improve the environment in residential areas.

  Better driving, management and maintenance could save some 20 per cent. of fuel and significantly reduce pollution.

  With a 20 per cent. reduction in fuel usage, pollution levels would be no more than they were 10 years ago.

  Automatic Ticket Barriers
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many personal and property injuries have been reported from automatic ticket barriers in the past six months; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  No major injuries were sustained by passengers using automatic ticket barriers, though 31 minor personal injuries were reported. I understand that there were 99 cases of damage to property.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received on automatic ticket barriers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  In addition to five early-day motions, just over 100 representations have been received from Members of Parliament and members of the public since 1 January 1989.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has any proposals to ensure the
  409
  travelling public have a choice between using an automatic ticket barrier or presenting their ticket to a member of staff.

  Mr. Portillo
  It is a matter for the operator concerned. London Underground stations with automatic gates have a separate manually-operated gate, under the control of uniformed staff, for use by passengers with physical disabilities or who are laden with bulky shopping or with pushchairs or small children.

  Air Fares
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next expects to meet the EEC counterparts to discuss European air fares; and if he will make a statement on competition between European airlines.

  Mr. Channon
  I understand that the French Presidency plans to hold a meeting of EC Transport Ministers on aviation issues in the autumn.

  We shall be pressing for further liberalisation, which by increasing competition will lead to lower fares.

  National Bus Company
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what clawback provisions in relation to which assets at which locations were set out in contracts for the sale of National Bus Company subsidiaries to successful bidders.

  Mr. Portillo
  Mortgage charges were placed on 18 properties as part of the sale of 14 National Bus Company subsidiaries, so that the National Bus Company receives a share in any development profit if these properties are sold within 10 years.

  Air Traffic
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received about the Civil Aviation Authority's policy on air traffic congestion.

  Mr. Channon
  I have received numerous representations on a variety of air traffic control policy issues.

  Fast London Rail Study
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the report on the east London rail study to be published.

  Mr. Portillo
  I expect to announce the outcome of the ELRS shortly.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the report on the east London rail study to be published.

  Mr. Portillo
  Shortly.

  Luton Airport
  Mr. Bright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what rate of aircraft movements per hour from Luton international airport has been assumed in the study of airspace management in the London area currently being conducted by the Civil Aviation Authority.
  410
  Mr. Channon
  In paragraph 3.47 of its consultation document "Civil Aviation Policy 548" the Civil Aviation Authority said that it had assumed a peak rate of about 16 aircraft movements per hour for Luton airport.

  British Rail (Electrification)
  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many British Rail electrification projects the Government have approved since 1979.

  Mr. Channon
  Since 1979 the Government have approved nine electrification schemes, worth over £600 million in current prices. In addition the Government have approved a package of Channel tunnel-related investment including some £35 million of electrification work. British Rail has itself approved a further 14 smaller schemes.

  Pedestrians (Casualties)
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures he proposes to tackle pedestrian road casualties.

  Mr. Channon
  In 1988 there were at least 1,750 pedestrian deaths on our roads, and 57,000 other injuries. Tackling these unnecessary accidents is one of my top priorities.

  I announced a series of proposals in the document "Pedestrian Safety: New Proposals for Making Walking Safer" on 19 April. Copies have been placed in the Library.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Gerald Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of Transport what representation he has had from British Rail regarding private sector involvement in the construction of the Channel tunnel rail links; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  The British Railways Board will report to me on its progress in securing private sector involvement in the rail link schemes.

  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to meet the chairman of British Rail to discuss direct passenger services from the north, north-west, midlands, south-west and Scotland to European destinations using the Channel tunnel; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  I have discussed these matters with British Rail which is still working on the plan which it is producing under section 40 of the Channel Tunnel Act.

  Mr Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has made any progress with his plans to encourage participation by the private sector in British Rail's high-speed rail link; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  British Rail is currently discussing its proposals for the high speed rail link with a number of private sector interests.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next plans to meet the chairman of British Rail to discuss the rail link from the Channel tunnel.
  411
  Mr. Portillo
  My right hon. Friend and I meet the chairman regularly to discuss a wide range of issues, including from time to time, the Channel tunnel rail link. Our next meeting is tomorrow.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much Government investment is taking place this year in Nottinghamshire(a) on roads and (b) on rail.

  Mr. Portillo
  The Department's planned investment on roads in Nottinghamshire in the year 1989–90 is £14·806 million. This includes new construction, preparation of new schemes, maintenance on trunk roads and motorways and TSG support for county council schemes.

  The Government do not invest directly in railways. British Rail cannot provide information on its investment on a county basis.

  East London Assessment Study
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consultation he proposes with people affected by the east London assessment study plans after publication of the consultants' report.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) on 24 April at column 441.

  M1 (Sheffield)
  Mr. Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much of the transport supplementary grant has been allocated in 1989–90 for developing the Sheffield M1 link via Mossborough.

  Mr. Bottomley
  Transport supplementary grant is paid at a flat rate of 50 per cent. on an accepted programme of expenditure for each local highway authority. Expenditure of £1·025 million on the Sheffield—M1 link via Mossborough is part of Sheffield city council's 1989–90 accepted programme.

  Road Deaths
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many people were killed on Britain's roads in 1978 and 1988.

  Mr. Bottomley
  In 1978, there were 6,831 deaths in road accidents in Great Britain. Provisional figures for 1988 show that 5,041 people died on the roads, a fall of just over one quarter.

  In the same period traffic has increased by 40 per cent. and the number of vehicles licensed has increased by 30 per cent.

  Routemasters
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the implications for central Government financial support of London Regional Transport of the proposed sale of 50 Routemasters to Japan.

  Mr. Portillo
  Income from the sale of surplus assets by London Regional Transport offsets its need for Government grant.

  British Rail
  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next expects to meet the chairman of British Rail; and what subjects he expects to discuss with him.

  Mr. Portillo
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer my right hon. Friend gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) and the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) earlier today.

  Western Environmental Improvement Route
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many letters he has received regarding the possible development of the western environmental improvement route; and what was the number in favour and the number against this proposed route.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The large response to the public consultation held earlier this year is being analysed.

  A decision on the future of the western environmental improvement route will not be taken until we reach conclusions on the west London assessment study. We intend to announce the outcome of the public consultation.

  Public Transport
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to prepare for a marked expansion of public transport within conurbations.

  Mr. Portillo
  The central and east London rail studies are considering proposals for three new rail lines in London as well as a programme to upgrade the existing network. The four London assessment studies are looking at whether public transport improvements might help to solve the problems which those studies are addressing.

  The Department is considering a number of light rail projects in urban areas outside London for which grant support is being sought under section 56 of the Transport Act 1968.

  London Regional Transport
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met the chair of London Regional Transport; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Portillo
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I met Mr. Wilfred Newton on 3 July. A variety of matters were discussed.

  Barnstaple Roads
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his policy on the early construction of the Barnstaple downstream bridge and the completion of the bypass around Barnstaple.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  My right hon. Friend will open the trunk road bypass of Barnstaple on 18 July. Devon county council is entirely responsible for the timing and priority accorded to its schemes for the Barnstaple downstream bridge and stage IV of the urban relief road.

  Submarines and Fishing Boats
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent representations he has received about incidents involving submarines and fishing boats; what action he is taking; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  The Department has received one representation. It was dealt with by way of ministerial correspondence.

  Lane Rentals
  Mr. Aspinwall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his assessment of how much lane rental contracts have saved motorists.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  From their introduction in 1984 until March 1988, lane rental contracts on motorways and trunk roads are estimated to have saved about 2,000 days of delay worth £35 million to road users. Results for 1988–89 are not yet available.

  Rail Freight (Wales)
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has had any recent discussions with the chairman of British Rail about the provision of European freight facilities in south-east Wales.

  Mr. Portillo
  I have discussed with British Rail its plans for Channel tunnel services.

  British Rail is still working on the plan which it is producing under section 40 of the Channel Tunnel Act.

  Motorway Driving
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if his Department has conducted research to establish whether there is a form of technology that could be used on motorways as a means of establishing whether a particular driver is driving too close to the vehicle in front.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Existing technology can be used on motorways to help establish whether a particular driver is driving too close to the vehicle in front. It is for the police to decide when it may be appropriate to set up such equipment, and whether it is likely to be effective in persuading drivers to comply with the safe following distances recommended in the highway code.

  Some police forces are also experimenting with the use of video camera to bring home to drivers the dangers of following too close.

  Drivers should use their eyes, minds and experience.

  Roads (Oxfordshire)
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much has been spent by his Department on roads in Oxfordshire over the last five years; and how much he anticipates being spent over the next five years.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Figures are not readily available in the form requested. In the three years from April 1986 to March 1989 the Department spent £37·8 million in connection with motorway and trunk road new construction and maintenance in Oxfordshire, excluding land costs.
  414
  We are planning to spend a further £47·5 million this financial year, mainly on A43 Peartree Hill-Wendlebury, A41 Bicester bypass stage 1, and the M40 Waterstock-Wendlebury scheme for which the contract was let on 28 June.

  In addition, for the five-year period from April 1985 to March 1990, £3·148 million has been made available to the county council under transport supplementary grant for local road schemes.

  Further expenditure will depend upon progress with the scheme and availability of funds.

  Transport Investment (Nottinghamshire)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much Government investment is taking place this year in Nottinghamshire(a) on roads ad (b) on rail.

  Mr. Portillo
  The Department's planned investment on roads in Nottinghamshire in the year 1989–90 is £14·806 million. This includes new construction, preparation of new schemes, maintenance on trunk roads and motorways and TSG support for county council schemes.

  The Government do not invest directly in railways. British Rail cannot provide information on its investment on a county basis.

  Trees
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many trees were planted by his Department in England in 1988–89.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  One million four hundred thousand.

  Drink-Driving
  Mr. Ken Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will consider introducing a programme to change the attitudes of drunk drivers.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We announced proposals to carry out a major experiment in the use of rehabilitation courses designed to influence the attitudes of drunk drivers in the White Paper "The Road User and the Law" published on 7 February this year. In England and Wales, enabling powers will be required for the courts to order rehabilitation for those convicted of drink-drive offences. In Scotland, we are looking into the possibility of setting up a trial scheme employing the existing powers of the courts.

  Motorway Safety
  Mr. Dickens
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has for making motorways safer.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  In April last year, the Secretary of State announced a package of measures designed to improve the overall level of safety on motorways. Many of these measures were implemented rapidly. Others, involving regulatory procedures or new research are for the longer term.

  We are anxious to improve the standard of driving on motorways. We have produced 11 million leaflets offering advice on the key safety rules for motorway driving. We

  415
  are encouraging newly qualified drivers to take additional tuition on motorway driving after passing the L test and before actually taking to the motorway.

  The motorway safety package included measures to improve safety at roadworks. From 1 August last year, speed limits at major motorway roadworks and contraflows were made mandatory and traffic at these sites is being monitored by video equipment. At contraflows, lorries are now normally restricted to the near side lane.

  New regulations are currently being prepared which will allow vehicles at the end of a slow moving queue to switch on their hazard warning lights.

  The "Lane Closed" gantry signal (flashing red lights) is being replaced so as to display a red cross which will be more readily understood. Similarly, the symbol showing the end of restrictions will be replaced by the word "End". These changes will be implemented progressively, over several years.

  A trial of 70 mph speed limit repeater signs on the M1 has been taking place since last September to establish their effect on vehicle speed.

  We shall shortly be experimenting with "Chevron markings" to see if they help drivers to keep a safe distance from the vehicle in front.

  The Department is also co-operating with some private sector companies to produce road safety publicity material. Amongst recent initiatives is a video recently produced by the Association of British Insurers called "Happens All The Time". This brings home the main lessons on safer motorway driving to 17 to 24-year-olds.

  Sprinter Trains
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last discussed the supply of Sprinter class trains with the chairman of British Rail.

  Mr. Portillo
  In April of this year, when I gave approval for a further tranche of class 158 express Sprinter trains.

  "New Roads by New Means"
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received in response to his consultation document "New Roads by New Means".

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We have received a number of representations to date, mostly positive. The consultation period does not expire until 14 July.

  British Rail (Inadequate Services)
  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will introduce legislation to make British Rail financially accountable to its customers for failed or inadequate services.

  Mr. Portillo
  British Rail's conditions of carriage already allow for refunds to be considered in cases where timetabled connections cannot be made or where services have been altered, withdrawn or suspended for any reason.

  I have no present plans for legislation.

  Air Traffic Control
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next plans to meet the Chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority to discuss air traffic control delays.
  416
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State frequently meets the chairman of the authority to discuss a whole range of topics of mutual interest.

  Horne Report
  Mr. Archer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will now announce a timetable for introducing legislation to implement the recommendations of the Horne review in connection with public utility undertakings engaging in works on the highway.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Detailed proposals for legislation have been prepared following extensive consultation on the Home report. Comments from interested parties on these proposals are currently being considered.

  Legislation will be introduced as soon as there is a suitable opportunity.

  Mr. Holt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his reply of 12 June,Official Report, column 334, to the hon.Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) about the Horne report, what he regards as a suitable opportunity.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The earliest available opportunity.

  Pedestrians (Injury Compensation)
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will introduce legislation to provide compensation for pedestrians injured by cyclists.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  A pedestrian injured by a negligent cyclist can already seek compensation through the courts. Regular cyclists should try to ensure that their normal household insurance policies are extended to cover injury to third parties caused when cycling. This is in fact often the case under such policies anyway.

  A1/M1 Link
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to approve tenders for the A1/M1 link Thrapstow-Brampton.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Tenders for the western part of the Thrapston to Brampton section of the M1 to A1 link road (contract 7) are due for return on 4 August. A contract will be awarded when the checking procedures have been carried out.

  A41 (Bypass)
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the difference in the approved route as between the first and second inquiry covering the Northchurch to Kings Langley A41 bypass.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The centre line of the Kings Langley and Berkhamsted bypasses was established by orders made under the Highway Act following the first inquiry. Draft amendment orders considered at the second inquiry would, if made, modify that line to the minor extent necessary to reflect the dual carriageway standard and grade separation of the junctions now proposed.

  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the second inquiry into the A41 bypass covering
  417
  Northchurch to Kings Langley (a) opened and (b) closed; when the inspector was expected to report; and when it is anticipated he will report.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The second inquiry into draft line, side roads and compulsory purchase orders for the Kings Langley arid Berkhamsted bypasses opened on 27 April 1988 and closed on 6 September 1988. The inspector's report was received in March.

  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the first inquiry into the A41 bypass covering Northchurch to Kings Langley(a) opened and (b) closed; and when the inspector reported.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The first inquiry, into the draft line orders for the Kings Langley and Berkhamsted bypasses, opened on 3 February 1983 and closed on 12 May 1983. The inspectors's report is dated 26 September 1983.

  M66
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to change the level of the parapet on the Brinnington road and Lingard lane road bridges and the Lapwing lane footbridge over the M66.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  No. The parapets meet the Department's standards applied throughout the country.

  Transport Supplementary Grant
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill, of 27 June,Official Report, column 376, if he will state the amount of transport supplementary grant allocated to Liverpool city council for the Park road relief road in 1988–89 and 1989–90.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Expenditure on this scheme accepted for transport supplementary grant was £300,000 in 1988–89 and £2,060,000 in 1989–90. The grant payable on those figures would be £150,000 and £1,030,000 respectively.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are his Department's procedures to ensure that funds allocated to a council as transport supplementary grant are spent on the project for which they were intended.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Transport supplementary grant is not a specific grant paid in support of individual projects. It is paid towards the cost of accepted programmes of expenditure on named major schemes and on blocks of minor works expenditure on roads of more than local importance.

  If an authority's expenditure on its approved programme in any year is significantly less than the amount accepted for TSG, an adjustment may be made to the grant paid in a subsequent year to ensure that grant is not paid twice on the same piece of planned expenditure.

  Severn Bridge
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to publish the inspector's report into toll charges on the Severn bridge; and when he expects to announce his decision on the inspector's recommendations.
  418
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  As soon as possible.

  Thames Riverbus Service
  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish the agreement between his Department and the Thames Riverbus service concerning the payment to the service of a £500,000 grant.

  Mr. Portillo
  I have arranged for a copy of the agreement to be deposited in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport why the agreement between his Department and the Thames Riverbus service concerning the payment of a £500,000 grant specifies that the service must be maintained to only some of the piers served by the Riverbus at the time the agreement was made.

  Mr. Portillo
  The provision concerning a service to certain piers was designed to ensure that a substantial core service would be provided so that Riverbus would contribute to the relief of road congestion and encourage the development of riverside areas in need of regeneration. The piers specified for this purpose in the agreement, Charing Cross, Festival, Swan Lane, London Bridge/City and West India, were those serving the core route.

  Manchester Airport Rail Link
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the Government's current position about the Manchester airport rail link; what recent contact he has had with British Rail in relation to the project; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) earlier today.

  Trawlers (Accidents)
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many accidents involving fatality have occurred to fishing trawlers which remain unexplained; and what is the number of deaths recorded.

  Mr. Portillo
  During the last 12 months, Department of Transport marine surveyors have been appointed to investigate all accidents to United Kingdom fishing vessels involving fatalities. In the cases where the investigation is complete, the probable causes have been established.

  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on how many occasions accidents involving Royal Navy or United States submarines and fishing trawlers have resulted in fatality; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  There have been no known fatal accidents involving United Kingdom registered fishing vessels and United Kingdom or United States submarines.

  Underground Fares
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he intends to meet the chairman of London Regional Transport to discuss Underground fares.

  Mr. Portillo
  My right hon. Friend and I meet the chairman of London Regional Transport (LRT) regularly to discuss a range of issues.

  FV Fay (Sinking)
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has about the sinking of the FV Fay at 5 am on Thursday 6 July; if there were any British or North Atlantic Treaty Organisation submarines in the area at the time; what action he is taking; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  The Fay was returning home from the Isle of Man after acting as escort boat for a charity event. Some two hours after sailing it was found that the vessel 420
  was flooding. A Mayday signal was sent before the boat had to be abandoned. A rescue operation was mounted involving aircraft, helicopters and lifeboats and all hands were picked up.

  An investigation is being carried out. At this stage the cause of the sinking is not clear; it does not, however, appear that any other vessel was involved and, in particular, it has been established that no British or other NATO submarines were in the vicinity. The incident took place in waters that are too shallow for dived submarine operations.

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

Eye Tests: Charges
Baroness Ewart-Biggs Baroness Ewart-Biggs asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the number of people seeking eye tests has fallen since charges were introduced.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the information on the number of people receiving sight tests since 1st April 1989 is not yet available. We intend to carry out a survey into numbers later this year when the market has had more time to stabilise.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his rather predictable Answer. Nevertheless, is he aware of disturbing press reports, notably in the Observer, which state that there has been a fall of 40 per cent. in the number of people asking for eye tests? May I also tell him—
Noble Lords: No!
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, may I also point out—
Noble Lords: No!
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, is the noble Lord also aware that I had confirmation of those figures when visiting an optician off Sloane Square, which is not exactly a deprived area? His numbers have fallen dramatically. In his other practice in Wandsworth he is testing only the eyes of those who are exempted. Will the noble Lord give a date for reviewing the situation with a view to exempting
2
pensioners—something asked for in his House and the other place—from what is an unfair and ill-conceived charge?
Lord Henley: My Lords, we are, of course, aware of the report in the Observer. The evidence at the moment is only anecdotal. We do not accept that charges for sight tests will have any deterrent effect. There is also anecdotal evidence which shows that the number of sight tests increased greatly before 1st April. We have to wait, possibly until the autumn—I cannot give a firm date—before we can conduct any assessment of the numbers of sight tests.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, is not that most unsatisfactory? Does the noble Lord doubt the evidence which has come from all parts of the country? A report relating to north London which appeared in my local paper this weekend suggested that evidence from opticians shows a fall of more than 40 per cent. If that is true, does he accept that it is obvious that serious eye diseases are going unidentified? This will have serious consequences for patients and the National Health Service. Why is he so complacent about the matter?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am not complacent. The noble Lord would not expect the Government to rely on evidence that is only anecdotal at the moment. I accept that it is likely that numbers are declining, but there is also evidence of an increase immediately before we brought in the charges.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that his right honourable friend should take note of the views of opticians' organisations and surgeons inolved in these matters? They fully support what my noble friend Lady Ewart-Biggs has said. Would it not be sensible, in the interest of the people, that the NHS and everyone whose eyesight might be damaged because they cannot afford a test, go to the head of the well, so to speak—the leading professional organisations—to seek their views as to whether the Government have done a bad thing?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as I stated in my original Answer, we intend to carry out a survey into numbers later this year when the markets have had more time to stabilise. We do not accept that people cannot afford to have eye tests. Over 40 per cent. of the population are exempt from the charges.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, does my noble friend have any information as to the number of retail outlets that are now selling reading glasses without prescription since the Government so wisely allowed them to be sold without prescription?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot help my noble friend on the number of outlets selling reading glasses without prescription. I shall write to him if I can Find the figures.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, is the noble Lord so completely out of touch with reality that he imagines having to pay £10 for a sight test will not discourage millions of ordinary men and women from having their eyes looked at?
Lord Henley: My Lords, no. Ten pounds is not a large amount of money when one considers that a great many people are exempted. That includes children under 16, full-time students under 19, those in receipt of income support or family credit together with others on low incomes who are also exempt, the registered blind or partially sighted, those needing complex lenses, diagnosed diabetics or glaucoma sufferers and parents, brothers, sisters and children aged 40 or over of glaucoma sufferers.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, is it being claimed that one has to be poor to be exempted? Evidence from across the country shows that it is mainly those who are poor who are not coming forward for sight tests. Does not that worry the Minister at all? Surely it must do.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I stated that the poor are entitled to free sight tests. We made that clear.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that hospital eye departments are suffering increased pressure because GPs are sending their poorer patients to them to have their eyes tested? What does he think should be done about that?
Lord Henley: My Lords, GPs should not be sending people to hospitals for routine eye tests. And the hospital eye service should not accept such people as patients purely for routine eye tests.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, is the Minister aware that GPs are doing that in order to save poorer patients paying the charge?
Lord Henley: My Lords, poorer patients do not have to pay. I cannot make that any clearer. I read out a list of those people who are exempt from the charges: it includes those on income support, family credit or covered by other low income arrangements.

