Sitting of 18 July 1989

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

  PRIVATE BUSINESS
  LONDON DOCKLANDS RAILWAY (BECKTON) BILL (By Order)
  Lords amendments agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions
  EMPLOYMENT

    Strikes
    Mr. Riddick: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has any plans to legislate on the subject of strike action in the public sector; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Bowis: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will seek to withdraw trade union immunities from strike action in monopoly public services.
    The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Norman Fowler): In the light of recent disputes the Government are reviewing the law on industrial action. We will bring forward any proposals in due course.
    Mr. Riddick: I welcome the review. May I suggest, however, that a possible way forward would be to remove the legal immunities enjoyed by trade unions during strike action, particularly in public service monopolies? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the decision by the National Union of Railwaymen to continue its strike after the other two rail unions had accepted British Rail's offer is almost unbelievable and utterly disgraceful? Does it not show that the NUR does not give a damn about the travelling public?
    Mr. Fowler: I agree entirely with what my hon. Friend says about the decision itself—it was a deplorable decision, and one which caused hardship to many people. I can only hope that the NUR will think again about its policy. As for the review, we shall obviously consider the whole position and, as I have said, bring forward proposals in due course.
    Mr. Bowis: Does my right hon. Friend agree that far too many strikes take place in the public as opposed to the private sector? Does he also agree that there are far too many monopolies in the public sector? While any strike is to be deplored, the effects of strikes in the monopoly public services go far beyond the people directly involved in the industrial action, hitting those who cannot use alternative
    204
    provision, either because there is no such provision or because they cannot afford it. Should not my right hon. Friend take action to protect the vulnerable in our society?
    Mr. Fowler: As I have said, we are reviewing the legal position. As an immediate step, I think that the NUR should accept the tribunal award, as have the other unions concerned. I do not believe that the public will understand if one of the unions keeps the strike going. We want an end to the dispute and so do the public—and so, I believe, do most railwaymen.
    Mr. Grocott: Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to condemn people in well-paid jobs, including Ministers, who are always attacking those in low-paid jobs for taking industrial action to improve their standard of living?
    Mr. Fowler: No one is attacking anyone at this point. [Interruption.] We are saying that the NUR should follow the example of the other two unions and accept the tribunal award. It would come well from the Opposition—particularly the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher)—to condemn industrial action which is causing unnecessary hardship to many thousands of people.
    Mr. Cryer: Does the Secretary of State not realise that the same sort of attack was made on the trade union movement in pre-war Fascist Germany? As the Prime Minister who appointed the right hon. Gentleman—and who may well be shifting him—supports trade unions in Poland, will he tell her that trade unions in this country should also have rights, which should not be confined to Poland? Why should not the NUR make its own decision after the weeks and months of deception on the part of British Rail management, which has betrayed agreements and continually gone behind the union's back, especially in the courts?
    Mr. Fowler: I believe that the vast majority of people want the NUR to accept the tribunal's decision. The other two unions involved in the dispute have accepted it, and it is incomprehensible that the NUR has taken its present position.
    The purpose of industrial relations legislation is to protect the public, and every poll carried out shows that our trade union legislation is supported by the vast majority.
    Mr. Devlin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that since 1979 there have been three times as many strikes in the public sector as in the private sector? Does that not make the case for further privatisation and also for the further regulation of public sector unions, whose strike action inevitably hits the most vulnerable people?
    Mr. Fowler: No decision has yet been taken on privatisation. I repeat that the immediate action that can be taken now is for the NUR to call off the industrial action and accept the tribunal's award, which has already been accepted by the two other unions.
    Mr. Wallace: Does the Secretary of State believe in the basic right of an employee to withdraw his or her labour?
    Mr. Fowler: There is, of course, a right to strike, but I think that the hon. Gentleman and also the public would expect us to look at strikes in the public services. We are not alone in doing that. Other European countries are

    205
    having similar problems. I have already said that we shall review the position, and that is what we shall do. When we have reached conclusions, we shall announce them.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will my right hon. Friend accept from me that my constituents in Kent are fed up with strikes in the public services and with the posturing of national union officers? Is it not a fact that the losers are not only the public but public servants in the south-east and that we should be far better served by regional pay and local negotiations?
    Mr. Fowler: That is obviously one of the issues in the dispute, but I think that what the public and the railwaymen want is an end to the dispute. Apparently, only the NUR executive wants the dispute to continue. I very much hope that the Labour party will make it clear this afternoon that it, too, wants the industrial action to be called off.
    Mr. Meacher: Will the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge and make clear that a ban on public sector strikes—something which the Government talked about during the dispute—is a daft idea? It did not work during the second word war, it was specifically rejected by the Government in 1981, it is not operated in other European countries and it is simply an invitation to provocation by management. Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that if he seriously wants to safeguard essential services, as we all do, he would do far better if, rather than withdrawing fundamental democratic rights, he sought to improve the arbitrary and inept mismanagement that we have seen so often in the public sector in recent years?
    Mr. Fowler: As I have made clear, we are reviewing the law on industrial relations. We shall make our proposals known after the review. The whole House will have noted that the hon. Member for Oldham, West has taken his line straight from the NUR executive. He has offered not one word of condemnation of the industrial action. The fact is that however damaging or irresponsible any industrial action is, the hon. Gentleman will always support it.