British Satellite Broadcasting Ltd.
2.42 p.m.
Lord Morris Lord Morris asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their view of the appropriateness of the proprietorship of British Satellite Broadcasting Ltd.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, British Satellite Broadcasting Ltd. is an IBA contractor and it is subject to the provisions in the Broadcasting Act 1981 concerning the ownership of contractors. It is for the IBA, and not the Government, to apply those provisions.
Lord Morris: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Can he confirm that Her Majesty's Government are not so naive as to believe that it requires in excess of 50 per cent. ownership of a company in order to exercise considerable influence over a company? Bearing that fact in mind, are the Government not concerned about the recent ruling of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal in regard to the case of Mr. Bond?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I wish to disabuse my noble friend of the conception which he has. The Government are not naive. I should tell him that Mr. Bond has 36 per cent. of the shares but he does not control the company; he controls 28 per cent. of the voting strength. If there were any attempt to increase his holding in British Satellite Broadcasting Ltd., it would be subject to the approval of the IBA. I should tell my noble friend that the IBA is responsible for the regulations. It has considerable powers to enforce the ownership regulations.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, is it not the case that the safeguards available for controlling British satellite broadcasting, as outlined by the Minister, do not cover Sky Television, which has four channels aimed at this country? It is running its satellite operations from this country and its owner, News International, controls 34 per cent. of national newspapers in the country. How is that consistent with the Government controls—which we understand from the statements made by the Government are to be exercised by the IBA and then the ITC—to ensure that no newspaper proprietor has a controlling interest in any TV station? Will the Government legislate to block this loophole?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, British Satellite Broadcasting Ltd. is the official UK company involved in direct broadcasting by satellite. It will be regulated by the Independent Broadcasting Authority and its sucessor, the Independent Television Commission. We intend to take powers, in the proposed broadcasting legislation, for the Independent Television Commission to regulate all independent television services which originate from this company.
The noble Baroness will realise that there is a difference between a company which is "up-linked" to a satellite from this country, as opposed to one like the BSB, which is indigenous to this country.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, can my noble friend say how many people receive satellite broadcasting, and whether he knows anybody who has ever seen a satellite broadcast privately?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the department in which I have the honour to be a participant has a fund of information. However, I do not know that it has the number of people who receive BSB, or rather Sky Television, broadcasts or have receivers. I have no doubt that anything initiated starts in a small way and, if it proves to be successful, then more people will join in. It is up to the companies to make sure that they are successful.

Hostels for the Homeless: Future
2.46 p.m.
Lord Stallard Lord Stallard asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are planning to hand over to outside organisations the administration and funding of existing and future hostel accommodation for the homeless; and, if so, when details or proposals will be published.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Skelmersdale): My Lords, I apologise for the length of this Answer. It is caused by the fact that two totally separate matters arise from the Question on the Order Paper—namely, the future for hostels run by local authorities and charities, and the resettlement units run by the Department of Social Security. For the former, from October 1989, the special rates of income support for hostel dwellers will cease. Instead, like people living in board and lodging accommodation, they will become eligible for normal income support rates, plus housing benefit to help with accommodation costs.
For the latter, the Government, through the resettlement agency, propose to replace the existing large and under-used resettlement units with smaller and more appropriately sited units to be run locally, either by local authorities or by voluntary bodies. No savings to government funds, except administrative ones, are anticipated in either case.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that reply, although he will not expect me to say that I am delighted by his words. Is he aware that his reply this afternoon will have done nothing to eliminate all the doubts that have existed in the voluntary sector over the past few years about their future? The smaller organisations which do most of the hard work outside, like the Westminster branch of the MIND organisation, with three small hostels, are extremely concerned about their future.
Does the Minister accept that from October this year, due to the proposals which have just been announced, there will be two different types of hostel dwellers living in the same hostel in exactly the same conditions, one receiving £10 per week more than the other? Surely it is just adding to the confusion
6
and chaos which the voluntary sector has been suffering over these few years. Will the noble Lord do something now to clear the matter up?
Lord Skelmersdale: No, my Lords. As concerns the charities, they fall into the first case which I mentioned and, from October 1989, as I said, the special income support rate for host el dwellers will cease. They will be brought on to exactly the same financial footing as those currently on board and lodging. As a result, they will become eligible for normal income support for day-to-day expenses, plus housing benefits, to help them with the accommodation costs.
As concerns the hostels themselves, I repeat that they will not lose money from this change.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, does not the Minister agree that the need for voluntary organisations to do all the marvellous work which they do is the result of the total failure of the Government's housing policy? Why do the Government not pay some attention to the need to eradicate homelessness, instead of putting these patches on the wounds of their policy?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I do not think this is necessarily a homelessness problem. If it were, the answer would be, as I have said on many occasions, for local authorities to be careful where they place their homeless people.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, will the Minister say how much publicity will be given to the reply he has given today as regards the conditions that will exist in future in hostels for the homeless?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, leaflets are being prepared to advise claimants and hostel managers and other advisory bodies of the change. The local offices of the Department of Social Security will issue a brief explanatory leaflet to claimants on an individual basis. It will be sent with an explanatory letter, plus the hostel claim forms. In particular, claimants will be advised to claim housing benefit as quickly as possible and not wait until 9th October, when the changes come in. The leaflets to advisers will be of a more technical nature and will explain the operation of the central unit in the Department of Social Security which will make up shortfalls in hostel funds due to the change.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, as the Minister is aware, this is primarily a London problem. There is no party politics in this matter. Surely t he Minister will agree that it is about time the Government brought the outside agencies together and set up a body to look after homeless people. That body could give homeless people advice and it should have power to acquire empty flats from local authorities. What is the Minister doing about that? Further, if such a body were set up, it would be seen that the Government were interested in these people. The Government should not muck about as they are doing at present.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I can go so far as to agree with the noble Lord that some local authorities are very bad housing managers indeed. Surprisingly, one of the best housing departments in London is—I hope the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, is listening—in the London Borough of Camden.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, as the whole House is aware of the problems of the homeless, will the Minister set up a survey to find out how many homeless there are within our city now, if he does not already know this figure?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the most recent figure I have is 10,000 people. This is a figure I used in debate a fortnight ago. I understand that this is a reduction from the 12,000 homeless people of some two years ago.

Beer Supply: MMC Report
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel had given notice of his intention to ask Her Majesty's Government the following Question:
Whether they will now implement the recommendations of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on the supply of beer.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, in view of the fact that the noble Lord the Secretary of State is to make a Statement on this matter after Questions—the time of the Statement may or may not be coincidental with the Question I have on the Order Paper—I do not propose to beg leave to ask this Question.

Business
2.52 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of your Lordships to know that the Report stage of the Electricity Bill will be adjourned at about 7 p.m. for about an hour and that during this adjournment the Education (Assisted Places) Regulations 1989 will be taken.

Beer Supply: MMC Report
2.53 p.m.
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Lord Young of Graffham): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I wish to announce the Government's response to the report from the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on the supply of beer.
This was a comprehensive report. It recommended far reaching changes in the brewing sector. Passionate views for and against its recommendations have been expressed forcefully to me and to my colleagues since I published it on 21st March. I have listened carefully to views from all quarters—large and small brewers, the tenants, and, most importantly, the consumers. But before I announce my decisions I should like first to restate the Government's position in relation to this and all other MMC reports.
8
The essence of the Government's view is this: competition is good for industry and commerce and, above all, for consumers. It encourages enterprise, greater productivity, greater diversity and lower prices. In general the operation of the market delivers the benefits of competition to the consumer. But sometimes the Government have to step in—in mergers, restrictive and anti-competitive practices, and monopolies. And the ultimate sanction which the Government hold—and exercise when necessary—is to order divestment. Without this sanction our policies to ensure that competition is kept free would be without force and effect.
Certain preliminary conclusions were announced by my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State on 8th June; and I made a further statement of the Government's position during a debate in your Lordships' House on 14th June. We made it clear that certain measures would apply to the national brewers, but not to regional and local brewers.
I now turn to the specific decisions I have reached on matters covered in the MMC's recommendations. I have taken particular note of recent further evidence of the need for more competition in the supply of soft drinks and low alcohol beers to pubs. We have decided therefore that tenants of the national brewers should be free to buy these and certain other products from any source, free of ties. Products thus freed from the tie will include non-alcoholic and low alcohol beers, soft drinks, ciders, wines and spirits. These measures should significantly enhance competition in the supply of these products.
All brewers will be required to supply beer to the wholesale trade at prices no more than those in a published list. The MMC showed that some wholesalers had been prevented from operating in the market because brewers had refused them supplies. These measures, and others I shall shortly come to, should stimulate a more open and competitive wholesale market in beer and other drinks.
We agree with the MMC's conclusion that licensed tenants must be given greater security of tenure in the new circumstances. I confirm that amendments to the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 will be brought forward as soon as parliamentary time permits to give licensed tenants the same protection as other business tenants. I am conscious that many tenants have found themselves in an uncertain position since the MMC report was published. In some cases they have already been served with notice to quit. It is regrettable that some brewers have seen fit to take this action before firm decisions have been announced.
We envisage that subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary legislation, all tenancies which have three or more years to run from today's date will fall within the scope of the Act. In the case of tenancies without a definite term, they will fall within the scope of the Act with effect from three years from today, or from the first rent review after the legislation takes effect, whichever first occurs.
The MMC made a number of recommendations aimed at giving tenants further protection, beyond

9
that provided by the Landlord and Tenant Act. I have considered this carefully, and have taken particular note of the representations made by the National Licensed Victuallers' Association that the power the brewer landlord has over the tenant is such as to justify a special level of tenant's protection. I have however decided that it would not be right to go further than affording licensed tenants the same protection as all other business tenancies.
I hope that those landlords who have issued notices to quit to their tenants as a consequence of the MMC report will now withdraw such notices. I have announced what I believe are appropriate transitional arrangements. I do not wish to see the position of tenants unduly jeopardized in the period before any amendments take effect. If necessary I will make an interim order under the Fair Trading Act 1973 as amended by the current Companies Bill to safeguard their position.
The MMC recommended the prohibition of all new loan ties. The effect of loan ties is, however, very different from that of ties resulting from ownership, which are permanent ties to one brewer's products. Loan ties can and do change from brewer to brewer frequently. It is clear that in the right circumstances they can be pro-competitive. I have also been persuaded that these loans can be an invaluable source of finance for new public houses and particularly for clubs. I have therefore decided not to prohibit them, but instead require that they conform to certain conditions to ensure that they are not used anti-competitively. All loan ties must be capable of termination at no more than three months' notice without penalty, and in the case of loans from the national brewers must be confined to beer.
We have already made it clear that the requirement recommended by the MMC that tenants should be allowed to offer a guest beer should apply only to the national brewers. We have also made it plain that the guest beer will be a cask-conditioned beer, other than stout. The issues to be resolved are who should be permitted to supply the guest beer and whether the requirement should apply to all exclusive ties entered into by national brewers, whether through ownership or loans.
We have decided that the right to take a guest beer should indeed apply to all exclusive ties entered into by national brewers. As to who should be able to supply to the houses of the national brewers, one view is that any brewer, other than the one responsible for the tie, should be able to supply the guest beer. On the other hand, the Brewers' Society has suggested that only brewers with an annual output of less than 200,000 barrels may supply. That would exclude any other than small, local brewers. We would welcome further views on this during the statutory consultation period.
I now turn to measures to address the central question of the size of the tied estate of the national brewers. The MMC recommended that no brewer should be allowed to own more than 2,000 on-licences. I have always made it clear that I was prepared to consider alternatives provided that they dealt with the public interest issues clearly identified by the MMC.
10
The national brewers made it clear that nothing which would fundamentally affect the strength of the tied-house system would be acceptable to them. But that is the central detriment identified by the MMC. Furthermore, it is clear that greater freedom to purchase products outside obligations imposed by the brewers would be widely welcomed both by publicans and by their customers.
I have decided that all brewers who own more than 2,000 on-licensed premises wilt be required to release from ties one half of the premises above that threshold. They must be leased free of ties to the company's products. As these premises will now become free houses, the owning brewer will be permitted to make the new form of tied loans should the new tenants require them. At present there are some 15,000 free houses. On the basis of the data in the MMC report, these measures will add an additional 11,030 free houses. The proposals should enable a major freeing of the market without the compulsory divestment originally recommended by the MMC.
The central problem identified by the MMC was that the tied-house system restricts choice and competition. The MMC identified a number of ways in which the operation of the licensing system has this effect. The licensing system exists to control the supply of alcoholic drinks and to ensure that such drinks are sold only by fit and proper persons. However, in practice licensing justices take account of a wide range of factors in deciding whether to grant a licence to an applicant including whether in their view there is a demonstrable need for new licensed premises.
The MMC took the licensing system as given. However in view of the consequences for competition I believe that we should consider this matter further, even though the MMC made no recommendation to that effect.
It is no part of government policy to seek to increase the number of licensed premises. But, equally, a licensing system devised for one purpose should not be used for another purpose, namely to fortify a local monopoly. My right honourable friends the Home Secretary and the Lord President of the Council and I have agreed to look into this point further.
The main measures that I have announced will take some time to put into effect. I propose that a period of two years should be allowed for those measures which involve modifying tenancy agreements or separating a business into a tied and free estate. At the end of one further year I propose that the effect of these measures should be reviewed by the Director General of Fair Trading. They involve significant structural changes to the market, and it will be important to review whether they have had the desired pro-competitive effects.
Throughout my consideration of the MMC report I have been in close touch with the European Commission, which is itself conducting a review of competition in the brewing sector throughout the Community. The measures that I intend to take are compatible with the terms of the existing block exemption from Article 85 of the treaty of Rome.

11
The Commission's own examination is also looking closely at the effects on competition of vertical tying, and I look forward with interest to the conclusions of its study. When the position in the United Kingdom is reviewed at the end of three years we shall take fully into account the results of the European Commission review and any consequent changes to the EC block exemption regulation.
Drafts of orders to give effect to the measures that I have announced today will be published as soon as possible. Parties whose interests are affected by such orders will have a period of at least six weeks in which to make representations after they have been published before the orders are placed before Parliament.
3.5 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord the Secretary of State for his Statement today. I am bound to say, openly and frankly, that we regard his announced view on the central question of the tie as being no more than a cave-in to brewers' interests.
There is a remarkable change from the Secretary of State's announced position when the report was published that he was minded to accept its recommendations. Since then the noble Lord has conducted negotiations. That contrasts starkly with the negotiations which the Government failed to conduct with the Transport and General Workers' Union before deciding to abolish the dock labour scheme.
The Monopolies and Mergers Commission identified a complex monopoly. Since then the Brewers' Society has mounted a formidable campaign. The Brewers' Society is no doubt a vested interest, but where in all this did the consumer come in? The noble Lord said that, most importantly, he had listened carefully to the consumer. Is it not the case that the Consumers' Association supported the view and the recommendations of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission?
Going through the Statement, which I have had only a short time to review, I note that the supply of soft drinks and low alcohol beers will be released from the tie. As I understand it, that supply is not covered by the block exemption under Article 85 of the Treaty of Rome. I wonder therefore what is new in the noble Lord's announcement.
With regard to the extension of the Landlord and Tenant Act which the noble Lord announced, we shall welcome the amendments when we see them, provided they conform with what is our understanding.
With regard to the recommended prohibition on all new loan ties recommended by the MMC, we agree with the noble Lord, as we have announced, that loan ties can increase rather than diminish competition. As I said in our debate, we believe that there is a very strong case for maintaining loan ties, as he has indicated.
The central question which the noble Lord addressed was that of the tie. His announcement is a long way from what the MMC recommended.
12
The MMC spent two years compiling its report. It interviewed and examined witnesses from across the whole spectrum of the trade, consumers, other businesses and trade unions. It came up with recommendations which the noble Lord has seen fit to disregard. Since he declared himself minded to accept the report, he has offered concession after concession to the brewers. As he said, early on he ruled out the application of the MMC report to regional and local brewers. Next, in a speech in this House, he offered a further concession to the brewers. Now he has offered even further concessions. At the time of the debate he proposed that any brewer owning more than 2,000 premises should run the rest of its portfolio as a property portfolio. It is concession after concession to powerful vested interests. It is a ragged and humiliating retreat, and we regret that the Secretary of State was not more resolute.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for his Statement, which has finally clarified a question that has led to a great deal of speculation. I much appreciate the first part of his Statement in which he expressed the view that the whole purpose of such Monopolies and Mergers Commission inquiries is to look into cases where competition might be in question and for the Government to take stock of the position and take decisions. However, I should like to ask him one or two questions.
The first concerns the new loan ties. The noble Lord referred to certain conditions which would have to be applied in the application of the new loans. Will he elaborate on that point so that we can be satisfied that the new loan ties will be in conformity with greater competition?
As the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, has pointed out, the big issue arises over the number of tied houses that brewers can continue to operate. The recommendation of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission was clear; namely, that the limit should be 2,000 and the rest be sold off. There has been much speculation in the press about the alternative proposition that any number over 2,000 retained in the ownership of the big brewing companies should be free houses.
The noble Lord has pointed out to us today that that is not the route he is taking; he has halved that number. He should explain why he has reached that conclusion. It would not have been unreasonable to say that any number over 2,000 should not necessarily have to be divested but should be freed. Why has he apparently changed his mind, at any rate so far as concerns press comment? It seems a bit of a retreat. I should be glad to hear his comments.
I was pleased to note that there has been close consultation with the European Commission. As I understand it, what is now proposed is regarded as conforming with Article 85 and the possible derogations thereform and that if the Commission, as a result of its own inquiry, should come to other conclusions, they will be taken seriously into account by the Government.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, for the manner in which he welcomed part of the Statement, if not all of it. I should say to him that I was of course taking the consumers' interests very much into account. I listened carefully to bodies such as the Consumers' Association which brought home to me the great need to see that soft drinks and other non-beer drinks are covered and are made a more competitive market. I should say to the noble Lord, lest he be concerned about our position within Europe, that soft drinks and other non-beer drinks are covered by the block exemption, but they are not central to it. We are free to adopt whatever policy we wish in respect of them without conflicting with the block exemption.
The noble Lord said that I listened to the brewers. Of course I listened to the brewers. I also listened to people who are perhaps rather closer to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, than I am; by that, I mean the TUC. Indeed, the general secretary of the TUC, Mr. Norman Willis, wrote a letter to me on 22nd May to which I paid great attention. In that letter he said that the TUC is,
"opposed to the basic recommendation to put a 2,000 ceiling on licensed premises which any one brewer may own".
He said that we should forget all about that and that we should not divest anything. He also went on to say that the,
"unrestricted access to supplies of soft drinks could well discourage investment by brewers in pubs to the detriment of those who work in the industry".
I believe that the noble Lord should occasionally consult his colleagues because there seems to be a great disparity of views on the matter. That was the difficulty in which I found myself. This is a matter on which all are experts—all, that is, who occasionally go down to their local for a drink—but it is important that we see our way through in order to remove detriment to competition.
I should point out to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, that the changes that we have made to tied loans will now conform to the best of practice within the trade. Any tenant receiving a tied loan or any landlord of a public house receiving a tied loan will have the ability to pay it off within three months upon serving three months' notice. From that moment onwards, the tie will no longer apply. Secondly, it would apply to beer. We are going out to consult to see what sort of beer can be used; whether it can be provided by another national brewer or whether it should be provided by one of the smaller brewers or anywhere in between.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, asked why the figure was only half, just over 2,000. First, I think that we must avoid too much turbulence in our society.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, the noble Lord's friends would not have me do anything, but the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, would have me do everything. That was the difficulty in which I found myself. Having to dispose of large numbers of public houses within a short period would not help to remedy the position.
14
We have done two things. First, we have provided that one-half of the houses—that is, over 2,000—will become new free houses. That will end in the creation of some 11,000 new houses. Secondly, we have provided that we shall give two years for that to come into being and one year thereafter to see the effect; then the Director General of Fair Trading will look at the position. If it appears that that does not cure the detriment, we may well have to do more. We should not go dashing in with immediate steps when we can see a step-by-step basis.
Finally, we have done one thing which the MMC did not recommend and which goes to the very heart and core of the problem: namely, that the system of licensing justices and of licensing public houses that we have erected over the course of the century has ensured that the number of public houses does not increase. That is probably a good thing, but the way in which the system works may have very anti-competitive elements. It may well be that magistrates look at the need element and then listen to competitors within a licensing justice area which ensures that new people cannot enter that market. It is something that I and my colleagues will examine; in the longer run, I suspect, this will have the greatest effect of all.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many people will appreciate the great care and trouble he has taken to consider the representations made to him on this matter, not least in the debate in this House a week or two ago? Is he also aware that many of us will warmly welcome his decision to reject the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's proposal for the compulsory divestment of a large number of public houses by the major brewers with all the confusion and difficulty that that would have caused, particularly in country districts?
Is my noble friend further aware that his proposal to deal with the question of the licensing law and licensing justices appeals to some of us who used to practise the law in that area as being extremely sensible and calculated to increase the competition which it is thought necessary to stimulate? On that point will my noble friend say why the Monopolies and Mergers Commission seems to think that a monopoly existed in an industry in which, in addition to local regional breweries, six major companies were also operating? Are there not many industries in this country which are controlled by far fewer major firms?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. Of course, he is quite right. The figures, of themselves, do not tend to denote any great monopoly, but it is ease of market entry which distinguishes this industry from almost every other. One can open another shop in the high street; there is barely any limit on the amount of competition that one can introduce. However, in this area, the system of licensing justices has been such as almost to eliminate any increase. In a period of 20 years, when we have seen population changes within the United Kingdom, the number of public houses has

15
increased by only some 7 per cent. The investigation that I shall carry out with my colleagues may well free up the market. If it does, I hope that it will not tempt my noble friend to go back into practice.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, is the Secretary of State aware that I believe that the brewers are insensitive, out of control and greedy? Last week, Whitbreads increased the price of its beer by 4 pence a pint and the price of its lager by 6 pence a pint, and this week John Smiths and Tetleys are doing the same. By those substantial price rises, the brewers are still abusing their monopoly power. Secondly, the noble Lord will perhaps remember that, when low-alcohol and non-alcohol beers and lagers came on the market, the brewers priced them higher than alcoholic drinks. Not only was it undermining Her Majesty's Government's policy on "Don't drink and drive", it was totally irresponsible. I hope that in his talks with the Brewers' Society, the Secretary of State will make plain that the brewers ought to be adopting a more responsible attitude in both the sales of their products and their relations with the public.
Finally, in his speech on 14th June (recorded in Hansard at cols. 1431 and 1432) he said:
"there is a need to increase competition in this industry…there are…substantial public interest detriments which need to be remedied".
I do not believe that his statements satisfy those needs. Perhaps he will now explain to the House the extent to which he is content that he has gone far enough to satisfy public opinion and consumers, and that he really has broken the monopoly.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I hear what the noble Lord says. I suspect that I am not the best person to advise the brewers today because I doubt whether I am the most popular man with them at the moment. I should point out, however, that in freeing up 11,000 of the existing public houses which are tied to the six national brewers, over the period of the next two years we shall be increasing the number of free houses in this country very substantially indeed. By insisting that wholesale prices must be published and that the brewers have to supply on that basis, we are enabling almost for the first time those free houses competitively to obtain supplies of beer. By taking low-alcohol beers as well as non-alcoholic drinks out of the tie, we shall considerably improve the supply of those commodities.
I regret some of the things that have happened over the past two or three years, but I suspect that when this House has had an opportunity to reflect on the package as a whole and —what is very important —the look that we shall take at the licensing justices, noble Lords will agree that over the next two or three years we shall be taking considerable steps to put right this market.
Lord Kimball: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend appreciates that he has made a very disappointing Statement. Of course the industry is grateful for what he said that he will do. Already
16
foreshadowed are matters concerning the loan tie, the guest beer and the landlord and tenant arrangement. However, in no way can the industry accept the revised arm's length agreement on one-half of the public houses over the 2,000 figure. All that my noble friend is doing is handing over 11,000 public houses to what essentially will be subsidised foreign competition. Worse, he is in fact interfering with a fundamental property right in the United Kingdom.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I regret to hear what my noble friend has said. I hope very much that the national brewers will reflect on my package as a whole, and will realise that it represents a proper balance in the recommendations of the MMC report. We live in a world in which defects have to be remedied. I hope that in the fullness of time the brewers will accept and live with the present position.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, is the Minister satisfied that the measures which he proposes will be effective—I repeat the word "effective"—in reducing the ridiculously high cost of non-alcoholic drinks and soft drinks sold in public houses, having regard to the high prices that have been imposed on the public in recent months, a matter to which the noble Lord, Lord Mason, has referred?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, we have taken them out of the tie and further provided that in three years from now the director general will reconsider the position. That fact will not have escaped those in the industry. I am sure they will realise that if the situation has not been remedied, further steps may have to be taken.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the Secretary of State aware of the sharp reaction from this side of the House when he mentioned that the industry should not be subjected to undue turbulence? In fact our view is that the present government has so far subjected to turbulence virtually the whole of our national life throughout their term of office. In particular that has been achieved by the Prime Minister and her style of government.
Is the Minister further aware that many people will be very concerned by his remarks about a possible alteration to the licensing system? He must know that the increase in drunkeness over the past few years has been very marked, and indeed came about shortly after the greater freedom that was given to off-licences to supply beer and other drinks at any time. Does he agree that, if the trade is further released from control, drunkeness may increase still further? That would be a tragedy for the whole country. I urge him not to proceed with this item and to leave the licensing system as it is.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, perhaps I may just say to the noble Lord how grateful I am to him for having paid tribute to the Prime Minister for the tremendous changes that she has wrought in the economy of the United Kingdom. That has ensured that during this decade we have been top of the

17
growth league compared with what happened in the 1960s and 1970s, which barely needs repetition in your Lordships' House. So far as concerns the other points raised by the noble Lord, they are matters of which my right honourable friends the Home Secretary and the Lord President of the Council are very much aware and will be taken into account by all of us.
I believe that we are predominantly considering whether the way in which the present system works in fact promotes monopolies within areas. We are speaking of diversity. We are not of necessity talking of a greater number of public houses. All these matters form part of the problems which all of us have to take into account.
Lord Joseph: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many people will feel that in due course he will deserve the thanks of not only pub users, pub tenants and pub managers, but the brewers themselves, large and small, because they will be encouraged further to compete? Is my noble friend also aware that the objections of the spokesman for Her Majesty's Opposition this afternoon to me at any rate seemed full of humbug since—I ask my noble friend to remember—the Opposition spokesman in another place completely toed the line when seeking to protect the dock labour scheme?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend. I hope that he will have a word with the brewers and help them to appreciate how good I have been to them. At the moment I suspect that they may not see it exactly that way. In reply to my noble friend—and it is a matter that I should have mentioned to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel—I cannot see the faintest similarity between the dock labour scheme, which was after all a statutory protection to give jobs for life, and the steps that we are now taking in this industry whereby we are endeavouring to create a more competitive environment.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, perhaps I may first offer my apologies to the Minister for missing the first couple of minutes of his Statement. I believe that in answer to some of the questions put to him, he said that the major objective of the Government was to protect the consumer. Having said that, let me refer to the question of tied houses. Is the Minister speaking of landlords or tenants of public houses? Is he not aware that in this country the brewers have an appalling record of increasing overnight the rents of their public house tenants, and in fact doubling those rents in some cases, so that in order to survive tenants have to levy astronomical increases on all commodities that they sell?
Will the Minister say whether that is one of the facets of the present discussions that are taking place? If not, in my opinion, he appears to have missed out on taking away a component part of the dictatorial rights that the brewers have enjoyed in the past. If he does not deal with that situation, they will continue to act in that way.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, this very balanced package provides at the same time more diversity of choice by introducing guest beers, greater competition by ensuring that low-alcohol and non-alcoholic drinks should be freed and protection for the tenants by bringing them within the scope of the Landlord and Tenant Act.
I hope that after some reflection noble Lords will agree that it would be difficult to devise a more balanced package; with the proviso that we have to see how well it works over the next three years in order to decide whether it is necessary then to go further.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, I warmly welcome the modest improvements that my noble friend has made in the licensing regime. Does he agree that ultimately the best interests of both consumers and retailers would be served by the total abolition of licensing?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I have gone no futher than to say that, with my colleagues, we shall look at the present system to see whether perhaps the "need" element is required. I do not think that I could go nearly so far as my noble friend suggests. That shows your Lordships how complex the whole field is.

Opticians Bill [H.L.]
3.30 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to consolidate certain enactments relating to opticians with amendments to give effect to recommendations of the Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Electricity Bill
3.31 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 65 [Transfer of property etc. of Area Boards]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 130:
Page 48, line 44, at end insert—
("(1A) If there is any doubt as to the ownership of property between an Area Board and the Generating Board it shall be assumed for the purposes of the transfer scheme that such

19
property belongs to the Generating Board and will be transferred to a company designated under section 66(1)(b) below, the sale of whose securities or rights to securities is restricted by section 70 below.".
The noble Lord said: It may be for the convenience of the House if I speak to Amendment No. 149, standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil. I regard these two amendments as being inextricably linked. Amendment No. 149, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, argues the case for continued public ownership of the national grid. If that amendment is to be accepted—and I very much hope that it will be—then there is the problem of defining the limits at which the new nationally owned grid company will operate. Amendment No. 130 addresses itself to one part of that.
I ought to explain that there is a subsequent amendment that I have not tabled. It relates to the other end of the grid: the relationship between the grid and the generating companies. In other words, it relates to what property should remain with the grid and what property should properly be that of the generating companies.
Amendment No. 130 addresses the procedures—assuming that the grid is to remain in public ownership—by which the property which will properly belong to the grid and that which will properly belong to the area boards will be determined. My amendment attempts to put forward a scheme which will allow preference to be given to the grid in cases of doubt.
The bulk supply points—which are the points where the voltage is stepped down to the distribution voltages of 132 kilovolts from the 400 kilovolts of the high voltage transmission system operated by the grid—are the property of the GECB and will presumably continue to be the property of the grid company. There are some 132 kilovolt sub-stations which were transferred some years ago to the area boards. However, not all were transferred. The remaining 132 kilovolt sub-stations are still owned by the CEGB and will be transferred, we know not quite where at the moment. There has been long debate between lawyers acting for the CEGB and lawyers acting for the area boards to determine where those should go. The problem is that metering equipment which is not required at the moment other than in the final point of distribution by the area boards will be required between the generating companies and the area boards in order to determine the source of the generating capacity which is used and the amount of supply that is taken off by the area boards.
The central point on the boundary of where the grid stops and where the area boards begin is intimately related to the question of the ownership of the grid. If the grid were to be a subsidiary of the collective body of area boards, then I do not think that the problem would be so great as it is if the grid remains the property of the public. My party and I believe that the grid should remain in public ownership and under public control, and that therefore the problem that I am addressing in Amendment No. 130 arises.
I shall not argue the case for continued public ownership of the grid at the moment because I do not wish to anticipate what the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, will say when he speaks to this group of amendments. However, I believe that a case has been made out; and if it is made out and accepted, then consequential amendments along the lines of Amendment No. 130, and subsequently to determine how the grid and the generating companies interact in terms of property, will be required. I beg to move.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, at this moment I think that I should declare an interest. I am the chairman of British Alcan. It is one of the largest generators of power, which it uses largely for its own purposes. It is only fair to add that the company stands to gain rather than to lose from the provisions made by the Bill for access to the grid on fairer terms than those which are presently available.
I neither oppose privatisation nor am I a noisy and eloquent champion of present arrangements. However, the present arrangements have this merit. They have worked. They have withstood the vagaries both of weather and of human behaviour. The new proposals would involve the severance of generation from transmission. My anxieties about the Government's proposals centre very largely on what is suggested now for the grid. I believe that the disturbance involved will be real and that the benefits may well turn out to be less so.
My Amendment No. 149 is grouped with that of the noble Lord, Lord Williams. Perhaps I may also refer briefly to Amendments Nos. 150 to 153, which stand in my name. The aim of those amendments together is to offer a breathing space during which the industry could settle down and, in the light of that experience, it would be possible for the Government to have a time for reflection and to decide what best to do with the grid company. The amendments offer an alternative of leaving it for the time being in public ownership, or, alternatively, dividing the ownership up, with 40 per cent. going to the distributor companies. 40 per cent. to the generators and 20 per cent. remaining with the Government.
I do not think that the Government's proposals are easy either to locate or to understand. If we piece together the bits of the puzzle, we find, as I understand it, that something like this emerges. The grid company will be owned by the distributor companies through a holding company. But it will be singularly free from parochial interference. The operation of the grid will be in the hands of its own board. I imagine that its borrowings—and I assume this because I have seen no clue that it is under the control of anyone else—will be a matter for it to decide for itself. In the charges that it makes, it will be responsible to the director.
I am indebted to my noble friend for her speech the other day. So far as expenditure is concerned, that expenditure which is required to enable the company to fulfil the conditions of its licence will be free from any control by the holding company. A similar provision exisits for research and development. The operating company will be free—I

21
use my noble friend's words—to decide at what level, and what type of, R & D it will carry on in pursuit of its licensed activities.
I find it difficult to understand with any certainty what provisions are made for the appointment of directors in the future. What my noble friend said was to the effect that they would be governed by the articles of association, which focused mainly upon part-time non-executive directors. It would be of great assistance if she could tell us more specifically how and by whom executive and non-executive directors will be appointed in future.
In the course of her interesting remarks in the debate the other day my noble friend said that the operating company would have the benefit of what she called cast-iron safeguards. I should have thought that that was an unusual position for a wholly-owned subsidiary company to enjoy. To have cast-iron safeguards against its own parent is surely a somewhat novel situation.
The position which I have attempted briefly to describe seems to me to merit the description of the operating company as an unusually powerful middle man. It will also have, in addition to those privileges, further extensive powers and duties. It will instruct the power stations in the same way as it does now on the basis of the merit order, but there will be this difference. Whereas now the instructions carry with them the authority of ownership, in future those commands and instructions will have only the force of a contract. Sometimes it will be a contract made between two other parties.
The grid company will have the oversight of all contracts which involve the use of its own network. I imagine that it will also have its own contracts with the generators. Presumably those contracts will be reached in competition with its own owners. Both the grid and its owners will be obliged to enter into contracts with the generators. I find it a little difficult to understand how such a delicate relationship will work out in practice.
Since the grid company will be the only body in any position to verify the amounts of power consumed, it will necessarily be the clearing house for payment. It will also manage the generators' and distributors' pools, which we have heard rather coyly referred to in various government statements.
I find it a little odd that, in an industry as complex and as vitally important as this, there should as yet be available no explanatory document setting out the precise arrangements whereby a whole network of contracts and payments will mesh in with one another, not to mention the role that the Director General of Electricity Supply will have to perform.
Even if such a paper is not now available—that is, if I am correct in saying that it is not available —perhaps my noble friend can assure your Lordships that it will be available before the House finally passes the Bill on Third Reading.
Against the background, which gives me considerable concern, that this new grid company will in effect be answerable to no one—I do not want to take up too much time—I should like to dwell for a few moments on the distributor companies, which I understand are known to their friends as "discos",
22
a rather ominous word. These discos will have the somewhat doubtful privilege of approving annually the mid-term strategic plan. I wonder whether in the light of experience they will come to regard that as a great privilege to be enjoyed to the full.
They will have the right to shop around for the cheapest source of power. None of us is very certain as to what surplus will exist. I wonder how much of a privilege that will be in the event. The generators are now being relieved of the statutory duty to supply. That statutory duty to supply is being imposed instead upon the distributor companies. Those companies will have no present capacity to produce and they will have to rely for the performance of a duty which is statutory on duties which are simply founded upon contracts, the interpretation of which will sometimes be uncertain. The distributors will be monopoly suppliers to most consumers. Of that I do not think there can be any doubt. However, where there are particularly large consumers, or where a sizeable consumer, one worth having, is close to a border, such consumers will have the undoubted advantages of competition because both generators and other distributor companies will all have the right to compete for their business.
The distributor companies—which I venture to believe could develop into a situation of some discomfort—so we are told by my noble friend, will view their shareholding primarily as an investment. I wonder how long that view will endure. As I hope I have already made clear, the distributor companies through their holding companies will have no influence whatsoever upon the prices charged by the grid. They will have no influence upon their general investment, expenditure or borrowing. I find that difficult to live with and I wonder how far it will work.
The Government must answer the principal question, and I have not yet heard a clear answer to it although there may have been one. It is to whom will the grid company be answerable? If the answer is to the director general, then he in his turn is answerable to the Secretary of State. There is then an easier alternative available, and I find most odd the fact that I should be advocating it. It is the alternative of leaving the industry where it is in the public sector. But the Government cannot maintain—not for one moment—that the grid company will be answerable to its shareholders, which surely is the answer one desires if looking for a free enterprise solution.
In conclusion, I wonder how greatly the distributing companies will, after a few years' experience, cherish their over-mighty offspring. I cannot entirely suppress my inquisitiveness. I am curious to know how Professor Littlechild is now feeling, confronted as he has been for a few weeks with a very difficult problem to unravel. Without in any way being impolite, I also wonder what the noble Lord, Lord Marshall of Goring, is thinking. I wonder whether in the future he will have the same confidence in the arrangements of which he was principal architect and which until recently he defended with such vigour.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, we have heard a most forceful, logical and clear analysis of one of the major problems arising in the Bill. Let us be quite clear and remind ourselves that essentially the electricity supply industry consists of three parts: the generation, the transmission and the distribution of electricity. Regarding England and Wales, under the existing arrangements the generation of electricity is a virtual monopoly and the generating company owns the grid. That is a clear system which, as the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, has said, has worked well over a number of years.
The Government decided to change the system; to privatise the industry and thereby introduce a greater degree of competition. In seeking to introduce that greater degree of competition, the question immediately arises: what will happen to those three integral parts? The Government have decided to take away transmission from the generating companies and give it to the distribution companies. I was most surprised by that decision because it seemed to me that if one was to provide open and fair access to the grid the very best that could happen was that it should be independent both of the major generators and the distribution companies.
But the Government have decided otherwise. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, has pointed out, what they have decided is not at all clear. They have stated that the management of the grid company will operate independently of its board. The Government must have realised at an early stage that to enable the grid to be owned by the distribution companies which are themselves in competition would be anomalous. Therefore they have said that the ownership must vest in them but that the management will be relatively independent.
As the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, has pointed out, that immediately raises big questions. What are their shareholder rights? What will they be expected to do regarding capital investment in the grid company and in approving its profit returns? Where will they stand in relation to the management? That is totally obscure.
I regret to say that another major obscurity is in the way the industry will operate in practice. We now understand that the distribution companies will be able to shop around and make contracts for the electricity which they wish to distribute. They can buy it either from the successors of the Central Electricity Generating Board—that is the two big companies which have been set up—or from a number of independent sources. That is from Scotland, France, and a number of private contractors.
In addition to that, the generating companies, whether existing or new, will be free to sell their electricity direct to industrial users. Therefore one has the creation of a market situation. But the essential feature of that market situation is the use of the grid. It is the route by which electricity moves from the producer to the user. As the distribution companies will be only one part of the competitive network, on the face of it it seems to be wrong that they should be owning the means by which electricity can go from its source to its end use.
24
However, there is a further technical complication. It is that the suppliers of electricity will have to enter into contracts with the distributors or with the end users if they choose to supply to them. They will make contracts for three, four, five or 20 years—whatever they agree—at whatever prices and under whatever conditions. But then the grid will intervene on a merit order basis. It will call forward the supply of electricity at prices which at the time it does so are the lowest. So one will then have a number of contracts being made with different contracting parties and the grid calling for the supplies to move on a different basis. That is another anomaly.
We should give the most serious attention to that problem because for decades we have had in operation in Britain an electricity industry which has worked successfully. Some may say that it has not been the cheapest and some may argue that it has not been the most innovative but it has certainly been extremely reliable and effective. As the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, said, it has worked. Without in any way being apprehensive about more competition because I am all in favour of the Government's intentions on that—and I happen to be personally involved in competitive companies in this sector and should therefore declare an interest—I am concerned whether the formula which they have adopted will work. I ask them to take very seriously into account what the noble Lord, Lord Peyton said.
The whole position of the grid company is anomalous, uncertain and unclear. It would be wise to keep it independent for a period from both the generating side and the distribtution side so that it can really open up the pathway to anybody who wants to use the grid on fair terms without hindrance, fear or favour. I believe that this is one of the most important aspects of this Bill which we have so far considered and I ask your Lordships to give it very careful thought indeed.
4 p.m.
Viscount Hood: My Lords, I should like to restrict my remarks to the problem of the ownership of the grid company to which my noble friend Lord Peyton and the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, have already referred.
As proposed, it will become a very important trade investment for the 12 distributing companies. The proposed structure is that the holding company, on which the 12 companies would presumably be represented, will be totally divorced from the fundamental financial activities of the operating company. Within the licence there may be very important enterprises. I believe that it is to be expected that another link with the continent may be necessary as may another link with Scotland. Those are both important and expensive capital expenditures which are no doubt justified with the licence.
From where are those funds to be derived? One option is for the operating company to borrow or for equity to be injected by the owners, but as set out the owners can only act if the company's financial viability is threatened—and I am reading from what the Minister said in Committee. In private enterprise that is nonsense. Any noble Lords who have served on boards of companies will know that the operating

25
management depends very much on non-executive directors, or should do, in deciding financial policy. That is where total divorce is placed in the articles of association. I hope that the Minister will think again on that.
Perhaps I may be so bold as to make a suggestion. I recall in history that when the Government bought control of the British Petroleum Company, then the Anglo-Iranian Company in 1911, they had problems where they wanted to guide or control certain aspects of the company's affairs. To that end they appointed a minority of government directors whose instructions were incorporated in what was, I believe, called the Bradbury letter. That lasted for 50 years or more. Might that not be a much better solution than creating these terrible articles of association, assuming that the ownership continues in the hands of the distribution companies? That perhaps would be an alternative which would allow a degree of independence while retaining essential government principles.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I take it that we are speaking to Amendments Nos. 130 and 149 although my noble friend Lord Peyton referred to his Amendments Nos. 150 and 153. I must say that I was somewhat baffled as to the justification for the grouping so I listened with interest to the noble Lord. Lord Williams, because it seems to me that on the one hand Clause 65, to which Amendment No. 130 applies, deals with the transfer of assets of the area boards to the successor companies and on the other hand Clause 70, to which Amendment No. 149 applies, deals with the proposed structure of the electricity supply industry.
However, in view of the fundamental importance to both Amendment No. 130 and to the Bill as a whole of Amendment No. 149 which changes our proposals for the shareholdings in the transmission companies, I hope that it may be agreeable to your Lordships if I deal with that amendment first.
In Committee we discussed an amendment similar to Amendment No. 149 which was grouped quite properly in my view with what are now Amendments Nos. 150 and 153. I was unable to accept them then and I cannot accept them now.
As the House knows, we propose that the transmission company, or the National Grid company as it will be known, will move to the private sector under the joint ownership of the supply companies, the successors to the area boards. The National Grid company's shares will be owned, through a holding company, by the supply companies. There will be no government shareholding other than the special share.
The amendments before us today envisage wide-ranging changes to these proposals. My noble friend Lord Peyton has said today and on previous occasions that the intention behind these amendments is to offer the Government a choice in reconsidering the proposed shareholding in the transmission company.
The first option we are being offered is to recast the shareholding between the supply companies, the generators and the Government in the proportion
26
40:40:20, and we shall come to that later. The second option, Amendment No. 149, involves retaining the entire shareholding of NGC in government hands, thereby keeping it in the public sector. This is not a real choice. Both options would undermine the basis of our proposals for restructuring the electricity industry. Indeed, I would go as far as saying that they strike against the very essence of the White Paper.
Perhaps I may remind your Lordships of the reasons why we propose that the transmission system should be owned by the supply companies. The essential point made in the White Paper, to which we have adhered consistently ever since, is that the responsibilities for the generation and transmission of electricity must be entirely separate if competition is to thrive. That is why in restructuring the industry we intend that the transmission function should be split from the CEGB and so far I believe that we are all agreed.
It is a keystone of our proposals that the supply companies should have the choice of who generates their electricity. That is the only way that they will be in a position where they can shop around for the cheapest supplies. The supply companies will have the obligation to supply after privatisation, and it will be imperative for them to ensure that the grid is operated in an open and transparent manner, which will encourage new generators to come into the market. For those reasons, we believe the supply companies should own the grid.
Further, in order to ensure the maximum independence to the grid company there are clear cut duties and responsibilities governing the transmission company's business set down in the Bill and in the draft licence. The articles of association of the operating and holding companies underpin those duties and responsibilities and set out clearly the relationship between the two companies. The fundamental point is that these documents ensure that the operating company will have the necessary freedom to meet the terms of its licence and the day-to-day management control of its business. Again, I must remind my noble friend that the articles are protected from change by the special shareholder. Therefore, we do not accept the proposition that there should be any other government shareholding in the transmission company. The transmission system is, and will continue to be, the very backbone of our electricity supply industry. The comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, underline its importance. I hope that reassures noble Lords on the various points that have been raised.
Some of your Lordships expressed the view that over time the position of the transmission company within the industry will shift. It is alleged, on the one hand, that there will either be a tilt to the supply companies, who will not only own the grid company but also control it, and in so doing create for themselves a monopoly in supply. On the other hand, it is argued that the grid will develop in splendid isolation, answerable to no one. I do not accept either thesis.
The powers which the supply companies will be able to exert through the holding company over