    Employment Training
    Mr. Janner: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received concerning the eligibility requirements for employment training.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Patrick Nicholls): Representations are received from time to time. The eligibility conditions for employment training are sufficiently widely drawn to help those who are most disadvantaged in the labour market.
    Mr. Janner: Is it correct that the Department of Employment has given instructions to employment service managers that the number of people to be admitted to or referred for employment training must be increased by 50 per cent? If that is true, does it not mean that people will be put on employment training who are totally unsuitable for it and that this is yet another of the Government's efforts to fiddle the unemployment figures?
    Mr. Nicholls: No, the employment training programme is the most successful programme so far to train the adult unemployed to get themselves back into the world of work. The programme is supported by a great number of
    206
    Labour-controlled authorities. There is no question of its being compulsory or of trying to force people to train. The Government are anxious that anyone who has it in him to benefit from the sort of training available should do so.
    Mr. Simon Coombs: Does my hon. Friend recognise that in some parts of the country the number of people available for employment training is diminishing rapidly? Will he therefore examine carefully the need for a flexible policy to ensure that the additional cost per head is allowed for in Government budgeting for the future of the scheme?
    Mr. Nicholls: My hon. Friend is entirely right to draw attention to the consequences for employment training of the declining unemployment rate. He may have wondered why the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) did not remind the House that the percentage fall in unemployment in his constituency for the year ending June 1989 was 19·2 per cent. We accept that funding arrangements have to be kept under review.

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Maples: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are employed in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Fowler: In March 1989 the work force in employment in the United Kingdom was 26,685,000. This represents an increase of nearly 600,000 since March 1988 and is the highest level of employment ever in this country.
    Mr Maples: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the increase in the general level of employment in Britain has resulted in a fall in the level of unemployment in my constituency of more than 20 per cent. in the past 12 months? What is the level of unemployment in Greater London and how many vacancies are registered there?
    Mr Fowler: Greater London has an unemployment rate of about 5 per cent. In Greater London generally, unemployment has fallen by more than 24 per cent. in the year to June 1989. Overall, there are now 226,000 vacancies in jobcentres around the country and we estimate that there are 600,000 vacancies in the economy generally. In Greater London there are about 25,000 vacancies in jobcentres and more than 100,000 in the economy. There is therefore no reason why unemployment should not continue to fall, provided that pay settlements are reasonable and strikes are avoided.
    Mr. James Lamond: Why does not the Secretary of State give us the other side of the picture? For example, more than 15,000 people have lost jobs in the textile industry this year alone. There is never a statement from the Dispatch Box, like the one boasting of the Honda investment, about the closure by Courtaulds in the north-west.
    Mr. Fowler: Obviously, there are areas where unemployment has been more difficult and has risen in contrast with other areas. The hon. Gentleman will know that the rate of employment in the north-west has reduced at a faster rate than most other areas of the country.

    Employment Training
    Mr. Hardy: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many officials of the Manpower Services Commission are directly involved in the supervision of employment training; and what is the average number of schemes and participants for which each such officer is responsible.
    Mr. Nicholls: Around 1,500 staff in the Training Agency's area offices are involved in the administration of employment training. These staff are engaged in a range of duties, including checking claims and authorising payments, monitoring schemes and general office duties. Taking into account these different functions, on average there is about one member of staff per training agent or manager, or one member of staff per 130 trainees.
    Mr. Hardy: That scarcely suggests that there are sufficient resources to provide a proper response when there are grounds for serious concern about any particular scheme, as is the case with one scheme in the metropolitan borough of Rotherham, about which my hon. Friends and I have been in correspondence with the Minister.
    Mr. Nicholls: I do not accept that the figures show any such thing. I can only repeat the offer that I made to the hon. Gentleman as long ago as May—that if he and his hon. Friends wish to see me to discuss a particular scheme I shall be more than happy to do so. Certainly his views would not be shared by his own metropolitan borough council—a Labour-controlled council which is involved in employment training as a training manager and provides 175 places.
    Mr. Baldry: Does not employment training provide high-quality training for those in the work force or the potential work force who might otherwise find it difficult to obtain skills training? It is not the case that 18 per cent. of those on employment training have literacy or numeracy difficulties, 11 per cent. come from ethnic minorities, 12 per cent. have physical disabilities and 50 per cent. come from inner cities? Those groups need to be targeted to bring them into the labour force. Instead of carping, the Labour party should be applauding these initiatives.
    Mr. Nicholls: My hon. Friend has it exactly. At a time when unemployment is coming down dramatically—in the constituency of the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy), for example, it has fallen by 27·7 per cent. in the past year—those still unemployed find it harder to get back to work. The whole climate of employment training and the various waivers of eligibility criteria are designed to ensure that those most in need of help obtain the help that they need.