27
NGC are clearly prescribed and set out in the articles of association. I know that my noble friend Lord Hood expressed considerable concern about that. My noble friend said that the articles of association of the operating company do not adequately protect the grid company from interference from its shareholders. To give reassurance on this critical point, perhaps I may say that the key to limiting the degree of interference by the holding company is Article 89 of the operating company's articles.
The safeguards that this article sets out include the fact that the operating company will need to submit its investment plans and proposals to the holding company. The holding company will be able to discuss issues of policy and scrutinise these plans. Ultimately, subject to the terms of the articles of association, it will be able to recruit and dismiss National Grid company directors responsible for them. However, its powers to interfere with investment proposals are clearly set out in the operating company's articles of association.
The holding company will have no power to withhold consent over expenditure required by the licence or for work required to enable the National Grid company to comply with its obligations in the Bill. The holding company will be able to withhold approval over the expenditure concerning the carrying on of national grid business, but only where it has reasonable grounds for believing the implementation of the proposals is likely adversely to affect the financial viability of the company. It will be able to give or withhold approval to any other proposals made by the operating company.
These rules, we believe, strike a fine balance between National Grid company work required by the terms of the licence, and subject to supervision by the regulator, and other permissible activities over which the holding company has powers of approval. Tile National Grid company will be able to take its own day-to-day decisions, but its directors ultimately will be accountable to the holding company. We also intend to establish the company with the financial independence to finance its own investment plans. In short, the supply companies will view their shareholding in NGC as an investment, not as a means of control.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. She said that the directors of the operating company will be answerable to the holding company. How far can that possibly be the case? I am sorry to say that my noble friend will have to go into far more detail if she hopes to prove to the satisfaction of this House that that is anything like the case.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I intend to deal further with the points raised by my noble friend concerning directors, and I hope he will be a little patient if I endeavour to cover all the points raised in the debate.
Regarding the suggesting that the National Grid company will have responsibility without accountability, the transmission company will at all
28
times be accountable to the regulator—the Director General of Electricity Supply—and will be required to meet the terms of the transmission licence. The director general will set the price control formula and oversee the National Grid company to ensure that it is meeting the conditions of the licence and the statutory duties to be imposed by the Bill. However, the holding company will have a role too. It will be able to probe investment decisions and the policies underlying them. In the final extreme it can dismiss directors responsible for those policies. Finally, let us not forget that the National Grid company, like the other successor companies, will have to finance its investment plans, and will be exposed to the disciplines of the market.
My noble friend Lord Peyton, and other noble Lords, asked what information is available on the operation of this system. I shall endeavour to respond as fully as possible; but the short answer is that the National Grid company will operate in virtually the same way as the CEGB's national grid control and transmission division does at present—directing power stations in order to meet demand at lowest cost and ensuring that the power flows and the quality of supply on the system remain within technically acceptable limits.
Perhaps it would assist your Lordships if I elaborate on how the system will operate, and give the information about it that is already available. Given the integrated nature of the electricity supply system, with numerous entry and exit points, the National Grid company will need to continue to exert a considerable degree of operational control if the quality and integrity of power flows on the system are to be preserved. The rules governing this will be contained in a technical operating code—the grid code. A draft code has been circulated to potential users of the system for their comments. The National Grid company hopes to finalise consultations by the end of the summer when it will be put to the Director General of Electricity Supply for his approval.
The National Grid company will levy charges for the use of its system under the draft transmission licence, and it is working up the necessary detailed proposals to meet this condition. It expects to circulate these shortly. As the draft licence makes clear, it will be required to offer terms to users on a transparent and non-discriminatory basis. The director general will have the power to settle disputes over the terms.
To reduce their costs, suppliers are expected to wish to pool their contracts in a distributors' pool, run on their behalf by the grid company. The National Grid company would then call on these contracts to meet demand, with the lowest energy rates first. This process will determine the overall level of contractual payments to be made to generators. At the generator end, the grid company is expected to run a generators' pool. Power stations who bid the lowest energy price will be despatched to meet demand first. A generator with a contractual commitment to deliver power can either produce it himself or, if another generator bids a lower price, can in effect sub-contract for generation at an agreed price. This pool therefore enables generators to meet their contractual commitment at lowest cost. In line

29
with the transmission licence, NGC will be responsible for running these pools and organising the necessary financial settlements. The Government will approve the rules for the pools and the settlement arrangements.
I am sure it is recognised that this is a complex area, involving much discussion and negotiation. Our intention is that further information will become available on the new contractural and operational regime in time for all players to participate in contract negotiations on a properly informed basis. I can assure your Lordships that we shall make this information and supporting documentation available as soon as we can.
My noble friend Lord Peyton asked about grid instructions to generators. The generators will be required by the conditions of their licences to comply with merit order instructions from the grid company.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, my noble friend said that she will make information available as soon as possible. What does that mean? Why cannot we have the information now? We are now on Report and we still do not know. I am sorry to press my noble friend on this matter, but my experience is that "as soon as possible" almost always means never.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I find that difficult to accept. For example, I have said that the grid code is currently in circulation and being commented on by potential users. It will depend on the completion of that process as to the time at which we can issue it. I can assure your Lordships that, just as these matters are complex, we also believe that they require adequate and thorough consultation. That has to take place before draft documents are produced for wider circulation. I hope that my noble friend will accept that. It is a very valid point.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I am so sorry to interrupt my noble friend again. In the presence of the Leader of the House I ask her whether it would not be sensible and fair to postpone the Third Reading of the Bill until such time as this very necessary information is available.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I agree with your Lordships. This is a very complex matter. It is difficult for the average citizen to grasp and it is clearly difficult even for those noble Lords who are experts. A great deal of work has, and continues, to be done by the experts who will continue to operate the system after privatisation. They are confident that they can meet the challenges and complexities to which your Lordships have drawn attention. I believe that they will be successful. If my noble friends wish me to continue to respond to the points that they have raised, I shall be happy to do so, if I am permitted.
As regards the question of grid instructions to generators, generators will be required by the conditions of their licences to comply with merit order instructions from the grid company. If a generator fails to comply with an instruction, it will be in breach of a licence condition and the director
30
general can take enforcement procedures, if necessary making orders under Clauses 27 to 30.
I now turn to the appointment of directors. The holding company appoints National Grid company directors at its shareholders' meetings. The holding company and public electricity supply employees explicity cannot be appointed. Non-executive directors must always be in the minority. As may be seen from the draft articles, the directors may appoint one of their number to be 1 he chairman of the board of directors. The holding company is the shareholders and they have every incentive to ensure that the operating company achieves the maximum possible efficiency savings so that they achieve a good return on the investment. It is in the interests of the shareholders to do all that they can to enable the National Grid company to operate efficiently with continuity of personnel and policies. It is also in their interests not to stand in the way of the operating company meeting the conditions of its licence.
Lord Ezra: My Lord, I realise that the noble Baroness has been interrupted a number of times, but I wish to ask a question because I am very puzzled. If the Government and the director between them are going to lay down exactly how the grid company is to operate, it seems to me that the locus of the technical owners of the business is diminished enormously and that their existence as such seems to be very much in question.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am trying to explain how there is a delicate balance. In the very complex situation that we have before us, we have endeavoured to provide for arrangements which will preserve the necessary balance between equity and detailed control. I believe that the arrangements which have been put forward and which we have been discussing (further details will be produced as soon as possible) will adequately meet the needs of the industry and the concerns that have been expressed today.
Perhaps I have missed out one particular issue raised by my noble friend Lord Hood concerning the relationship between equity and borrowing. It will be some months before we reach a final view of the capital structure of the grid company and of the balance between equity or share capital for the shareholders on the one hand and debt on the other. I must make it clear that we shall ensure that the company has the financial independence to finance its investment programme.
At this point I turn to Amendment No. 130, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, some little time ago. In cases where there is any doubt between an area board and the CEGB as to the ownership of any property to be transferred under the CEGB's transfer scheme, the allocation of such property through the CEGB transfer to the transmission company will be dealt with by Clause 66. This amendment is to Clause 65, which deals with the transfer of area board assets. It is Clause 66 that deals with the CEGB transfer scheme.
Furthermore, I believe that the amendment is unnecessary. The CEGB is currently undertaking a

31
detailed study of its assets, paying particular attention to the interface between the boundaries of its shadow successor companies, how property should be divided, how this fits in with the boundaries of the area boards and how in consequence the CEGB property should be divided between successor companies. In this context it is possible that for operational reasons some property will be transferred from the CEGB to the area boards prior to the transfer date.
In most cases the property in question is close to substations already owned by the area boards on CEGB land, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams, pointed out. This is a totally amicable process. It will be concluded well in advance of the transfer date. There should not be any cases where the ownership of property is in doubt as between the CEGB and the area boards on the transfer date. Amendment No. 130 is unnecessary and inappropriate. Amendment No. 149 strikes at the heart of the Government's clear intentions for the future structure of the electricity supply industry. The independence of the grid company is safeguarded by its having its own statutory duties and its own licence, besides the detailed provisions of the articles of association to which I have referred. I therefore ask your Lordships to reject these amendments.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, my noble friend has been answering questions on two issues. The first is the general principle behind the Bill which I believe most of us will accept wholeheartedly. The second is the charge that she has to answer made from various parts of the House; namely, that the machinery that has been set up is unusual when considered against normal practices. It will not work. Is my noble friend in a position to say that advantage has been taken of the expert advice of the merchant banks—that is, quite apart from the principle which it is for the politicians to settle? Can she say whether the machinery that has been constructed has passed a test set out on the best technical advice? Can she put our minds at rest as regards the machinery and tell us that the technicalities have been approved not just by amateurs—by politicians arguing? It is the politicians' job to deal with the principles.
A noble Lord: Speak for yourself!.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My noble friend is the chairman of a company that is connected with this industry. I am the chairman of several other companies and I disagree with him that there is anything unusual about inter-company ownership of shares. Competing companies will often have a minority shareholding in another company. They may have no control over that management, but they accept that as part of the general way of running the business. While we may be expert in narrow quarters, can I be assured that the overall technicalities which have been questioned by various noble Lords have passed the test of the outside expert guidance that is available to the Government?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I am grateful to my noble friend. It is
32
perfectly true that we have had a wealth of advice from all our advisers, including technical advisers and the industry. As I said at an earlier stage, the experts who will be running the new National Grid company are the same experts who are running the grid system now. Although these technicalities are extremely complex, the House can rest assured that not only wide consultation has taken place but advice has been gathered from appropriate sources.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, perhaps I may first refer to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls. The answer to his question must be "no". There is no assurance from outside sources that this will work, not least because the documents on which such judgments would be made are not yet available. They may be in the course of consultation with experts and various parties but they are not commented on by technical expertise. That technical comment has not been made available to Parliament. The answer cannot be given to Parliament because it simply is not known.
The main points made by the noble Lords, Lord Peyton and Lord Ezra, seemed to be thoroughly proved. Either there is a company in which shareholders have authority and can appoint directors, manage and so on, or there is a company in which shareholders have an investment but are not allowed to change the articles of association —those are determined by the Secretary of State; in which they are not allowed seriously to examine the investment plans—those will be examined by the director; in which they are not allowed to comment on the operations—those are properly commented upon by the director under the licence; in which they are not allowed to call to account directors—their role is severely limited by the articles of association which are determined by the Government in the form of the Secretary of State. In other words, these shareholders will have none of the privileges of shareholders but they will have the onus of shareholders because they will be the owners of the business.
The area boards will have as their investment in the grid a major investment, and possibly the major investment, that they will have to show to the stock market on flotation. The grid has around £5 billion of assets. Those are higher than the assets of the 12 area boards combined. If one splits £5 billion into 12 one will find on flotation that each area board will have an enormous item in its balance sheet—investment in National Grid. That is what the stock market will concentrate on because it will want to know what control the company in which it is buying shares has over this major trade investment. The answer is none at all. We are faced with a simple problem. It is a technical problem—will the system work technically?—and a financial problem, in terms of whether the financial structure is right.
I do not want to follow other noble Lords in their criticisms of the noble Baroness for not producing the information that we need to judge this properly before Third Reading; that point has already been made. But I have to endorse it. One of the curious

33
things about the Bill is that it is being rushed through without proper consideration of these vital points about which, even now, on the third day of Report, we are still arguing. We do not have the information that we need. I do not want to detain the House as we have spent more than an hour on this amendment. I am sorry that the noble Baroness did not understand my grouping. I am sorry that she did not understand Amendment No. 130. However, in the light of my explanation, I hope that she understands it now. Indeed, towards the latter part of her reply she indicated that she had understood.
The noble Baroness said that the proposal to keep the grid in public ownership would strike against the essence of the White Paper. Indeed it might, but nothing in the White Paper is sacrosanct. This House should declare that this amendment is the right way forward. This will help the Government. It is not designed to wreck the Bill but to make a proper Bill out of it. It will allow the grid, which will be the central point of the whole system, to operate properly. Instead, we have a mish-mash and a fudge of area boards, articles of association, the Secretary of State, the licences, golden shares and so on. The noble Lord, Lord Peyton, has put forward a perfectly simple formula. I recommend it to the House.
4.35 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 130) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 100; Not-Contents, 126.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Hampton, L.

Airedale, L.

Hanworth, V.

Amherst, E.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Ardwick, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Attlee, E.

Henderson of Brompton, L

Aylestone, L.

Hood, V.

Birk, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Blease, L.

Hunt, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Bottomley, L.

Jay, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Jeger, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Buckmaster, V.

John-Mackie, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Kilbracken, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Lauderdale, E.

Carter, L.

Leatherland, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Listowel, E.

Cobbold, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

David, B.

Lockwood, B.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Ennals, L.

McNair, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Ezra, L.

Mayhew, L.

Falkender, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Falkland, V.

Molloy, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Murray of Epping Forest, L

Gallacher, L.

Nicol, B.

Galpern, L.

Ogmore, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Peston, L.

Greenhill of Harrow, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

34

Phillips, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.[Teller.]

Strabolgi, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Prys-Davis, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Rochester, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Russell, E.

Underhill, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Seear, B.

Walston, L.

Seebohm, L.

Warnock, B.

Serota, B.

Whaddon, L.

Shackleton, L.

White, B.

Shepherd, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Stallard, L.

Winstanley, L.

Stedman, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Kimball, L.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Kinnaird, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Kinnoull, E.

Ampthill, L.

Layton, L.

Annaly, L.

Long, V.

Arran, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Auckland, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Beloff, L.

Margadale, L.

Belstead, L.

Marley, L.

Bessborough, E.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Birdwood, L.

Merrivale, L.

Blatch, B.

Mersey, V.

Blyth, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Bolton, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Borthwick, L.

Morris, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Munster, E.

Braye, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Caccia, L.

Nelson, E.

Caithness, E.

Newall, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Norfolk, D.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Norrie, L.

Carnock, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Coleraine, L.

Onslow, E.

Colnbrook, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Orkney, E.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Orr-Ewing, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Oxfuird, V.

Dilhorne, V.

Pender, L.

Dundee, E.

Penrhyn, L.

Eccles, V.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Elibank, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Quinton, L.

Erne, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Renton, L.

Faithfull, B.

Renwick, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Rodney, L.

Ferrers, E.

Romney, E.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

St. Davids, V.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Gainford, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Gisborough, L.

Savile, L.

Goold, L.

Selkirk, E.

Gray of Contin, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Gridley, L.

Sharpies, B.

Halsbury, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Strange, B.

Harvington, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Havers, L.

Strathspey, I,.

Henley, L.

Sudeley, L.

Hertford, M.

Swinton, E.

Hesketh, L.

Teviot, L.

Hives, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Trafford, L.

Hooper, B.

Trefgarne, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Trumpington, B.

Ingrow, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Ironside, L.

Windlesham, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Wolfson, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Wynford, L.

Killearn, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.44 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 131:
Page 49, line 7, at end insert—
("(5A) Any company nominated as a successor company under any of the above subsections shall have a duty to further the conservation and enhancement of natural beauty; and the conservation of flora; fauna, and geological or physiographical features of special interest; and, where consistent with its other functions, for securing the public enjoyment thereof; on any land transferred to the company, whether it is held for the purposes of generating electricity or otherwise.
(5B) Where any company nominated as a successor company under this section plans to dispose of any land which is a National Park, Area of Oustanding Natural Beauty, or land which has been designated by virtue of its scientific or geological interest; or is designated under this section by virtue of its natural beauty, amenity or recreational value, it shall not do so without the express consent of the Secretary of State. In giving such consent, the Secretary of State shall consult with the Countryside Commission and the Nature Conservancy Council and shall not give consent without first ensuring that the requirements of subsection (5A) of this section has been satisfied. The Secretary of State shall require any such land that is offered for sale to be offered first to a competent body, and shall not approve the sale to any third party without the provision of a management agreement and/or restrictive covenants prior to sale for the purposes of securing the conservation of such land.
(5C) For the purposes of this section a "competent body" is a body whose inclusion on a list of competent bodies held by the Secretary of State has been agreed by the Countryside Commission, Nature Conservancy Council, English Heritage, Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission and, in the case of Wales, Cadw.".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, when we were in Committee on this matter, we had a short discussion about disposals of land in areas of natural beauty such as national parks and others. I have brought forward an amendment to be rather more explicit about what we think should happen. It is now, I believe, common ground that the CEGB land holdings in 1988 amounted to some 48,000 acres. I recognise that that is substantially less than the acreage owned by the water authorities which are to be privatised under the Water Act; nevertheless, it is substantial.
There is, curiously enough, little information about where that land is, although most is associated with existing power station sites or potential power station sites. To give one example, the CEGB owns land which has never been developed but which is earmarked as a possible future PWR site at Druridge Bay, Northumberland, although no planning application has yet been made. Nevertheless, it has a stake in the land there.
There is almost no land owned in any of the national parks except in Snowdonia. Here I must declare an interest as president of the Council for the Protection of Rural Wales. The estate in Snowdonia of some 6,000 acres is rather larger than that owned by the water authority and includes three plots of land, one of which is adjacent to a major National Trust estate and is of profound conservation importance. The other main areas are near the Ffestiniog hydro scheme around Trawsfynydd. If there is no second generation nuclear power station at Trawsfynydd, that will mean that that land will be disposed of. That could happen soon and at short notice.
There are other sensitive areas of the countryside in England—for instance, around Marchwood in the New Forest—and redundant power station sites are seen as ideal candidates for development. Those of course are assets which are highly pertinent to the industry's flotation, witness the argument that took place over the water authorities and the problems which have been highlighted by the Royal Ordnance sale.
Even though the areas involved are much smaller than in relation to the Water Act, some of the land owned by the CEGB is highly sensitive and deserving of exactly the same protection as is provided by that Act.
The amendment addresses two issues: first, the good management of all land owned by the CEGB successor companies, where it is appropriate to further conservation; and, secondly, the safeguards on disposal. In Committee the Minister indicated her readiness to consider the first question in the context of amendments moved by her noble friend Lord Norrie. I have seen no indication that she has come back with anything that looks satisfactory.
As regards the second problem—safeguards on disposal—I am afraid that she was less sympathetic, possibly because none of us knew exactly where that sensitive land was distributed and how it was owned. I hope at this time that the Government will show themselves more enthusiastic about giving the same protection to CEGB land as is being given under the Water Act to the water authority-owned land. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I hope and believe that on this amendment we have got into a realm of non-controversy, a realm quite different from the one which we suffered on the previous amendment. Clearly the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, has a great deal to commend it. I am sure that the Government would wish to fulfil the purposes stated, but it is a question of how. It seems to me that subsection (5A) is covered by Clause 40 and the ninth schedule, especially as amplified by my noble friend either at the Committee or Report stage; I cannot remember which. At any rate, the first subsection may well be covered already in the Bill.
As to subsection (5B), it may well be that the laudable purpose stated there (on which we could all agree) is already partly covered by the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act and partly by the operation of the planning laws. Clearly Schedule 9 as it stands, even as it was amended, does not deal so far as I can remember with the disposal of land; it deals with the use of land which comes into the possession of one of the new bodies.
We need to apply our minds very carefully to what will happen when a successor company plans to dispose of land which is of particular scenic interest and beauty or of scientific or geological interest. The system of SSSIs will also cover what the noble Lord has in mind, although I do not think that he mentioned that in moving the amendment.
Although I support the purposes of the amendment and hope that they will be fulfilled in one way or

37
another, I shall be interested to hear what my noble friends on the Front Bench have to say about the way in which those purposes will be fulfilled.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Renton, may well be right in that parts of what is intended in the amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, might be covered elsewhere and in other legislation. Nonetheless, the importance of the physical environment is such that I can see no harm in the restatement of such proposals at this stage of the Bill, where the functions of the successor companies are mentioned. Therefore I hope that, even though there may be some risk of repetition, the amendment should be considered seriously by the Government.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I happily support my noble friends on the Front Bench as regards Amendment No. 131. However, I fear that I must bore the House for a moment or two by referring to my King Charles's head which arises under subsection (5C).
In moving the amendment, my noble friend Lord Williams referred to the disposal of certain lands which are related to hydro-electric schemes. He referred to power stations and he might well have referred, but did not, to dams, reservoirs and areas of that nature. All of that is perfectly correct and I entirely support him. I hope that the Government will accept the amendment, but I wonder whether it might be extended in subsection (5C) where it refers to a "competent body", which is also mentioned in subsection (5B), a few lines above on page 2:
"a 'competent body' is a body whose inclusion on a list of competent bodies held by the Secretary of State has been agreed by the Countryside Commission, Nature Conservancy Council, English Heritage, Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission and, in the case of Wales, Cadw".
Cadw is a body of which I have never previously heard, but I am sure that it is utterly excellent in every way.
What bothers me is that the philosophy underlying this part of my noble friend's amendment, which I support, seems to me to be based on the one side of C. P. Snow's two cultures; that is, the rather "moist" side of the two cultures. All the bodies mentioned which are to be called upon to agree to what are competent bodies are estimable groups. Of that there is no doubt. But they all come from one side of the two cultures.
Here we are dealing with a problem which is partly to do with the countryside as a whole and also to do with the countryside in the context of a technical Bill. I wonder why the groups which can agree to the list of competent bodies are limited. What they have to do is nothing very great; they have to be consulted and agree on which the competent bodies are. Why should that list not be extended beyond the Countryside Commission and other such organisations to include some of the more muscular members of our society? I have in mind, for instance, the Institution of Civil Engineers, or the Institution of Electrical Engineers, which would be most appropriate on this occasion, or even the Engineering Council.
38
Why should we always lean towards what I have unjustly and defensively called the "moist" side of society and not balance the matter rather more than my noble friend's amendment? When I say that, I am not attempting in any way to criticise his amendment. It is excellent so far as it goes. I merely say that it should go a little further and that the Government should accept it and carry it further along the lines which I have suggested.
Baroness White: My Lords, this is the first occasion on which I have taken pail in any debate on the Electricity Bill. It is the first time that I have even been here to listen to the debate because, while the Water Bill was still in progress, I was so deeply immersed in water that I decided that I could attend to only one Bill, and not this one.
I can offer no comment upon the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, as to what might have been said on earlier occasions in these debates. However, I doubt whether the point is covered in any other legislation about land for sale first being offered to a competent body. Your Lordships will be aware that there was considerable concern in the Water Bill about what had been understood by a number of bodies, in particular the National Trust, to be an undertaking that under that legislation there should be an offer of land in designated areas to one of the appropriate bodies, of which the National Trust was quite clearly one.
In effect the offer was withdrawn in favour of substituting sites of special scientific interest. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Gibson, who is not able to be in his place today, was deeply disappointed. That was made very clear indeed in letters to the press by the director of the National Trust. It was one of a number of bodies which came together and made a corporate plea, so to speak, to Her Majesty's Government as regards the water industry.
To the best of my belief, no such co-operative effort has formally been made under the Electricity Bill. However I may be wrong about that. It certainly was under the Water Bill, because the Council for the Protection of Rural England and the Council for the Protection of Rural Wales were concerned in the discussions about the Water Act; mutatis mutandis, a number of the same considerations apply to the land which would be affected under this legislation. That is naturally a matter of concern to me as regards the Principality of Wales, and I am delighted that my successor as President of the Council for the Protection of Rural Wales, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, has seen fit to move this amendment under this legislation.
However, I must stress to the House the deepest possible disappointment which arose. As I said, this was made manifest publicly in lengthy letters from the director of the National Trust in the national press when the expected co-operation with these bodies on the Water Bill was reneged on by the Government. I can only hope that in this context there may be a more satisfactory relationship.
5 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I wonder whether the parallel between the Water Bill and the

39
Electricity Bill is an appropriate one. The water authorities did and do own vast tracts of land which are of great amenity value. However, I am not so sure that the electricity authorities are in a parallel situation. I should be interested to be informed on that. I should also be interested to know whether the proposed subsection (5B) of this amendment deals with land which is not presently owned but which may be owned in the future, as well as land which is presently owned. It should be appreciated that certainly all the area boards—I believe that this applies to the generating authority also—are very environmentally conscious and carried out great tree replanting exercises after the terrible storm. We should not, therefore, underestimate their interest in the environment. However, I have some queries as regards the amendment.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady White, I too have not spoken on this Bill apart from on Second Reading. I did not intend to speak today until the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, accused me of being a "moist", as I am a member of the Countryside Commission. My best friends have never accused me of being "moist" before.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, in the noble Earl's case I withdraw totally my remarks. He is as muscular as any noble Lord in the Chamber.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I think one is 80 per cent. water, so there is an awful lot of moisture in me. However, I should say that the reason that these bodies are singled out—here I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Williams—is that they are experts on the landscape. It is marvellous to have engineers and other such people, but then we may as well have the association of second-hand car dealers or the association of pawnbrokers, or whatever. If an amendment such as this one is to be accepted, the bodies stated are the ones which should decide who constitutes a competent person.
At the same time I am not sure that this amendment is necessary. My noble friend has gone an awful long way on this Bill to satisfy what one might describe as the greens in the many amendments that she has agreed to and supported. I also wish to pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Norrie, who has done so much to help to persuade her. However, there is a difference between this Bill and the Water Bill. Water authorities own a lot of land, particularly in the Lake District. People were accustomed to have access to that land. Therefore, the water authorities were a special case. However, as regards this provision on the national parks, there may be a lot of land in Snowdonia, but I do not think there will be quite the same pressure for people to walk there. They may wish to admire the view, but that will be from a distance. I should not have thought that it was necessary for the successor companies to be pinned down and be advised about whether they can buy certain land.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson of Bowden, on
40
the Front Bench encourages me to ask whether the protection which is outlined in the Bill, and which presumably refers exclusively to England, is the kind of protection that is sought in this amendment for some of the large and rather beautiful areas of Scotland where the hydro board and even the SSEB hold their fief. I plead ignorance on this matter, but I should be interested to have some comment or assurance in that regard.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Renton, made a legitimate point, as he always does in our debates, in suggesting that another part of this Bill will take care of at least the spirit, if not the content, of the amendment which my noble friend Lord Williams has proposed today. However, your Lordships will know that on a number of occasions, particularly in the privatisation Bills which have been before us for some months now, we on this side have felt that it has been necessary to be more specific about certain things rather than to accept the generalities contained in various Bills before us.
My noble friend Lord Williams mentioned Druridge Bay as an area which should receive special attention. I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if for a few minutes I say something about that area, which I happen to know very well. I am sure that what I have to say could be repeated in a number of areas throughout the country. There has been a Druridge Bay campaign for many years now. I am not directly associated with it, but I know of the splendid work that is being done.
The organisers of that campaign have brought attention to nature reserves, parks, dune parks and open cast restoration. They say that of the sites north of the Grange Moor fault, three have been restored to farming and have important nature areas on them, two are run by the Northumberland Wildlife Trust and one is the Northumberland County Council's Druridge Country Park. At the East Chevington site, which is currently worked, there are plans for a 100-acre reed bed site after restoration. No less a body than the National Trust has purchased 100 acres of dunes of beauty and importance. The National Trust opposes the proposal to have a CEGB power station at Druridge because of its damaging effect on the environment and on the amenity of the trust's property.
One could go on in this vein for some time, but one particular principle will apply to any area where a nuclear power station is to be built. At the end of the power station's useful life—we know that that may be 30 or 40 years—what remains will need to be sealed and covered in the various ways that apply to nuclear power stations. That process may last for something like 100 years. As the Druridge Bay campaign states in a leaflet, "It sounds like a fairytale, but that is the official CEGB policy".
There is another side of the coin as regards Druridge Bay. It happens to be situated on a coal field. We on this side of the House, at least for some time now, have pressed the Government to change their policy as regards the coal industry. There has been a considerable reduction in the number of collieries in the North-East. We could have, without

41
any problem at all, a coal-fired power station well away from Druridge Bay and adequately supplied with proper coal. I repeat that that is simply an example of the kind of things which should be looked at more closely than the Bill suggests. The merit of my noble friend's amendment today is that it proposes that this is precisely the kind of area which should be looked at more closely than the Bill suggests.
Lord Renton: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I wish to make one short point before my noble friend replies. The reference to the amplification of the ninth schedule, to which I referred—my memory let me down temporarily—is to be found towards the end of our previous Sitting on 6th July at cols. 1301 and 1352 of Hansard.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams, said in presenting this amendment, we have already had a discussion in Committee about substantially the same matter. With the greatest respect to the noble Baroness, Lady White, I say as I said then, that I believe that the amendment is based on a false analogy with the water industry, which owns very large areas of attractive land to which the public have access. In contrast, the land held by the electricity industry is primarily industrial. I did undertake, however, to consider the first part of the amendment further, and indeed, I did so.
A successor company will be subject to the duties defined in Schedule 9. As amended by the House last week, following the acceptance of government amendments, licence holders will have to have regard to the desirability of preserving natural beauty and will also have to do what they reasonably can to mitigate the effects of their proposals on the beauty of the countryside and on flora, fauna and the other aspects defined. I believe that, to some extent, the noble Lord's point is covered, as indeed my noble friend Lord Renton suggested.
I have explained previously that I believe that mitigating the effects is much more apt than wording which refers to the furthering of
"conservation and enhancement of natural beauty"
in the context of the electricity supply industry. A power station can hardly be said to enhance the countryside, unless perhaps one has the sensitive appreciation of engineering enjoyed by the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon. Therefore, I believe that the first part of paragraph (5A) of the amendment is already covered by Schedule 9.
The paragraph then refers to securing public enjoyment of the land transferred. Because most electricity industry land consists of essentially industrial sites, where safety is an important consideration, the scope for public enjoyment of the land is very limited. However, where possible the CEGB and Scottish boards encourage recreational use of land. The joint statement on environmental policy issued by the three CEGB successor companies in May refers to the CEGB's policy of implementing creative conservation measures and the establishment of study centres and nature trails
42
at several locations. Those seem to me to be matters well suited to the environmental guidelines which licence holders will have to prepare.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, and other noble Lords referred specifically to Snowdonia. The CEGB currently owns approximately 7,800 acres of land in the Snowdonia area. This land supports the Trawsfynydd nuclear power station—cooled by water from the lake which the CEGB does not own—the Dinorwig and Ffestiniog pumped storage stations and the Dolgarrog and Cwm Dyli hydro-electric stations. The greater part of this land, some 4,600 acres, is attached to the Dolgarrog hydro-electric station. This land—which is used for rough grazing—is needed to collect and channel the large amounts of water needed to "fuel" the hydro station.
I understand that there are public rights of way over some of the land held by the CEGB at, for example, the Dolgarrog power station. If successor companies were to sell land in Snowdonia or elsewhere any public rights of way would continue.
In view of the interest which the noble Lord, Lord Williams, has expressed in the board's land in Snowdonia, I shall be happy to discuss with the CEGB whether it would be prepared to follow the spirit of the noble Lord's amendment when disposing of any surplus land on the Dolgarrog site.
Druridge Bay was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington. I car confirm that Druridge Bay has not been chosen as a site for one of the small family of four PWR nuclear power stations that the CEGB wishes to see in operation by the year 2000, since the four applications are already under consideration. As things stand at present, the Government cannot force the board to sell its land.
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, asked whether the amendment would apply to Scotland. The answer is no. Clause 65 applies only to area boards in England and Wales. Amenity provisions for Scotland are set out in paragraphs 2 and 3 of Schedule 9. I believe that that covers the Scottish situation.
To revert to the second part of the amendment concerning the disposal of land, I have already said to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that I would be prepared to talk to the CEGB about Snowdonia. The amendment would prevent any sale to a third party without a management agreement or restrictive covenant securing the conservation of the land. That could prevent a third party from putting the land to another use, despite the fact that planning permission might be granted, perhaps following a public inquiry. I explained in Committee why I did not think it right to place restrictions on the electricity industry which do not apply to other industries, apart from the water industry which I think we are all agreed is unique in respect of its land holdings and the beauty of those areas.
Last week the House welcomed the Government's package of environmental amendments to Schedule 9. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Swinton for his welcome of that action. A welcome was also given to the Government's undertaking to introduce

43
an amendment to Clause 4 reflecting as far as possible the spirit of the noble Lord's amendment to that clause.
I hope that in the light of that proof of the Government's good intentions, and of what I have said about the amendment now proposed, the noble Lord, Lord Williams will not feel disposed to press the amendment.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for her full response to this amendment and to those noble Lords who have taken part in the debate.
I accept at the outset that there is a difference between the electricity industry and the water industry so far as concerns the land owned. The only exception that I would make to that general proposition is in the case of Snowdonia. I hate to come back to the subject of Snowdonia, but as I remarked in my opening statement,the land owned by the CEGB in Snowdonia is larger in surface area than the land owned by the water authority in that area. It is therefore a matter of great sensitivity in Wales that that issue should be covered properly. I accept, however, that apart from Snowdonia, in the other areas there may be operational consequences. Although I believe the amendment to be strong and tight and that it should be strong and tight, in the light of what the noble Baroness has said perhaps it needs to be looked at further.
I must take issue with my noble friend Lord Howie of Troon, as did the noble Earl, Lord Swinton. I am all in favour of the engineering institutions. I am not sure that my noble friend felt able to declare an interest as an engineer, but I am sure that he is also a conservationist, and at heart as moist as we all are, and therefore will accept the spirit of the amendment as offered.
My noble friend Lord Dormand again drew the attention of the noble Baroness to the issue of Druridge Bay. That also is a matter of great sensitivity in the North-East. I hope very much that the Government will pay special attention to that area.
We welcome the Government's concession on my amendment to Clause 4 which introduced the protection of the environment as a general duty of the Secretary of State and the director. We welcomed in broad terms the Government's amendments to Schedule 9.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her assurance that she will talk to the CEGB about Snowdonia. I imagine that she will also talk to National Power about Snowdonia. I should be most grateful if she would keep me or the Council for the Protection of Rural Wales informed about the course of those discussions. I should not like to feel that that was something that was said in debate, but on which nothing much happens. If the CPRW were brought into the discussions at some stage I am sure that everyone would find it profitable and a proper compromise could be reached.
44
In the light of what has been said I am most grateful and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 66 [Transfer of property etc. of Generating Board and Electricity Council]:
[Amendment No. 131A not moved.]
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil had given notice of his intention to move Amendments Nos. 132 and 133:
Page 49, line 13, leave out paragraph (a) and insert ("(a) one shall be designated as the generating company").
Page 49, line 13, after ("two") insert ("or more").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, these two amendments have been discussed previously rather thoroughly. The Government have made it absolutely clear that they are more or less impervious to every argument on the subject, no matter how great its weight. I shall therefore bow to the inevitable and not move the amendments.
[Amendments Nos. 132 and 133 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 133A not moved.]
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 134:
After Clause 67, insert the following new clause:
("Transfer schemes under sections 66 and 67.
.—(1) This section applies to any scheme under subsection (1) or (2) of section 66 or subsection (1) of section 67 above (in this Part referred to as a "transfer scheme"); and in this section and section 68 below "the relevant subsection", in relation to such a scheme, means that subsection.
(2) A transfer scheme may—

(a) define the property, rights and liabilities to be allocated to a particular company nominated for the purposes of the relevant subsection—

(i) by specifying or describing the property, rights and liabilities in question;

(ii) by referring to all the property, rights and liabilities comprised in a specified part of the transferor's undertaking; or

(iii) partly in the one way and partly in the other;

(b) provide that any rights or liabilities specified or described in the scheme shall be enforceable either by or against either or any, or by or against both or all, of two or more companies nominated for the purposes of the relevant subsection;

(c) impose on any company nominated for the purposes of the relevant subsection an obligation to enter into such written agreements with, or execute such other instruments in favour of, any other company so nominated as may be specified in the scheme; and

(d) make such supplemental, incidental and consequential provision as the transferor considers appropriate (including provision specifying the order in which any transfers or transactions are to be regarded as taking effect).

(3) An obligation imposed by a provision included in a transfer scheme by virtue of subsection (2)(c) above shall be enforceable by civil proceedings by the other company for an injunction or for interdict or for any other appropriate relief.
(4) A transaction of any description which is effected in pursuance of such a provision as is mentioned in subsection
(3) above—

(a) shall have effect subject to the provisions of any enactment which provides for transactions of that description to be registered in any statutory register; but

(b) subject to that, be binding on all other persons, notwithstanding that it would, apart from this subsection, have required the consent or concurrence of any other person.

(5) Where a lease of any land is granted in pursuance of such a provision as is mentioned in subsection (3) above, any right of pre-emption or other like right affecting that land—

(a) shall not become exercisable by reason of the grant of the lease; but

(b) shall have effect as if the lessee were the same person in law as the lessor.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 135, 136 and 176.
The main purpose of the amendment is to enable the CEGB's transfer scheme to require each successor generating company to enter into a long-term lease with the National Grid company in respect of the land occupied by the switch house and other transmission-related facilities on each power station site. It would also facilitate arrangements for sharing intellectual property and would provide for liabilities to be enforceable against two or more successor companies.
Amendments Nos. 135, 136 and 176 are consequential. I beg to move.
Lord Peston: My Lords, when considering our amendments, the noble Baroness often says that she is interested to know what our amendment might have meant. I am bound to say that I had not the faintest idea what this amendment meant when I read it. I am still having great difficulty in discovering what it contributes to the question of transfer.
Perhaps I may first work backwards a little. I gather that the amendment has something to do with intellectual property. As we are discussing intellectual property, I am delighted to see that the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, has arrived. I stand only second to him in my interest in intellectual property. I cannot fully understand what the amendment does in terms of intellectual property and why it does it. I must therefore ask the noble Earl whether he can tell us any more, or whether he could in due course write to us to clarify the matter.
My further difficulty is that we were originally told that the Bill was satisfactory so far as transfer schemes are concerned. I am not an expert on transfer scheme or on those matters to do with the law—I hope that I do not have to emphasise that point because it is perfectly obvious—but, when a clause as large as this is added to the Bill, I am bound to ask what it will provide that is not already there. I have looked at Section 66 and the earlier section and, to be perfectly honest, I cannot make head nor tail of what more is here.
I realise that this is perhaps a plea for elucidation from one non-expert to another, but is there any possibility that the noble Earl may explain to us in rather simple words precisely what the measure achieves and its contribution to intellectual property? I appreciate that this is a technical matter, but those few of us who take part fully in the debates might as well at least try to understand what we are about. I apologise to the noble Earl because I do not want to be excessively boring at this hour, but I should like him to enlarge on the new clause, either now, if possible, or in writing later.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. He has no need to apologise at all. The measure is, I grant him, a little obscure and he is certainly entitled, as are all noble Lords, to an explanation.
On the question of the relevance of the new clause to intellectual property, the CEGB may hold intellectual property under licence from its proprietor (for example, it may be using an invention under licence from its inventor). The transfer scheme process will allow the CEGB to allocate that intellectual property to a successor company. The proprietor of that property will have exactly the same relationship with the successor company as he had with the CEGB. Subsection (2)(c) of the new clause would allow the transfer scheme to require the successor company to license another successor company to use the intellectual property. Subsection (4) of the new clause would make that licence binding on the proprietor.
On the arrangements for the transfer scheme, subsection 2(c) would enable the transfer scheme to require a successor company to enter into written agreements in favour of any other nominated company. The most important case where that provision is needed concerns substations within the boundary of a power station site. These are essentially concerned with the transmission rather than the generation of electricity. It is therefore appropriate that they should transfer to the National Grid company.
However, because of the intimate and complex relationship between the substation and the rest of the power station—for instance, some pieces of equipment within the substation will belong to the generator and the generator will provide common services such as pressure water spray systems, compressed air systems, security and so on—the substation will be transferred to the grid company by way of a long lease rather than freehold. Subsection 2(c) would enable that to be done. It would enable the transfer scheme to require each successor generating company to enter into a long-term lease with the National Grid company in respect of the land occupied by the substation and other transmission-related facilities on each power station site.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 68 [Schemes under sections 66 and 67]:
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 135:
Page 50, line 31, leave out subsections (1) and (2).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 136:
Page 51, line 2, leave out ("specified date") and insert ("date specified in the Secretary of State's direction under the relevant subsection").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 137 not moved.]
Schedule 10 [Transfers under sections 66 and 67]:
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 138:
Page 110, line 23, leave out ("proper discharge of their respective functions") and insert ("carrying on of their respective undertakings").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to delete the word "functions" where it occurs in relation to a successor company of the CEGB. I beg to move.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for explaining or, rather, restating the amendment. As I spend a great deal of my time trying to understand the noble Earl and to be educated, perhaps he will tell me why the new wording is better than the old wording. Is some meaning to be attached to it in terms of the future of the industry? My natural inclination would have been to argue that the phrase,
"proper discharge of their respective functions"
is rather clearer than the phrase,
"carrying on of their respective undertakings".
Looking at it again, it seems to be rather better English. Am I missing something here? Do the two versions mean the same thing? If not, do they mean something different and, if there is a difference, what is it?
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, again, I am grateful to the noble Lord. If it were not for the context, he would be right to say that the word "functions" would be a very good word. However, in electricity industry statutes, the word "function" is generally used to refer to the statutory powers and duties, taken together, of statutory corporations—for example, of the CEGB. However, paragraph 2(2) of Schedule 10 is concerned not with statutory corporations but with the CEGB's successor companies. The word "functions" is therefore inappropriate. The purpose of the amendments is to delete the word "functions" where it occurs in lines 23 and 28 of paragraph 2(2), and to substitute the word "undertakings", which is altogether more fitting to the activities of private sector companies.
Lord Jay: My Lords, that does not wholly explain why it is necessary to alter the word "discharge" to "carry on". Can the Minister say whether there is a difference in the meaning of those two words and, if so, what it is?
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, it seems curious that this should be an issue at this stage of the Bill. It has gone through two Houses of Parliament and only now been discovered. Can the noble Earl also explain why that is so?
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Baroness's intervention. It is precisely because of interventions such as those from the noble Lord and the noble Baroness that all the time in a steady way we are able to improve our drafting. To pick up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Jay, as I understand it the term "discharge" can just as equally be applied to "functions" as it is to "undertakings".
On Question, amendment agreed to.
5.30 p.m.
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 139:
Page 110, line 28, leave out ("proper discharge of the respective functions") and insert ("carrying on of the respective undertakings").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 140:
Page 110, line 39, leave out ("without such a representation").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall speak just as briefly to this amendment as did the noble Earl to the previous ones. It stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel. Paragraph 2(4) of this schedule reads:
"If transferee A or transferee B represents to the Secretary of State, or if it appears to the Secretary of State without such a representation".
The words "without such a representation" are simply not needed because the word "or" already does that. We are constantly improving the Bill's literary style, but in this case the argument seems to be very clear-cut. In a spirit of tidying up, we believe that it would help simply to leave out those words. It would save a little space and may preserve from being cut off in due course one twig on one branch of a tree. We strongly recommend this amendment to your Lordships' House. I beg to move.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, as it appears to me that the submission of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, is going to be a winner, I should very much like to support it.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, is a hardy fighter. He does not only just back winners, he often picks horses which may not necessarily be thought capable of winning but do indeed come home.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I don't back horses!
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I withdraw that remark. The noble Lord does not back horses. Perhaps there is some other sport.
The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, would remove the reference to representation. The noble Lord may consider that that improves the drafting by removing unnecessary words. Here again, I have a great deal of sympathy with him on that point. However, in the present case I believe that the existing drafting states with admirable clarity the two possibilities that are present and there is no possibility of misunderstanding. The substance of the matter is that either a transferee asks the Secretary of State to act or the Secretary of State himself sees reason to act. Those are the only two possibilities and it seems to me that the present drafting expresses them quite well.
Lord Peston: My Lords, the noble Earl has put my point much better than I did. He gave exactly the reason why we should leave out those words. As the education spokesman for these Benches I hate to

49
press the point about the use of the word "or", but that is exactly the meaning of it. On the other hand, it seems that I cannot persuade the noble Earl.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, to answer the noble Lord, there is a slight point of substance here. There are two alternative routes: one is that the Secretary of State may receive representations; alternatively and completely differently, he may think that he should act even though he has not received representations. If we were to delete those words, as the noble Lord suggests, the Secretary of State would be denied that alternative course of action.
Lord Peston: My Lords, with the permission of the House, although we do not wish to continue this discussion, perhaps I may say that I entirely agree with the noble Earl. It is purely a matter of the wording. I still insist that my wording is correct. It may well be that in due course the noble Earl would like to consider the matter with his noble friend. I do not press the point. Having had what I think is an extremely interesting interchange of views, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 141:
Page 111, line 27, leave out ("not earlier than the transfer date").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the effect of this amendment is to make clear that variations of the transfer scheme under paragraph 4 of Schedule 10 shall not be retrospective. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 142:
Page 112, line 21, leave out ("joint certificate by or on behalf of both or all of the transferees") and insert (`certificate issued by either or any of the transferees ("transferee A") with the concurrence of the other or others of them").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall, with the leave of the House, also speak to Amendments Nos. 143 and 145. The purpose of Amendment No. 142 is to provide for transferees B and C to concur in a certificate by transferee A that land is transferred to him under the scheme. Amendment No. 143 is a consequential drafting point. The effect of Amendment No. 145 is to provide for a transferee to appeal to the Secretary of State if one transferee fails to concur in giving a certificate that land has been transferred to him under the scheme. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 143:
Page 112, line 26, leave out ("such one of them as may be so specified") and insert ("transferee A).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 144:
Page 112, line 27, at end insert ("and shall constitute a link of title for the purposes of section 5(1) of the Conveyancing (Scotland) Act 1924 (deduction of title)").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment will ensure that a certificate under paragraph 6 shall
50
constitute a link of title for the purposes of Section 5(1) of the Conveyancing (Scotland) Act 1924 (deduction of title). I beg to move.
Lord Peston: My Lords, since I am, as it were, the residual spokesman on this matter at the present time and I am not a Scot, perhaps I may ask for one word of reassurance from the noble Earl; namely, that this is simply a technical amendment and (which reveals my ignorance) that there is absolutely nothing in this amendment to which any Scot, in particular, would object.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I can give the noble Lord that assurance. It was a point raised by the honourable Member for Glasgow, Cathcart in another place. It is an important matter in Scottish law but it gives rise to nothing of substance.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 145:
Page 112, line 29, leave out from ("transferees") to end of line 33 and insert ("(transferee A") for the other or one of the others of them ("transferee B") to concur in the issue of such a certificate, transferee B has failed so to concur—