    Trade Unions
    Mr. Adley: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many official meetings he has had with trades union leaders since assuming his present office.
    The Minister of State, Department of Employment Mr. John Cope): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has regular meetings with trade union leaders, as do all other Employment Ministers.
    Mr. Adley: I welcome that answer, but does my right hon. Friend not agree that there is a slight incongruity in his reply and the fact that Ministers at the Department of Transport with responsibility for British Rail have not met the unions for a year? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the intransigence of the National Union of Railwaymen, which we have seen in the past few hours holding the jobs of other workers to ransom, is one reason why there is an urgent need to restructure the trade unions in the railways and replace three trade unions with one? Does my right hon. Friend see any role for his officials in trying to bring that process forward?
    Mr. Cope: As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, the way out of the present difficulty is for the NUR to accept the 8·8 per cent. offer arising from the tribunal's decision. The Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service is, of course, always available to help both sides in any dispute and it, rather than my officials, is the proper body to approach.
    Mr. Wilson: If the Minister gets around to meeting trade union leaders, will he place on the agenda the plight of 16 and 17-year-olds? Does he realise that one of the risks of meeting trade union leaders is that the bogus unemployment statistics that Ministers use so freely may be challenged? Does he accept that according to statistics supplied by the House of Commons Library, fully one quarter of the alleged drop in unemployment in Scotland between April 1988 and April 1989 is accounted for by the simple device of removing all 16 and 17-year-olds from the unemployment register? More than 18,000 Scottish unemployed 16 and 17-year-olds were claiming benefit in April 1988. In April 1989, there were none. Does the Minister regard that as a success for Government policy or for statistical sleight of hand?
    Mr. Cope: No trade union leaders whom we have met recently have raised that matter. There are plenty of youth training scheme places available in all areas, including the hon. Gentleman's own area. That is the most important point. All the statistics are published and made available. on a proper international basis.

    Secondary Industrial Action
    Sir Michael Shaw: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many complaints about secondary picketing or secondary action have been received by the trade union commissioner; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Cope: I understand that no applications for assistance have so far been made to the commissioner in connection with secondary action or picketing.
    Sir Michael Shaw: I welcome that reply, but does my right hon. Friend not agree that the Government's action in changing the law has been received well and has been of real benefit not only to all those engaged in industry, but to the general public?
    Mr. Cope: Yes, I think that it has been an exceptionally beneficial measure, which we introduced among other trade union reforms. It would be exceptionally damaging if it were reversed, as the Labour party intends.
    Mr. Madden: Will the Minister confirm that there have been no complaints about secondary picketing arising from the dispute at Ever-Sure Textiles in Sheffield, where

    209
    the workers—predominantly women—are in the fifth week of a strike and trying to persuade management to grant trade union recognition? Does he understand that the women concerned, who when in work receive £61 for a 38-hour week, are anxious to obtain trade union recognition and to improve wages and conditions of employment? Will he urge the management of Ever-Sure Textiles to get back to the ACAS talks so that this unhappy dispute can be resolved quickly?
    Mr. Cope: I do not intend to intervene in the dispute. No applications for assistance about secondary action in the case the hon. Gentleman mentioned or in others, have been received by the commissioner.