(a) transferee A may refer the matter to the Secretary of State; and

(b) the Secretary of State may direct transferee B to concur in the issue of a certificate prepared in such terms as are specified in the direction.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 146:
Page 113, line 22, leave out ("Any transaction") and insert ("A transaction of any description").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall also speak to Amendment No. 147. These amendments are, again, technical amendments. The effect is to make it clear that transactions made under Schedule 10 are subject to the provisions of any Act which requires transactions of this description to be entered in any register. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 147:
Page 113, line 24, leave out ("shall be binding on all other persons, and") insert ("—
shall have effect subject to the provisions of any enactment which provides for transactions of that description to be registered in any statutory register; but
(b) subject to that, shall be binding on all persons").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 148:
Page 113, line 52, at end insert—
("Interpretation
10. Any reference in this Schedule to a transfer effected in pursuance of a transfer scheme is a reference to a transfer effected by this Act in pursuance of such a scheme.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to correct a small drafting error. It provides that references in Schedule 10 to a transfer in pursuance of a transfer scheme are references to a transfer effected by the Bill in pursuance of a transfer scheme. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 70 [Initial Government holding in the companies]:
[Amendments Nos. 149 and 149A not moved.]
Clause 73 [Target investment limit for Government shareholding]:
[Amendments Nos. 150 to 153 not moved.]
Clause 74 [Statutory reserves]:
5.45 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 154:
Page 54, line 7, at end insert ("calculated by reference to generally accepted accounting principles").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I am at something of a disadvantage. When I came to the House this morning, I received a letter from the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson of Bowden, on the matter. The amendment was tabled before I had sight of his letter. I have had a very quick read through his somewhat complex letter; I understand why it is complex. If I may refer to the discussion that we had in Committee on accounting principles, I shall cover one or two of the points that the noble Lord made in his letter to me.
On the question of the statutory reserves—which is the objective of Clause 74—in his letter the noble Lord told me that he did not think that the matter had a great deal to do with general accounting principles. I would take issue with that general statement of principle. I believe that when reserves are created in any form they have to be reserves, statutory or otherwise, which are set up on the basis of accounting procedures that are generally accepted. One cannot simply create reserves out of nothing. They have to be created out of something and that something has to be established by reference to some form of accounting procedure. That is normal practice in both statutory bodies and in commercial law.
In his letter the noble Lord told me that the Government have had professional advice to the effect that, with three very limited exceptions, the accounting policies of the area boards are in all significant respects in accordance with UK accounting standards and would be applicable post-privatisation. The exceptions concerned deferred taxation where there is a complication because of the impending changes in the structure of the industry and other small items which I shall not bother to go through.
Three questions arise. First, will the accounts of the successor companies be established, as is normal practice in flotations, to reflect a five-year history; and will that five-year history, which will be produced in the prospectus, be according to the accounting principles then available and used at the time; or will they be re-worked to put in some form of different accounting principles? Secondly, will the new Companies Bill, which is at the moment in another place and which gives effect, according to the latest government amendments, to the conclusions of the Dearing Committee on the status
52
of accounting standards, also apply to the future accounts of the successor companies? I imagine that it will. Thirdly, and in a sense the most important question—I shall come to the nub of the question on a later amendment—will the accounts of successor companies be constituted on exactly the same accounting principles?
The accounting standards set up by the Institute of Chartered Accountants, and possibly to be made effective under statute as a result of the Dearing Report—I say "possibly" because we are not quite certain how that will work—give latitude to companies and their auditors to give certain variations, quite understandably, depending on what trade the company is in. It is supremely important in our view that the accounts of National Power, Power Gen, the area boards and the transmission company should be in all respects on the same standards so that the market can assess the difference in performance on the same criteria. It would be rather absurd if one area board deviated, for instance, in respect of its depreciation policy from another area board, and, similarly, the generating company, so that the market could not judge like against like. I should be grateful if the noble Lord or the noble Baroness who will reply can give me that assurance. Having posed those three questions, I beg to move.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I had intended to say a few words on this amendment. However, I understand that there has been some correspondence between the noble Lord, Lord Williams, and the Government on these matters and that a letter has been sent to the noble Lord containing professional advice given to the Government recently. In order not to delay matters, I wonder whether I could have a copy of that letter in due course so that I may consider the position, having read what the Minister will say in due course.
Lord Renton: My Lords, one appreciates the sentiment behind this amendment. However, I wonder whether in order to comply with the Bill it would be possible to calculate the accumulated realised profits except by reference to generally accepted accounting principles. One wonders therefore whether it is necessary to write this quite obvious concept into the statute.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, for saying that he found the letter helpful. I must apologise for the fact that the letter was received by him only this morning. I shall of course ensure that the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, receives a copy of the letter. Perhaps therefore I do not need to deal with the points made in it except very briefly to say that we reaffirmed that the term "generally accepted accounting principles" is generally taken to refer to statements of standard accounting practice issued from time to time by the six main UK and Irish accountancy bodies, together with the UK law and established accepted precedent.
I also confirm that the accounting policies of the area boards and the CEGB are, as the noble Lord,

53
Lord Williams, stated in all major respects in accordance with UK accounting standards, which was the professional advice that we received.
However, perhaps I may mention the legal requirements which impinge here The accounts of the CEGB and area boards have hitherto been prepared so as to give the information required under the Electricity Act 1947, as amended. After privatisation, the accounts of the successor companies will be prepared in accordance with (at present) the Companies Act 1985. The overriding requirement of this Act is that the accounts give a true and fair view.
The requirements of the Stock Exchange are that the prospectuses at the time of flotation should be able to say that the accounts have been prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. The Government therefore, accept the spirit of the amendment, though, as has been explained, it is inappropriate in the context of Clause 74, inappropriate in the context of a Bill that does not address general accounting matters and anyway unnecessary given the need to comply with Stock Exchange requirements.
On the question of whether the accounts of the successor companies will reflect a five-year history of previous accounting policies, the accounts of the successor bodies for the five-year track records will be restated in line with the principles adopted by the successor companies. I believe that it would not be in the interests of bodies emerging newly on the market to introduce new systems because it would be rather difficult for the market to judge their track record, as the noble Lord has pointed out.
I was asked a question concerning whether the accounts of successor companies would be constituted overall on the same accounting principles. Accounts will be a matter for the respective companies and their auditors. For flotation purposes there will be benefit in keeping those policies in line so far as possible, and this is for discussion between the companies, their advisers and the industry.
I hope that I have covered the questions that the noble Lord raised. I feel that I have not dealt with the matter concerning the Companies Bill which is at present in another place. If I find that there is something I should include, perhaps I might add by letter to what I have said, as I did previously.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness; and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, will also welcome a copy of any letter that is sent to me.
We have discussed these questions. They are matters of fundamental importance, but they are not matters that should go into the Bill. I have put down this series of amendments to elucidate how the successor companies will treat their accounts. We shall come shortly to Amendment No. 155, which concerns a similar problem; but I want to go into rather more detail into one aspect of the problem.
In the meanwhile, I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that the answer is, I am afraid, yes. Even with the best will in the world, companies using
54
generally accepted principles can produce different profits at different times. Without going into the labyrinth of the Companies Acts and the Companies Bill which is before another place, if by some chance an area board, once floated, were to take over another business in another trade—it has been mooted that that may happen—it may not even necessarily be domestic but an investment in a foreign company, different accounting principles might apply on consolidation. In our view it is very important that UK accounting standards and UK accounting principles should apply wherever the successor companies may make their investments. That could be almost anywhere.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness. If she considers the points that I have made and she feels it is appropriate to write, I would be grateful if she would send a copy of the letter to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 75 [Statutory accounts]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 155:
Page 54, line 34, at end insert—
("(1A) The Director shall ensure that the annual accounts (including group accounts) of successor companies shall be prepared in such a manner as to ensure that the accounts of those companies carrying on the same trade are comparable one with another.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a more concise amendment, although it is rather longer than the previous one. The noble Baroness in response to my previous amendment said that so far as was possible—I believe I remember her words—accounting policies of the successor companies would be aligned both prior and post-flotation. It does not seem to me to be right that accounting policies—which are determined by the board of directors subject to the accounting standards laid down from time to time by the Institute of Chartered Accountants or under whatever jurisdiction the company may be constituted—should vary between one area board and another or one generating company and another when privatised. Accounting policies given effect to the accounting standards which are broad statements of principle. As I said in my introduction to Amendment No. 154, they allow considerable variation—for example, in depreciation rates.
I wish to refer to depreciation rates. There is a major problem in the replacement of assets in individual area boards. The age profiles of plant in the area boards are remarkably different. The Yorkshire board, for example, has among its assets a relatively large number of old assets in both number and value, while the London Electricity Board has somewhat less than the Yorkshire Board in terms of age profile. The South Wales Electricity Board seems to have invested a great deal during the 1960s and not so much later on. There is a different profile for each board.
The problem is that unless this profile has changed substantially since the composition of the paper that

55
I have, the area boards when privatised will have to invest large sums of money in replacing assets. It is tremendously important that the depreciation provisions, which are applied in the new assets required and in replacement of assets, should be consistent between one privatised area board and another, otherwise the market will have no idea of what is going on between one and another.
On flotation, whether the cash flows of the different area boards will be properly set out—this comes back to whether the depreciation charges over the past few years will be properly set out—and will be comparable one with another so that the market can take a view between one area board and another will be another question and will determine whether or not the market wishes to invest. I am sure the Government are aware of this point because I am sure that their financial advisers will have made them aware of it. But it is worth asking for an assurance in this House that the Government understand that there are two main facts. One is that the age profile of plant in the area boards is such as to require massive re-investment over the next few years in substitution of old assets for new, and that the market needs to take a clear and decisive view as between one area board and another. None of that can happen unless the annual accounts of successor companies are prepared in such a manner as to ensure that the accounts of those companies carrying on the same trade are comparable one with another. We seek to impose this as a duty on the director that he shall ensure that rather than leaving it to the companies and to their auditors. I beg to move.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I am slightly puzzled by this amendment, I would have thought that all the accounts of any company would be in accordance with what is required by the Inland Revenue, and that depreciation, for example, would be allowed only on a certain basis. I do not understand that point.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I shall willingly enlighten the noble Baroness. Tax depreciation is quite different from accounting depreciation.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am happy to say that there is no conflict between the aims of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, and ourselves. Perhaps I should say a brief word about the purpose of Clause 75, as there may have been some misunderstanding. This is essentially a transitional provision which will apply only this year. Its purpose therefore is to ensure continuity of accounts between the successor companies and their predecessors. Clause 75 will cease to have practical effect after the successors have prepared and published their first accounts after vesting. I say this because it may be felt that the clause has a more general application, beyond that transitional period.
As has been said, there are already very rigorous statutory and other requirements on companies that are about to be floated on the Stock Exchange, and the Stock Exchange itself, in its Yellow Book, already requires that accounts of such a company should comply with generally accepted accounting
56
principles. The amendment before us would go beyond these existing requirements, by adding a further requirement that the accounts of successor companies carrying on the same trade should be comparable, and by requiring the Director General of Electricity Supply to police this requirement.
In the Government's view it is neither appropriate nor practical to place such an additional requirement. The prospectuses before flotation will include financial information that complies with generally accepted accounting principles, and will make full disclosure of material facts. In the Government's view the proper vehicle for any additional safeguards such as the noble Lord has in mind in general legislation, such as the Financial Services or Companies Acts, rather than this Bill. To some extent the noble Lord made that point.
The generating companies will contract for the sale of power from their stations. Those contracts may be of different nature and length. It would be appropriate for their depreciation policies to reflect their contracts. That could well lead to differences between National Power and Power Gen after the transitional period to which I have referred.
As regards the area boards, I can reassure the noble Lord that their accounting policies in respect of depreciation and other matters will be reviewed for consistency in the flotation documents and accounts. After flotation no such requirement will be needed. In other sectors analysts and investors can develop views on different companies in the same sector without such a requirement. We see no reason why that should not be possible in this situation.
In the light of those comments I hope that the noble Lord will be able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I accept the fact that my amendment may be in the wrong place. Nevertheless, it illustrates an extremely important point.
The noble Baroness has stated that, because of the nature of their contracts, the accounts of National Power and Power Gen may well contain different accounting policies in respect of depreciation. They may be based on different accounting policies in respect of other matters because accounting policies can be and are decided by directors and shareholders. They are contained in the annual report.
What bothers me and bothers the market is that after a year or so it will be impossible to make an assessment as between National Power and Power Gen because by then their accounting policies will have become radically divergent. Again, I accept that my amendment is in the wrong place because we are talking of a transition provision.
I am afraid that it is not the case that analysts are God-given, God-like creatures who can make up their own accounting policies and automatically readjust the accounts of large companies in order to arrive at comparable figures. Analysts, bankers and so forth generate a great deal of heat over that matter. When companies in the same trade produce accounts, and where their accounting policies are radically different—as has happened in the

57
past—and acquisitions have been based on accounting policies being radically different, then the market begins to worry.
I am concerned that, as regards investors particularly in the generating companies, which are more important than the area boards, the market has a fair idea between the two and the accounting policies should be kept broadly in line. I believe that the director has a role to play in that area.
I do not believe that I can repeat my comments because I have now made them twice. However, the Government need to pay attention if they want to float the companies successfully. I am afraid that if they do not pay attention the market will take a very dim view of the matter.
Does the noble Baroness wish to comment further? No. I have had my say and that is all I can do. If the flotation fails because the Government have failed to take account of this matter it will not be due to failure on my part. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 156 and 157 not moved.]
Clause 81 [Responsibility for composite listing particulars]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 158:
Page 59, line 11, at end insert—
("(1A) The Secretary of State and his advisers shall take full responsibility for information contained in the listing particulars for securities of successor companies.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is somewhat different from that which I moved in Committee on broadly the same subject. It goes much wider than the other amendment which dealt with composite listing particulars.
The problem that I seek to identify is that, given that the Government are to float a series of successor companies which inherit assets from a government corporation, at the end of the day will the Government take full responsibility for the information contained in the listing particulars? In my view, it is not enough to say that the listing particulars are the responsibility of the directors, their advisers or accountants. They are assets which are being floated by the Government and therefore I believe that the Secretary of State and his advisers should take full responsibility. By that I mean that they should take full responsibility under the terms of the Financial Services Act 1986.
I speak professionally when I say that I find it most difficult to see how National Power can put together a sensible prospectus. I said that on Second Reading and I shall say it again. Having regard to the problems associated with nuclear power, and also to what the noble Baroness will bring forward as Schedule 12 amendments, the complexities of putting together a prospectus which will stand up as not being misleading under the Financial Services Act appear to be overwhelming.
I believe that the Government must take responsibility for such matters. They cannot shuffle off the responsibility and say, "Oh well, auditors
58
have done this and merchant bankers have done that". I believe that it is a matter which will submerge the whole flotation unless the Government stand behind the information contained in the prospectus and take full responsibility in the fullest sense of that phrase.
I remind noble Lords, as I did on Second Reading, that under Section 47 of the Financial Services Act 1986 it is a criminal offence for anyone to make a misleading statement, deliberately or otherwise, in order to induce an investment. I believe that if a misleading statement is made other people should not be in the dock; the Secretary of State should be in the dock. I beg to move.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sanderson of Bowden): My Lords, we debated the matter in Committee but this amendment goes wider. I must go through the matter in great detail because the noble Lord has raised a particularly important point.
The amendment seeks to make the Secretary of State and his advisers responsible for the whole of the prospectus, that is listing particulars in the terminology of the clause, for each of the successor companies.
First, I must explain where responsibility actually lies. The rules allocating this are set out in the Financial Services Act 1986, or the "FSA" as I shall refer to it hereafter. Section 152 of the Act provides that the issuer of the securities—that is, the company, its directors and any persons who have agreed to become directors—are responsible for the listing particulars. The noble Lord knows that well enough. This is simply because much of the information which the listing particulars contain usually lies within the personal knowledge of the directors of the company in question.
In addition, Section 152 provides that a person is responsible for listing particulars if he or she accepts, and is stated in the listing particulars as accepting, responsibility for the whole or part of the listing particulars, and if he or she has authorised the contents of the particulars, either in whole or in part. This is clearly appropriate because nobody will accept responsibility for any part of listing particulars unless he or she has the knowledge necessary to enable him to vouch for the accuracy of that part. Section 152 goes on to provide that, where a person has accepted responsibility for or authorised only part of the contents or the listing particulars, responsibility is limited to the part in question and arises only if that part is included substantially in the form and context to which he or she has agreed.
To complete the picture, I should add that persons who are responsible for listing particulars may be liable under Section 150 of that Act to pay compensation to a person who suffers loss as a result of an untrue or misleading statement in the listing particulars. This liability also extends to the omission of anything required under Section 146 or 147 of that Act to be included in the listing particulars. These rules are clear cut and have provided the basis, either in the current form of the FSA or previous legislation, for offers for sale to the

59
public—whether in the form of government privatisations or as private sector flotations—for a good many years.
This is not to say that there will not be parts of the listing particulars for which it will not be appropriate that the Secretary of State should accept responsibility under the FSA. In past sales, of course, the Government have taken responsibility for defined sections of the prospectus of companies being privatised. In the sale of British Gas, for example, the Secretary of State was responsible for sections dealing with the company's relationship with government, part of the section dealing with underwriting, the section on applications and share dealings and the section on terms and conditions of the offer. These are matters where the information concerned was provided by government. It is clearly proper that government should take responsibility for that information.
But as I have said, it is quite inappropriate for the Government to be responsible for the entire document; and that is the point of difference. Much of that document will contain information lying within the personal knowledge of directors and personnel of the companies involved. Why, for example, should the Government, even less their advisers, be expected to have first hand knowledge of the ages, the other directorships or the interests in shares of directors of the successor companies? I should also comment on the proposal that advisers should share in responsibility through the act of giving advice during an offer for sale. Again, this is not acceptable. Section 152(8) of the FSA makes clear that a person does not become responsible for any particulars merely because he or she gives advice as to their contents in a professional capacity. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, understands that. Again, it is fundamental that those with the personal knowledge of information used in a prospectus should be held responsible for it. Advisers simply do not fall into this category. The role of an adviser is to advise, not to make the final decision. That is up to the person whom he advises.
I should conclude by saying that responsibility is, of course, openly stated for each section of the prospectus so that the potential investor can clearly ascertain from whom the information has been derived and who is responsible for its accuracy.
I understand well what the noble Lord, Lord Williams, is seeking. I hope that with the explanation I have given of the Government taking responsibility where appropriate, the noble Lord will understand the position and will withdraw his amendment.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I misunderstood what he said but I thought he said that the Government and the Secretary of State have taken responsibilities in regard to what he referred to as the "defined sections". Does not Clause 81 fit into that category where we are dealing with defined sections? Such sections in an electricity Bill are those dealing with securities of two or more successor companies and their specialist terms in relation to the Bill.
60
Therefore, in accordance with precedent I believe that there is something to be said for accepting the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Williams.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the noble Lord had sat down before the intervention and does not appear to wish to respond.
I believe that the issue between us and the Government is twofold. First, who is actually issuing the securities? We had this debate in part in Committee. I believe that in essence—although this may not be technically so due to a fudge—that is a secondary issue. The Government are selling shares to the public. It may be in the form of new shares of a successor company, of a £100 company, being issued but fundamentally it is a secondary issue; the Government are selling shares to the public. Therefore, the Government are really the issuer.
Secondly, the important point is that in previous privatisations there has, broadly speaking, been privatisation of companies as a whole: British Gas, British Telecom and British Steel. Those companies were privatised in their entirety and were not broken up just before privatisation. Now there is a complex of public corporations being broken up prior to privatisation. Therefore, the Secretary of State has an even greater responsibility than he would have if this were privatised as a single entity.
The noble Lord said that it is not within the personal knowledge of the Secretary of State whether the chairman is aged 53, 65, 72 or 33 years. The ages of fellow directors are very rarely within the knowledge of directors of companies. I can guarantee that the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, could not tell me the ages of his colleagues on the boards on which he used to sit before he became a Minister of State.
The fact is that people are employed to ascertain those facts and to verify them. We all have to sign verification statements produced by lawyers such as my noble friend Lord Mishcon who have done their work, but as directors we accept responsiblity. I believe that the Secretary of State through the appropriate channels, that is the Civil Service, should accept responsibility for the issues which he makes. It is a simple and absolutely fundamental proposition. I do not believe that the arguments of the noble Lord have any merit whatever and I believe that it is appropriate to test the opinion of the House. I commend the amendment to your Lordships.
6.17 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 158) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 72; Not-Contents, 99.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Airedale, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove L.

Ardwick, L.

Attlee, E.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Aylestone, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Blease, L.

Craigavon, V.

Briginshaw, L.

David, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

61

Dormand of Easington, L.

Mishcon, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Molloy, L.

Ennals, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Mulley, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Nicol, B.

Galpern, L.

Northfield, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Ogmore, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Peston, L.

Hampton, L.

Phillips, B.

Hanworth, V.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Hooson, L.

Rochester, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Russell, E.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Seear, B.

John-Mackie, L.

Shackleton, L.

Kagan, L.

Shepherd, L.

Kennet, L.

Stedman, B.

Kilbracken, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Lawrence, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Thurso, V.

Lockwood, B.

Tordoff, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Underhill, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Walston, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

White, B.

McNair, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Winstanley, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldenham, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Arran, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Ashbourne, L.

Margadale, L.

Beloff, L.

Marley, L.

Belstead, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Bessborough, E.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Blatch, B.

Merrivale, L.

Borthwick, L.

Mersey, V.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Morris, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Munster, E.

Caithness, E.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Nelson, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Norrie, L.

Carnock, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Onslow, E.

Colnbrook, L.

Orkney, E.

Colwyn, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Oxfuird, V.

Denham, L. [Teller]

Pender, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Penrhyn, L.

Dundee, E.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Elibank, L.

Quinton, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Faithfull, B.

Renton, L.

Ferrers, E.

Rodney, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Gisborough, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Goold, L.

Savile, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Seebohm, L.

Greenway, L.

Selborne, E.

Halsbury, E.

Shannon, E.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Sharpies, B.

Harvington, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Havers, L.

Strange, B.

Henley, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Hesketh, L.

Swinton, E.

Hives, L.

Teynham, L.

Holderness, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Trafford, L.

Hooper, B.

Trumpington, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Ullswater, V.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Windlesham, L.

Killearn, L.

Wise, L.

Kimball, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Wynford, L.

Long, V.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.25 p.m.
Clause 83 [Dissolution etc. of existing bodies]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 159:
Page 60, line 27, at end insert—
("( ) All records and documents belonging to the existing bodies shall become the property of the Secretary of State unless transferred to successor companies under a transfer scheme.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Peston. In Committee we had a discussion about certain matters which would remain somewhat in the air after dissolution of the Electricity Council and other existing bodies. At that point the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, introduced me to the concept of a common service organisation, which I had not appreciated was to exist. I am grateful to the noble Earl for sending me a copy of the press release which I had missed.
It is announced that there will be a service organisation which, I understand, will be owned by all the successor companies; in other words, there will be no official ownership of this body which will deal with certain matters, such as personnel, training and some R&D matters, which are central to the whole industry. The problem is that it does not meet my concerns about records and documents belonging to the existing bodies. In Committee I expressed concern that the records and documents which have been compiled by existing bodies such as the Electricity Council will be transferred to successor companies and, because they contain information of a confidential nature, might be used by the successor companies to improper advantage—I put it no stronger than that. I could give examples that have been suggested—and not responsibly suggested—of how documents, lists of customers, credit arrangements, and so on, might be used for other purposes than simply the sale of electricity.
I believe that confidential information that has been given to existing bodies should be in the hands either of the successor companies themselves or of an organisation directly owned by the successor companies; that is, an organisation to which successor companies have immediate and direct access. I should be most grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, could assist me on this matter. I beg to move.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, we all recall very well the discussions on this matter in Committee. I shall endeavour to assist the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, who made the point very well at the last stage of the Bill.
The records and documents associated with the property, rights and liabilities of the boards and the council will be transferred with that property etc. to the successor companies by the transfer schemes. After the transfer date, the residual boards' main function will be to assist in perfecting any transfers of foreign property to the appropriate successor company. As each transfer of this description is completed, so the residual board can hand over any relevant documents and records to the company. The

63
residual council will have the additional function of winding up the tax affairs of the pre-reorganisation industry. Here also, we expect most of the documents and records to be passed on to the successor companies.
There will therefore be only a handful of records remaining when the residual bodies are dissolved—probably only those relating to the statements of accounts to be prepared under subsection (5) of the clause. By that stage, we do not envisage any problem in making administrative arrangements for the future custody of the few documents and records which will remain. The important point is that these arrangements will, of course, be discussed with the Secretary of State prior to being put into effect. I draw the attention of the noble Lord to Clauses 66 and 68 in the new print of the Bill where these provisions are contained.
During our debate on this amendment at a previous stage, several noble Lords were concerned that commercial confidential information held by the boards or the council would be handed over to the successor companies—the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Williams—who could make use of that information. But of course, as my noble friend Lord Dundee explained, the obligation of confidence on a piece of confidential information would be transferred to the successor company and would be as binding on the new company in the future as it had been on the board or the council.
I believe that the noble Lord is referring to certain sensitive information that should not be in the hands of any successor body. I hope that the provisions of Clause 66 will mean that the Secretary of State has to approve schemes and that the provisions of Clause 68(4) and (6) in particular will in fact give the Secretary of State the necessary powers. I am sure that the noble Lord will be asking me whether the Secretary of State has those powers to deal with sensitive documents in the way that I have suggested.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, can the Minister tell me, as regards those subsections, what will happen if the Secretary of State decides to exercise the power that the noble Lord says he has under the Bill as drafted? If the Secretary of State decides to exclude from the transfer scheme certain documents, what happens to those documents?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I believe that I have made that clear and that is the sensitive point. If the Secretary of State decides the future custody of the few documents which will remain, it is for him to decide where they should reside. They may very well remain within the purview of the Secretary of State himself.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord. I believe I understand what the Government are getting at but I am not sure that it is right. The Secretary of State has the power to nominate certain confidential information, if he considers it very sensitive, and to retain control of it himself. In other words he will take it over
64
himself from the existing bodies. That is insufficiently spelt out in the Bill, but if the noble Lord tells me it is there I shall be perfectly happy with that.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, if the noble Lord looks at Clause 68(4) and the last line, it states,
"The Secretary of State may himself make the scheme".
He has the power.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord. The Secretary of State may himself make a scheme, so in other words he may transfer to himself the sensitive documents. I wish to place on record that we consider this to be a very important matter. The idea that successor companies can use what is sometimes confidential information for purposes other than those for which they are carrying on a trade, is a matter that concerns us very much. I should be very loath to allow this Bill to leave your Lordships' House if I were not satisfied that, for instance, credit information that may be in the hands of the generating board in the case of companies (or area boards in the case of domestic consumers), were to used automatically and properly for the purposes of generation and supply of electricity.
There has been a good deal of talk about the privatised area boards selling their lists of customers to other commerical organisations in order that the latter may use the list of customers for their own purposes. I use the expression "there has been talk"—I am not saying that this is necessarily the case—that in future area boards shall decide that they wish to introduce credit card schemes or help the banks to do so. To that end they will be using all the credit apparatus that they have built up as public boards. There is talk that generating companies may in future use the CEGB's material of a confidential nature concerning industrial companies to try to encourage other people to get business alongside them. I shall be grateful if the noble Lord can comment on that matter.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, with the leave of the House I can say that credit information will be covered by the Data Protection Act.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I understand that, but I am not sure that that Act is strong enough for the purposes that I have in mind. Perhaps the noble Lord will consider that point and write to me and send a copy of the letter to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 85 [Discharge etc. of certain advances and loans made to existing bodies]:
[Amendment No. 160 not moved.]
Schedule 11 [Taxation provision]:
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 161:
Page 116, line 10, at end insert—
"(Transactions effected in pursuance of section (Transfer Schemes under sections 66 and 67)(2)(c)
4A.—(1) Sub-paragraph (2) below applies to any disposal (within the meaning of the Capital Gains Tax Act 1979) which is effected, and sub-paragraphs (3) and (4) below apply to any lease which is granted, in pursuance of a provision included in a transfer scheme by virtue of section (Transfer schemes under sections 66 and 67)(2)(c) of this Act.
(2) A disposal to which this sub-paragraph applies shall be taken for the purposes of the Capital Gains Tax Act 1979 to be effected for a consideration of such amount as would secure that on the disposal neither a gain nor a loss would accrue to the disponer.
(3) Subsection (6)(a) of section 37 of the Finance Act 1978 (capital allowances: long leases) shall not prevent the application of that section in any case where the lease is a lease to which this sub-paragraph applies.
(4) Where, in the case of any machinery or plant which is a fixture and on the provision of which for the purposes of the transferor's trade the transferor incurred capital expenditure, a lease of the relevant land (with or without other land) is a lease to which this sub-paragraph applies—

(a) the lessor shall not be required to bring the disposal value of the machinery or plant into account in accordance with section 44 of the Finance Act 1971 (writing down allowances and balancing adjustments); and

(b) so far as relating to the bringing of disposal values into account, that section and Schedule 17 to the Finance Act 1985 (capital allowances for fixtures) shall have effect as if—

(i) the capital expenditure incurred by the transferor had been incurred by the lessee on the provision of the machinery or plant wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the lessee's trade; and

(ii) the machinery or plant had become a fixture, immediately after the grant of the lease.

(5) In sub-paragraph (4) above "the transferor" means the transferor under the transfer scheme in question and expressions which are used in Schedule 17 to the Finance Act 1985 have the same meaning as in that Schedule; and in construing that sub-paragraph the provisions of section 511(2) of the 1988 Act and the corresponding earlier enactments shall be disregarded.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a technical amendment, and it is consequential upon the insertion of the new clause after Clause 67 and the amendments to Clause 68. Noble Lords will recall that those amendments allow a transfer scheme made by the Central Electricity Generating Board or the Electricity Council or by a Scottish board to impose on one successor company an obligation to enter into agreements with another such company; for example, in the case of the CEGB, to enter into a long-term lease in respect of land within the perimeter of a power station. The purpose of the present amendment is simply to ensure that the fulfilment of such an obligation is tax-neutral.
The new paragraph in fact contains three effective provisions. First, sub-paragraph (2) provides that any disposal effected by a successor company in pursuance of a provision included in a transfer scheme by virtue of subsection (2)(c) of the new clause is to be taken for the purposes of the Capital Gains Tax Act to be effected for a consideration of such amount as secures that neither a gain nor a loss accrues to that company. It follows that the disponer company has neither a taxable gain nor an allowable
66
loss, and that the successor company which makes an acquisition as a result of the disposal is treated as having given an appropriate amount of consideration for it.
Secondly, where one successor company grants a long lease of an industrial building to another successor company pursuant to such a provision, sub-paragraph (3) allows the companies to elect that any industrial buildings allowances clue in respect of that building can be claimed by the lessee. Such elections cannot normally be made by two companies in the same ownership. That is the effect of Section 37(6)(a) of the Finance Act 1978. The effect of sub-paragraph (3) is to allow the making of an election even though both companies will be owned by the Secretary of State. Thirdly, under the law relating to capital allowances for machinery and plant a taxpayer generally claims relief for expenditure made as reduced by the disposal value of machinery or plant which ceases to be used for the purposes of his trade whether that is because he no longer has the machinery or plant, or for some other reason.
Where one successor company grants a lease of land or a building which includes machinery or plant affixed to it, the grant of that lease, or some act subsequently done by the lessee, might mean that the machinery and plant allowances subsequently available to the lessor were reduced. Sub-paragraph (4) has the effect of preventing this. Sub-paragraph (5) supplements sub-paragraph (4) with appropriate interpretational provisions. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed 10.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 162:
Page 117, line 48, leave out ("Electricity Board or the Electricity Council") and insert ("existing body").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall also speak to Amendment No. 163. Amendment No. 162 is purely a consequential amendment to standardise the usage of the term "existing body" throughout this schedule of the Bill. It replaces a reference to the boards and the council which requires correction.
As regards Amendment No. 163, your Lordships may recall that at the Committee stage of the Bill we moved Amendment No. 169F clarifying what will be meant by a public electricity supplier in England and Wales and in Scotland after privatisation. The public electricity suppliers will of course be the successors to the area boards in England and Wales. The amendment we are now considering follows on from this in that it clarifies what is meant by the expression "existing body in England and Wales" and "existing body in Scotland". The former means the area board, the generating board and the Electricity Council and the latter the Scottish boards. I am sure your Lordships will agree that this is a simple amendment that need not detain us further. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 163:
Page 118, line 37, at end insert—
(" "existing body in England and Wales" means an Area Board, the Generating Board or the Electricity Council;
"existing body in Scotland" means a Scottish Board;").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 94 [Other interpretation of Part II]:
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 164:
Page 65, line 15, at end insert—
(" "property" includes intellectual property;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, subsequent to my raising matters relating to intellectual properties, the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, on behalf of the Government, agreed to write to me in time for Third Reading. I have spoken to the secretary of the Chartered Institute of Patent Agents, which is interested in these matters. It may be that the institute has already spoken to the Government. In those circumstances, I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 164 not moved.]
Clause 95 [Directions for preserving security of electricity supplies etc.]:
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 165:
Page 66, line 27, leave out ("or the commercial interests of some other person").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope that we can deal briefly with Amendment No. 165, which stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel. I say immediately that we entirely approve of Clause 95 of the Bill. We are simply a trifle puzzled by the logic of subsection (5) of the clause.
Under subsection (4) the Secretary of State would lay before each House of Parliament the directions that he gives unless it would not be appropriate in the interests of national security. There can be no argument about that. Subsection (5) is a little bizarre. Having not laid the directions before the two Houses because of national security, the non-disclosure provision would follow. However, it appears from the subsection that the Secretary of State could lay before each House of Parliament a copy of a direction but that no one could disclose what had happened about the direction because of commercial interests. The Secretary of State would lay before each House of Parliament a copy of this direction, which I assume would be for noble Lords and Members of another place to comment on, but no one could disclose anything about the direction or what has been done about it if it involved the commercial interests of some other person.
That is extraordinary. The whole point of laying down the direction is for it to be discussed. I cannot imagine anything more absurd than laying down the direction and then telling us that nothing can be said about it because of the commercial interests of some other person. Subsection (5) does not make sense. Can someone tell me what, if any, sense it makes?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I apologise if my response does not satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Peston. However, I feel that I have to refer him to his noble friend Lord Williams, who is responsible for the drafting. I was under the impression that the amendment is consequential on one that was previously agreed. In fact I was proposing not to speak against it on that basis. By not speaking against it I did not feel that the Government's hands would be tied in another place or elsewhere in relation to it. Perhaps I may leave it like that and refer the noble Lord to his noble friend.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness. No one ever tells me anything. Given what she has said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.45 p.m.
Schedule 12 [Nuclear liabilities: financial assistance]:
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 166:
Page 119, line 6, after ("incurred") insert ("or to be incurred").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, during our debate in Committee on 19th June on what was then Clause 32 I gave a commitment that the Government would introduce at Report stage an amendment to Schedule 12 to enable the Secretary of State to enter into binding agreements to contribute to costs associated with re-processing, waste treatment and disposal and de-commissioning of nuclear plant. These amendments fulfil that intention. They have therefore been grouped together.
The main amendment in the group is clearly Amendment No. 167. It allows the Secretary of State, with the approval of the Treasury, to enter into contractual commitments to make payments of grant if certain specified conditions are met. These specified conditions will be contained in the contract. In the course of our deliberations on the Bill many noble Lords have expressed concern about the future of the nuclear industry. With some notable exceptions, who do not appear to be present this evening, that concern has been to ensure its future viability and the continuing safety of its operations. In this context the existing discretionary powers contained in Schedule 12 were perceived not to go far enough. Given the uncertainty as to the costs involved, and the time scales and the large amounts of money potentially involved, this would have been most unfair. When it comes to writing any prospectus for a nuclear generator we shall need to be able to say with certainty that the Government will keep their side of the bargain.
Contrary to what has been claimed in the press, this amendment does not represent a change in our policy towards the nuclear industry, merely a strengthening in our commitment to meet our obligations. Amendment No. 166, when read in conjunction with the new paragraph (1A) of the schedule, allows the Secretary of State to enter into agreements to make grants well before any qualifying expenditure is actually incurred. Amendment No. 170 takes this power into account for the purposes of paragraph 4(1). Of course, it is not the Government's

69
practice to make payments of grants ahead of need. But these amendments allow the agreement to cover future expenditure.
Amendments Nos. 168 and 169 are drafting amendments which are made necessary by our requirement to be able to make grants or loans in advance of the recipient incurring the qualifying expenditure to be met out of the grant or loan. Amendment No. 168 is made even more necessary by the previous amendment, which enables the Secretary of State to enter into binding agreements to make grants. He clearly needs to be able to make grants at various times.
I apologise to the House. I may not have made it clear that, in moving Amendment No. 166, I am speaking also to Amendments Nos. 167, 168, 169 and 170. I would add one final point. These amendments do not change the financial limits which are set out in paragraph 4 of the schedule. Indeed Amendment No. 167 is specifically subject to those limits. Perhaps I may remind the House that the initial limit is of £1,000 million which may be increased by order to £2,500 million. That order will be subject to affirmative procedure in the other place, as is customary with money matters. Any amounts needed above £2,500 million will require new primary legislation. This will ensure that Parliament has an opportunity to scrutinise the Government's policy and payments made under this schedule. With that explanation, I beg to move.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her account of the amendment. Noble Lords on this side of your Lordships' House are troubled. Whatever happens, one will have to look carefully at the record to see what she said. I shall express our concerns. Our first anxiety relates to pre-payment for expenses that have yet to be incurred. That pre-payment may mean one of two things. It can mean an assurance, "If you incur these expenses and you convince us that you had to incur them and that they are as low as they should be" (and various other points to deal with Treasury control) "then the Government will seriously consider paying those expenses". It is pre-payment in the sense of commitment. I am not clear whether the amendments do not go further than that, and say, "We agree to pay those sums of money now, ahead of what you do". We need some clarification of what is meant.
The second anxiety—the Minister will not be surprised that I raise this point, especially about Amendment No. 167—is whether the existing Secretary of State binds, or could bind, future Secretaries of State. The Minister will forgive me if I point out that future Secretaries of State may belong to a different political party. We would be concerned if it were possible for the existing Secretary of State to bind future Secretaries of State to give guarantees in relation to expenses which are not yet defined and which may arise when future Secretaries of State may say, "We do not want to spend public money for that purpose". When I refer to future Secretaries of State, I refer also to Parliament in the future.
70
Towards the end of her remarks, when she was discussing various orders and such matters, the Minister made some points, which might be relevant to that point. I should like some further clarification, with examples, from her.
Perhaps I may return to a point that I have made to your Lordships before. If we are going to privatise an industry, then privatisation is what we are doing. The private sector must then accept responsibility for things which in the past the public sector has accepted. It seems to me, not least given the Government's rhetoric, that private companies cannot expect to be called privatised and also expect the Government to enter into the kind of precommitment which is much more appropriate for a public enterprise.
I do not believe, and I have argued the point previously, that it would be wrong for the Government to indicate—the noble Lord, Lord Renton, raised this point to do with uncertainties—that it might well bear some of those uncertainties, although we may argue a bit about those. I am of the opinion that it would not be desirable in any form once one privatises to take all the risks away from the private sector by entering into what appears to be an open-ended commitment. Above all, I am concerned about the binding of Parliament and Secretaries of State in the future. They are important matters. In deciding how we approach them, I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, if I understood him correctly, the noble Lord, Lord Peston, asked whether it was intended to pre-pay those obligations now. I must point out to him that in the light of our discussions at a previous stage, because the sums involved are uncertain, unforeseeable and unascertainable—whichever word one chooses to use—we have felt it necessary to introduce the amendments.
I confirm that it is intended that the amendments will allow the Government to make advance commitments. It will be on the basis described by the noble Lord. Once those costs are incurred, the Government will obviously look strictly at them and ensure that they are not out of line, that they have been properly incurred and so on. He also asks whether they would bind a future Secretary of State. As with any other contract entered into by a Secretary of State, a future Secretary of State would indeed be bound to meet his or her obligations under such an agreement. We are talking largely about commitments which relate to activities, and policy decisions taken before privatisation. Any future Secretary of State would be subject to the financial limits to which I have referred, which are set down in the schedule—the £1 billion which, subject to procedure by order, could be increased to £2·5 billion—or otherwise primary legislation would be involved. That is a total aggregate figure.
Lord Peston: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I should like to elucidate the matter. The control of public expenditure must clearly still lie with Parliament, notably the other place. Parliament must therefore be in a position to say, "We shall not

71
vote you these moneys". That is the point that I have in mind. A Secretary of State late in the 1990s may get up and say, "The noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, and her right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy, entered into those commitments, which now involve spending £x million". The later Secretary of State may say, "This is what my predecessors committed me to which I feel that I must obviously bring to the other place", and the other place may say, "We do not want to spend public money on that, and we shall not vote any money for it". I am concerned whether that decision is still left for the other place.
I find it inconceivable that we could pass into law amendments of that kind which would in any way prevent the other place from not voting moneys. I am sorry to press the Minister on that point. It is an enormously important matter. I wonder whether she can tell us the answer to the question.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, my understanding is that a future Secretary of State would be bound, as I have said. It is of course always open to Parliament, through its procedures, to raise questions, initiate debates, to take some action, to question and to open up the matter. If the Government are under a legal obligation to pay in that respect as much as in their purchases of, say, stationery, they will have to find the means.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 166) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 82; Not-Contents, 54.

DIVISION NO. 3

CONTENTS

Aldenham, L.

Hooper, B.

Ampthill, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Arran, E.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Beloff, L.

Kimball, L.

Belstead, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Blatch, B.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E

Borthwick, L.

Long, V.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Brookeborough, V.

Margadale, L.

Caithness, E.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Merrivale, L.

Carnock, L.

Mersey, V.

Colnbrook, L.

Morris, L.

Colwyn, L.

Munster, E.

Craigavon, V.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Nelson, E.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Norrie, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Dundee, E.

Orkney, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Faithfull, B.

Oxfuird, V.

Ferrers, E.

Pender, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Goold, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Gray of Contin, L.

Quinton, L.

Greenway, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Halsbury, E.

Reading, M.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Renton, L.

Harvington, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Havers, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Henley, L.

Savile, L.

Hesketh, L.

Seebohm, L.

Hives, L.

Selborne, E.

Holderness, L.

Shannon, E.

72

Sharples, B.

Trafford, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Trumpington, B.

Strange, B.

Ullswater, V.

Strathclyde, L.

Windlesham, L.

Swinton, E.

Wise, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Wynford, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Airedale, L.

Lockwood, B.

Ardwick, L.

Longford, E.

Barnett, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Briginshaw, L.

McNair, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Molloy, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Nicol, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Northfield, L.

David, B.

Ogmore, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Peston, L.

Donoughue, L.

Phillips, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Ennals, L.

Seear, B.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Shackleton, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Shepherd, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Stedman, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hampton, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hanworth, V.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Tordoff, L.

Kagan, L.

Underhill, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Walston, L.

Kirkhill, L.

White, B.

Lawrence, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
7.7 p.m.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendments Nos. 167 to 170:
Page 119, line 11, at end insert—
("(1A) Subject to paragraph 4 below, the Secretary of State may, with the approval of the Treasury, enter into an agreement with any person under which the Secretary of State undertakes that, if such conditions as may be specified in the agreement are satisfied, he will exercise the power conferred by this paragraph in such manner and to such extent as may be specified in the agreement.").
Page 119, line 12, leave out (Grants under this paragraph may be made") and insert ("A grant under this paragraph may be made at such times, in such manner and").
Page 119, line 20, leave out ("Any loans which the Secretary of State makes under this paragraph") and insert ("A loan under this paragraph—

(a) may be made at such times, in such manner and subject to such conditions as the Secretary of State may with the approval of the Treasury detemine; and

(b) ").

Page 120, line 17, after ("made") insert ("or agreed to be made").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 167 to 170 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I beg to move that futher consideration on Report be now adjourned until 7.45 p.m.
Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Dangerous Dogs Bill
7.8 p.m.
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Human Organ Transplants Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.
Representation of the People Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Education (Assisted Places) Regulations 1989
7.9 p.m.
Viscount Davidson Viscount Davidson rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 26th June be approved [23rd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, it is my pleasant task this evening to explain the regulations governing the administration of the assisted places scheme to your Lordships. The draft regulations consolidate, with certain small amendments which I shall describe, the Education (Assisted Places) Regulations 1985 as amended in 1986, 1987 and 1988.
The assisted places scheme was established in 1981 for the purpose of widening the educational opportunities of able children from less well-off families. It provides their parents with assistance towards the fees of some of the best independent schools in the country. This assistance is on a sliding scale based on parental income, and the principal changes embodied in the consolidating regulations are concerned with the annual revision of those scales.
In past years there have also been technical amendments to keep the definition of "total parental income" for the purposes of the scheme constant as tax legislation changes. This year one such amendment takes account of the position of APS parents who either receive or pay maintenance payments. But I venture to suggest that all of the amendments which I shall describe in a moment are quite straightforward.
Part I of the draft regulations deals with citation, commencement, application and interpretation. By virtue of draft regulation 1, the regulations are to come into force on 12th August. Part II of the draft regulations deals with eligibility for assisted places, and is unchanged from earlier years. Part III deals with remission of fees. Draft regulation II of Part III has been amended to increase from £950 to £1,000 the amount which may be deducted from the relevant total income of an assisted place holder's parents, in respect of each child or dependent relative other than the assisted place holder. Parts
74
IV and V cover administrative arrangements and miscellaneous requirements and are unchanged.
Schedule 1 provides for parents' income for the purposes of the scheme to be computed on the basis of their "total income" as defined with reference to tax legislation in Regulation 11. The provisions at paragraph 5 of Schedule 1 ensure that, despite changes in the taxable status of maintenance payments introduced in the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988, APS parents making maintenance payments will continue to be able to offset those against their "relevant income". These provisions also ensure that APS parents receiving such payments will continue to count them as part of "relevant income". But these provisions only preserve the status quo so far as concerns the assisted places scheme.
Draft Schedule 2 sets out the income scale used for assessing parents' contributions towards fees. As usual this has been uprated to take account of movements in the retail prices index. The threshold at or below which parents pay nothing towards fees is raised from £7,258 to £7,584. Draft Schedule 3 revokes the 1985 regulations and the regulations amending them.
The provisions and amendments I have just described will ensure the continued smooth running of the assisted places schemes, and I trust they will find favour with your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 26th June be approved. [23rd Report from the Joint Committee.]—(Viscount Davidson.)
Baroness David: My Lords, I must of course thank the Minister for going through the routine that we have to follow with this hardy annual. I thank him for that, but my dislike for the whole scheme does not get any less with the years. The amendments this year are very slight, and I cannot raise objection to them.
Every year that I have dealt with this provision I have expressed my objection to it. Most years there has been some kind of an expansion to the scheme. I am told that 52 more schools have applied to join the scheme this coming September. Is that correct? I am not sure about the numbers of pupils now in the scheme. I believe that it is 27,000, but that figure may be a little out of date now. However, I know that in a parliamentary Answer the Secretary of State said that the numbers would be increased to 35,000 by the mid-1990s. So the scheme grows and grows.
Last year the noble Earl, Lord Arran, said that the average cost of an assisted places pupil was £1,952. I understand that the cost of a maintained pupil was £1,500. There is certainly quite a considerable difference there. I hope that when the Minister replies he can update those figures.
The total cost of the scheme this year is £52·3 million. Next year it will be £59 million. In earlier years there was only one age group in the scheme. However, now we have gone beyond that point after more than seven years of the scheme. The subsidy from the taxpayer to the independent schools, is increasing year by year. Without it there is no doubt that some independent schools would be in

75
considerable difficulty. The figure that I have been given of 52 schools which want to join the scheme this year is quite significant. Those schools need some financial help. I have given the Minister warning of my next question. How many of these subsidised schools have more than 20 per cent., 30 per cent. or 40 per cent. of their pupils assisted in this way?
I also wish to ask the Minister about the position of the national curriculum. All the pupils in state schools have to follow it, except perhaps for city technology colleges. However, they are a bit separate from the system anyway. Is it to be a condition of these 52 extra schools being accepted into the scheme that they will have to follow the national curriculum?
Yesterday, out of interest, I looked up the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Butler, on the Second Reading of the 1980 Bill which set up the scheme. He had misgivings about the scheme as a whole and particular misgivings about how it would affect the sixth forms in the comprehensive schools. Can the Minister tell us how many pupils move at 16 from the state to the independent sector, and what proportion of the total number of assisted places pupils are in sixth forms?
I do not expect the Minister can tell me, but I should very much like to know how many pupils who have received assisted places, or indeed how many independent sector pupils who are moving out of the private system at 16, go into sixth form or tertiary colleges. In my area quite a number of pupils are transferring at that age. I should be interested to know of any figures that the Minister may have, although I cannot expect him to produce them.
There is one other piece of information that I should like. Under Regulation 19 of the principal regulations, participating schools must ensure that at least 60 per cent. of all their assisted places pupils attended state schools before taking up their places. I believe that the pupils must have spent two years in state schools. Is that provision checked, and is it being adhered to? Are any applications made by schools to the Secretary of State to modify or dispense with that requirement? Schools are able to do that under the regulations.
I end as I started, by regretting the money being spent on this scheme when the state scheme is suffering from a shortage of money and teacher shortages. Our philosophy of education is to provide all children with the best education possible. This scheme does not contribute to that aim, and could well damage the state system.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: My Lords, from these Benches I too wish to thank the Minister for his exposition of the regulations. I wish to restrain myself from any expressions of general disapprobation, which I have adequately covered in preceding years. However, I wish to ask the Minister a few questions.
Regulation 8 deals with the academic conditions of acceptance. Presumably a school may accept or reject any child without giving reasons. That is entirely within the choice of a particular school. I
76
think that that is on the whole right. The regulation merely states that a school must be satisfied that a child:
"is capable of benefiting from the education provided at the school".
I should be interested to know whether that could apply to a school offering special education of any kind. A child in special need—for example, a child suffering from dyslexia—may yet be very bright and capable of reaching a high standard. Would such a child be acceptable? If that is the case, I would view the whole scheme with much less disapprobation than I do at present.
The noble Baroness, Lady David, asked whether there was a check on whether schools are keeping within the 60 per cent. of pupils that they are required to take from maintained schools. I wish to echo that question. The same point exactly occurred to me. Is there a check on this, or is that figure merely taken out of the air and disregarded?
I should also like to refer to the total number of children involved. Two years ago when the regulations were debated I asked what the ceiling figure was and was told that it was 35,000 places. Can the Minister confirm that that is still the case? Can he also confirm that it is government policy to maintain a limit or whether the scheme will expand indefinitely?
Those questions conclude my remarks. I shall be interested in any answers which the noble Viscount can give.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, this is obviously not an appropriate time for a major debate on what some of us regard as a very important issue. However, I wish to support the statements made by my noble friend Lady David about how strongly my party continues to object to the scheme, for the reasons which my noble friend gave. When the scheme came into operation, we felt that it was totally unnecessary. All of us on this side of the House thought that it was simply one more doctrinaire scheme introduced by the Conservative Party.
I mention that particularly because it seems to me that the reasons are now even more compelling than in the past: the reduction in expenditure on education, the shortage of teachers, the schemes which the Government are now proposing to make good that shortage, and so on. We argue that the money which has been devoted to the scheme could have been better spent.
The rest of my contribution to the debate consists of a number of questions. The first is: how is the selection carried out by the schools concerned? We know that in Part II, paragraph 8 the regulations state:
"the selection of children for assisted places at a school shall … be made by the school in accordance with such methods and procedures as appear to them appropriate".
On that basis—and I do not object in principle, except to the principle of selection which is something with which we on this side have constantly disagreed—presumably there is a great variety of methods of selection. Is the Minister in a

77
position to tell the House what methods are being used by schools to accept pupils for their particular establishments?
The introductory paragraph to the instrument states:
"after consulting … such bodies as appear to them to be appropriate and to be representative of schools eligible to participate in the assisted places scheme".
Who has been consulted and in what form? I ask that question specifically because the present Government have a deplorable record with regard to consulting teachers. They do not even allow teachers to negotiate their own salaries. They have not been consulted on a number of major issues in education. Perhaps we could be told about that.
My next point concerns paragraph 2, "Interpretation", which deals with fees. It states that:
"'fees' means … tuition and other fees".
Can we be told what the words "other fees" cover? Again, I ask for a particular reason. We know that there is controversy over a number of issues in the public sector at the moment, such as the question of the purchase of musical instruments and the payment which now has to be made by parents for educational visits. Those are important matters and I believe that we are entitled to an explanation.
My final point deals with the whole of Part II, headed "Eligibility for assisted places". Have there been any changes in eligibility since the scheme first started? I do not mean since last year when the instrument was put before the House. I ask that question in all innocence because it seems to me—and I am relying on my rather imperfect memory—that the scheme has improved. For example, paragraph 4 concerns children living in the European Community. That must be a good thing. Paragraph 3 deals with a child who is a refugee. It seems to me that those additions to the scheme must necessarily add to the value of the scheme, if one accepts that the scheme itself is a good one.
I have asked a variety of questions. I hope that the Minister will be able to answer them.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady David, and the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee, for their constructive reactions to the regulations. At the same time I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, that this is probably not the occasion for a full debate on the merits or demerits of the assisted places scheme. He has raised a number of rather technical questions. Perhaps in the circumstances he will not mind if I write to him with a comprehensive reply because his questions are rather detailed and I do not think that I have all the answers in my folder.
The assisted places scheme is now in its eighth successful year. I can assure noble Lords opposite that any doubts which they may have about it are not shared by the many parents whose children have benefited and will continue to benefit from it.
There are now more than 27,000 pupils in the assisted places scheme—the noble Baroness mentioned that figure, which I can confirm—of whom about two thirds come from families with incomes under £12,000 a year. The scale for
78
determining the amount of fee remission is intentionally a demanding one and only those families with incomes currently below £7,258 qualify for completely free places. Even so, in the current school year 34 per cent. of all assisted pupils are eligible for full remission of fees. It is quite clear that the scheme is working to the advantage of those less well off families for whom it is intended.
The APS provides excellent value for money. I can tell the noble Baroness, Lady David, that in the 1987–88 academic year the average cost to the taxpayer of each assisted pupil was £1,952. The corresponding average cost of a pupil in the maintained sector was £1,780, a difference of only £172. Even that small difference is due largely to the high proportion of sixth form provision which the scheme supports. The excellence of the output from APS expenditure is beyond question. Assisted place holders achieve on average a pass rate at "A" level of around 90 per cent. The average for the maintained sector is around 75 per cent. Like noble Lords opposite, we believe in equality of opportunity for all pupils, but we go about achieving it by levelling up, not down. The assisted places scheme is an important part of the process.
Ninety per cent. of all entry age assisted places are now being filled. We plan to make hat figure 100 per cent. by redistributing unfilled places to schools where demand exceeds supply and by bringing in new schools. I am pleased to confirm that from this September, 52 more excellent schools are joining the APS and the list is still under review.
Baroness David: My Lords, can the Minister say whether a list of those schools will be published? I am rather surprised that there are still 52 more independent schools which have such a marvellous record.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, a list of all schools which operate the assisted scheme is published. A list of the 52 additional schools will be made available.
Thus the opportunities offered by the scheme will be opened to even more families throughout the country. It means that geographically more schools are provided under the scheme in the North than in the South at present.
The scheme is not a means of supporting those families whose children would have entered the independent sector without the aid of an assisted place. Under the principal regulations, participating schools must ensure that at least 60 per cent. of their assisted pupils attended state schools immediately before taking up their assisted place. In practice, and with a very few exceptions, this requirement has been easily met.
The assisted places scheme is plainly achieving its objective of opening up some of the best independent schools to children who almost certainly would not otherwise have been able to look to them as an option. That can only be to their and the nation's advantage.
The noble Baroness, Lady David, asked me certain questions. So far as concerns the proportion of assisted pupils in sixth form entry, just over 2,000

79
of the 34,000 assisted places now available are for direct entrant sixth formers. Our information that just over 71 per cent. of all APS pupils have spent the qualifying period in the maintained sector is collated from the annual returns sent to us by participating schools. We have no reason to doubt that information. Information given to us by the participating schools is audited every year. In 1987, about 50 APS schools had more than 20 per cent. of their pupils assisted and, of those, about 10 had more than 30 per cent. of their pupils assisted, but I regret that I have no information available to give to the noble Baroness as to how many APS pupils leave after the fifth form.
The noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee, asked me about children with special needs being acceptable for assisted places. There is no reason why a pupil with special needs should not hold an assisted place, provided that the school concerned is prepared to admit that child on the basis of its academic criteria and has the facilities to support the special educational need in question.
As I said, I have certain notes here in reply to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington. I should prefer to put the information in writing so that it is in less of a form of shorthand than I have in front of me.
I believe that I have answered all the points raised. If I find, when I have studied Hansard, that I have missed any, I hope that noble Lords will not mind if I write to them with the answers.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down, perhaps he will add in his reply to me a point that arises from the noble Lord's question. Presumably, if the information is sent to him, he will be able to tell us how many children with special needs have been accepted in assisted places.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I shall certainly do that if it is possible to discover the figures. It may take rather a long time, but I shall do my best.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 7.45 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.32 to 7.45 p.m.]

Electricity Bill
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Clause 97 [Provision of statistical information]:
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Strabolgi): My Lords, before calling Amendment No. 171 I should inform the House that if this amendment is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 172.
[Amendments Nos. 171 and 172 not moved.]
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 173:
Page 66, line 47, leave out ("may be so specified") and insert ("it is in the public interest to know and in particular such information as has been reasonably sought by any member of the public.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps I may again speak very briefly to Amendment No. 173, which seeks simply to clarify what we would regard as the relevant meaning of "may be so specified". We have discussed before certain questions of information disclosure and statistics and are aware of certain problems that arise.
The concern about the phrase "may be so specified" is that it is extraordinarily open-ended. It may mean everything and nothing. It may mean a great deal more than is said in the amendment—and that would please us enormously—but our concern is that it may mean a good deal less.
Our view, which applies particularly to this Bill, is that on the whole disclosure of information is generally presumed to be in the public interest. That does not mean that it is always so; it is generally so. However, in the Bill in particular where there is such a complex process of, as it were, regulation and control, I believe that it would be highly desirable if the Secretaryof State saw as a central task not merely the provision of statistical information per se but the provision of as much information as would be:
"reasonably sought by any member of the public".
That is the essence of the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I should like to say briefly that the words "may be so specified" which it is suggested should be left out are, as the noble Lord, Lord Peston, says, vague and open-ended. Therefore I should have thought that it would be helpful to clarify the wording in some way.
I have a problem in giving my whole support to the amendment because it introduces the phrase "the public interest". Those words are vague and lead to many difficulties.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, first, I should say to the noble Lords, Lord Peston and Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, that the phrase "may be so specified" means specified in the notice by the Secretary of State. As was briefly touched on in Committee, Clause 97 is designed to ensure that the Government can continue to obtain certain statistical information from the electricity industry after privatisation. This will enable us to continue to prepare and publish a range of statistics about the supply and demand for electricity, which contribute to our overall understanding of the economic development of the country.
The clause as it stands does not inhibit any person from putting a case for the collection and disclosure of additional statistical information about the electricity supply industry to the Secretary of State. However, it quite properly leaves to the Secretary of State the decision as to whether the need for the information and public interest warrant the exercise of the powers of this clause for its collection and publication, when set against the costs to the industry. I should perhaps make clear that we intend

81
to keep to the minimum the requests we place on the industry for statistical information, while ensuring that we obtain sufficient information for the Government and the public to maintain an overview of the generation, transmission and supply of electricity.
We also need to ensure that information cannot be disclosed about companies which could seriously and prejudicially damage their interests, consistent with the need to be able to publish meaningful statistics. After privatisation, companies will be operating in a highly competitive environment. It is therefore essential, for example, that the interests of new entrants to the field should not be undermined by the disclosure of information which could allow their larger and more powerful rivals to undercut them.
The amendment proposed by the noble Lord would introduce the concept of "public interest" into the provision of information under this clause. But this clause is concerned solely with the provision of statistical information to the Secretary of State. The protection of consumers' interests is covered by the regulatory arrangements and provisions for consumer representation set out in Part I of the Bill. The director and the Secretary of State are already charged with the duty of protecting consumers' interests, and Clauses 30, 43 and conditions in the licences will enable the director to obtain relevant information about the supply companies.
The arrangements we are proposing under this clause will establish a sensible balance between the Government's and the public's need for general statistics about the electricity industry on the one hand, and, on the other, the companies' need to be protected from unnecesssary and burdensome demands for data, the release of which might seriously and prejudicially affect their interests.
I hope that the general context that I have set out will reassure the noble Lord and that as a result he may feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his answer. I agree with him entirely that this is a matter of balance between the needs of the public, the needs of the Secretary of State and the costs that are placed on companies when they have to provide information. We are trying to ensure that that balance will be correctly struck. We hope, accepting how powerfully industries can lobby and how difficult it is for the public to lobby, that the Secretary of State will recognise his responsibilities in this matter, as I am sure he will. The noble Earl has emphasised that point of balance. I am therefore perfectly happy to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 174:
After Clause 97, insert the following new clause:
("Promotion of new techniques in national interest.
.—(1) The Secretary of State shall exercise the power conferred on him by section 5 of the Science and Technology Act 1965 (expenditure on research and development in science or technology) for the purpose of promoting such research into, and such development of, new techniques relating to the generation, transmission or supply of electricity as appears to him to be necessary in the national interest.
(2) The Secretary of State may, if he considers it expedient for purposes connected with the performance of his duty under this section, serve notice under this subection on any licence holder or any person who is authorised by an exemption to generate or supply electricity.
(3) A notice under subsection (2) above may require the person on whom it is served to furnish, at a time and place specified in the notice, to the Secretary of State such information about that person's business as may be so specified.
(4) Subsections (3), (5) and (7) to (9) of section 97 above all apply for the purposes of this section as they apply for the purposes of that section.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment has been debated. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 15 [The Scottish Pension Schemes]:
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 174A:
Page 127, line 1, leave out second ("former") and insert ("existing").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 174A, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 174B and 174G.
The amendments which we have proposed to Schedule 15 do not represent any change of policy on our part. They tidy up the drafting or the provisions designed to protect the pension rights of employees of the Scottish industry who are transferred to the successor companies on vesting.
The first four amendments amalgamate the existing sub-paragraphs 1(1)(a) and 1(1)(b). The amendments improve the drafting of paragraph 1 consequent upon the amendments made at Committee stage which inserted the definition in paragraph 5 of the schedule of "existing employees of the Scottish Boards". More importantly, however, the amendments will allow the Secretary of State to regulate the position of vesting day employees of the Scottish boards in relation to both superannuation schemes.
I should explain that existing employees of the hydro board at the Cruachan pumped storage station will be transferred to the south company but will have the option of remaining in the hydro board superannuation fund. We are clearly anxious to ensure not only that they should be enabled to continue to participate in the north scheme, but also that they should subsequently be able to join the south scheme without losing the protections enshrined in the Bill. My noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy has already recounted to the House his narrow escape from being tipped from a bucket into the loch on Ben Cruachan when the station was under construction, a fate from which he was apparently saved by Scottish Office officials. I have to tell your Lordships that if they are not minded to agree to these amendments, I may not be so lucky! I understand that we have trade union agreement. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendments Nos. 174B to 174G:
Page 127, line 2, leave out ("North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board") and insert ("Scottish Boards").
Page 127, line 3, after ("Scheme") insert ("or the South Scheme").
Page 127, line 5, leave out paragraph (b).
Page 127, line 9, after ("prescribed;") insert—
("(cc) for enabling either scheme, or both schemes, to be wound up (in whole or in part) in such circumstances as may be prescribed;").
Page 128, line 33, leave out ("the North Scheme") and insert ("either scheme").
Page 128, line 34, leave out from ("above") to end of line 36.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 109 [General interpretation]:
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 175:
Page 71, line 9, at end insert—
("(2) For the purposes of this Act any class or description may be framed by reference to any matters or circumstances whatever.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this has been debated. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 17 [Transitional provisions and savings]:
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 176:
Page 146, line 33, at beginning insert—
("(1) Any land compulsorily acquired by an Electricity Board before the transfer date which was so acquired by virtue of Part I of Schedule 3 to this Act, or is treated as so acquired for the purposes of that Part, shall be treated for those purposes as so acquired by the appropriate successor company; but nothing in paragraph 4 of that Schedule (as applied by this sub-paragraph) shall be taken as requiring the consent of the Director to any disposal which is effected in pursuance of a provision included in a transfer scheme by virtue of section (Transfer schemes under sections 66 and 67(2)(c)) of this Act or in pursuance of Schedule 10 to this Act.
(2)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 177:
Page 149, line 17, leave out ("and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 177, I speak also to Amendment No. 178. These are technical amendments. At present Section 10(3) of the Electricity (Scotland) Act 1979 enables the Secretary of State to authorise the extension of existing works in a constructional scheme (the procedure whereby consent is given at present for hydro-electric developments in Scotland) if he is satisfied that the additional works are of a minor character. This allows such work to be done without the preparation of a constructional scheme. It is known that authorisations have been made under the terms of Section 10(3) of the 1979 Act. Accordingly it is necessary to ensure that, notwithstanding the repeal of Section 10 by the Electricity Bill, any such authorisation should continue to have effect in relation to the appropriate successor companies to the Scottish boards. This amendment inserts such a transitional provision into Schedule 17 and on that basis I commend it to the House. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 178:
Page 149, line 19, at end insert ("and
(c) any authorisation of a Scottish Board under section 10(3) of that Act to execute works of a minor character without the preparation of a constructional scheme,").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 18 [Repeals]:
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 179:
Page 152, line 5, at end insert—

("51 & 52 Vict. c. 12.

The Electric Lighting Act 1888.

The whole Act,").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, these are technical amendments. With your Lordships' leave, I shall speak to Amendment No. 180 also. These technical amendments are consequential to the amendment which was accepted earlier by your Lordships on the introduction into the Bill of a new provision in Schedule 4 for protection from interference. The first amendment repeals existing legislation on such protection. The second repeals the provision in the Telecommunications Act 1984 which amended that legislation. I commend them to your Lordships. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 180:
Page 158, line 22, column 3, at end insert (",8").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 111 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 181:
Page 72, line 5, leave out ("paragraphs 11 and 14") and insert ("paragraph 11").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is simply a drafting amendment. Your Lordships will recall that in Committee we agreed to delete paragraph 14 from what was then Schedule 14. That paragraph proposed a change to the Capital Allowances Act 1968 to allow in the reference to the term "electricity undertaking" in Section 7(5) of that Act to the terminology of this Bill. The capital allowances legislation is currently being consolidated. The amendment to Section 7(5) of the 1968 Act is now to be undertaken as part of that exercise. The amendment simply brings the drafting of Clause 111 into line with the decision to delete paragraph 14 from what is now Schedule 16. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.

Control of Smoke Pollution Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
International Parliamentary Organisations (Registration) Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
Parking Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendment agreed to.
Licensing (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
Common Land (Rectification of Registers) Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
Nottingham Park Estate Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.

St. George's Hill, Weybridge Estate Bill
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
House adjourned at eight o'clock.

  NUCLEAR WASTE: TRANSPORT VIA WANDSWORTH ROAD STATION
  NUCLEAR WASTE: TRANSPORT VIA WANDSWORTH ROAD STATION
  DISCONTINUED DENOMINATIONAL SCHOOL PROPERTY: SALE
  DISCONTINUED DENOMINATIONAL SCHOOL PROPERTY: SALE
  HORTICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
  HORTICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
  EXPERIMENTAL HUSBANDRY AND HORTICULTURAL CENTRES
  EXPERIMENTAL HUSBANDRY AND HORTICULTURAL CENTRES