    Strikes
    Mr. Colvin: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many days were lost through strikes in the first quarter of the current year and in the same period of 1979; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Fowler: In the first quarter of this year, 175,000 working days were lost through strikes. During the first quarter of 1979, in the period of the last Labour Government, the number of working days lost through strikes was 6,724,000.
    Mr. Colvin: What is all this talk about a summer of discontent? On the basis of those figures, the position during Labour's winter of discontent was 40 times worse than the present situation. Does my right hon. Friend acknowledge that industrial disputes in the public sector are three times more likely than in the private sector and that if we want industrial peace in public transport, whether among railway workers or air traffic controllers, we should either ban strikes or privatise the industries, or both?
    Mr. Fowler: I have already said that privatisation is a longer-term issue. We are reviewing industrial relations law and will make our announcements in due course. I think that most hon. Members want an end to the current dispute and want the NUR to accept the offer that is now being made.
    Mr. John P. Smith: Does the Minister recognise that the primary reason for the reduction in strikes since 1979 was mass unemployment—topping 3 million—and the decimation of whole tracts of the industrial sector? Does he recognise that much of the legislation passed during that time has been irrelevant, which is why we now have an upsurge in strikes?
    Mr. Fowler: I do not accept that. Every opinion poll has shown that the public value the changes in the law that have been introduced since 1979. I know few people who want to return to the kind of conditions that we had before 1979. The only exception is the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher).
    Mr. Roger King: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the great changes that has occurred since 1979 is that working people and management have worked much more closely together in providing pay and conditions based on productivity and an understanding that unless they produce the right goods at the right price their jobs and future prosperity are at risk?
    Mr. Fowler: That is right. Over the past year, there has been a record increase in the number of jobs created. One of the lessons learnt from the 1970s was that industrial action and strikes not only lost jobs but exported our jobs overseas. I do not think that anyone wants to return to that situation. That is why it is so eccentric of the Labour party to put forward proposals to extend secondary action and secondary picketing.
    Mr. Fatchett: Does not the Secretary of State realise that later figures for this year show a substantial increase in the number of days lost through industrial action? How does he explain that increase? Is it because of the Government's failure to handle inflation? Is it because senior management are paying themselves up to a 200 per cent. wage increase? Is it because the present Secretary of State believes that he has a personal career interest in generating conflict in industry?
    Mr. Fowler: I make it absolutely clear where we and the Government stand. We want to see an end not only to this dispute but to other industrial disputes. The public certainly want the railway dispute to end, as do most railwaymen. The most indicative part of the debate this afternoon has been the way in which the Opposition Front Bench avoided every opportunity of condemning industrial action and of urging the NUR to follow the example of the other two unions, the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen and the Transport Salaried Staffs Association, and to accept the tribunal's arbitration decision. The public will draw their own conclusions about the Opposition's attitude.
    Mr. Gow: Is it my right hon. Friend's view that today's strike and any future strike called by the NUR are unjustified and unjustifiable? Is it his view that it is in the best interests of every member of the NUR, of every employee of British Rail, of British Rail and of the travelling public that this strike should cease at once?
    Mr. Fowler: Yes, that is entirely my view, and it is also the view of the overwhelming majority of the public and of all the travelling public. I think that the message that should go out is that this strike should be called off. It is against the public interest, and the sooner it is called off, the better it will be for everyone concerned.

    Employment Training
    Ms. Ruddock: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information he has about the number of employment training placements in the Greater London region.
    Mr. Nicholls: We estimate that more than 12,100 people on employment training in the London region are on placements with employers or projects on any one day.
    Ms. Ruddock: Is the Minister aware that his figures conceal the fact that there has been a cut in places which greatly exceeds the cut in the level of unemployment in Greater London. Is he trying to run down the Deptford skill centre? If not, how does he explain the fact that the number of students on the plumbing course has gone down from nine to four, that no tool kits are provided and that there is no instructor? Could it possibly be because the skill centre is based on prime development land? Does this not

    211
    make a complete nonsense of the £14 billion employment training advertising campaign that the Government are promoting?
    Mr. Nicholls: No, it does not. If the hon. Lady looked at the success of employment training, she would see that it has been very substantial. That success is apparently shared in by her London borough, because at the time of the original contracting for places to provide employment training, her local Labour-controlled authority expressed an interest in the scheme. It is quite obvious that, when the unemployment figures are falling, there may be a reduction in training places. The point is that this scheme provides places for those who want to be trained. That is something in which the hon. Lady should take delight and not denigrate.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government have got their figures wrong in terms of employment training simply because, in their wildest dreams, they could not have expected unemployment to come down as quickly as it has? Will he confirm that many private employers are now providing a great deal more training as an incentive for people to join their companies, and that this is to be welcomed—indeed, it should be welcomed by both sides of the House?
    Mr. Nicholls: My hon. Friend is exactly right. We never predicted the extent to which the unemployment figures would fall. The fall has been even larger than the Labour party said it would achieve with policies that have failed in the past. The important thing about the programme is that it is working and that it has the increasing commitment of the employer community. It has shown that it can get unemployed people back to work, and it has the support of local authorities throughout the country, many of them Labour controlled. The only place where the scheme is constantly denigrated is in the House, by Opposition Members.
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: The whole House will have noted that the Under-Secretary of State has totally failed to answer the original supplementary question. Let me repeat it for his benefit. Will he comment on the quality of a scheme where trainees are supposedly on a plumbing course but there is no instructor and no tool kit? Is this not typical of employment training? Why does he not respond to that? Secondly, will he respond to the question about whether the Government intend to run down the Deptford skill centre—the number of instructors at the end of August will be two thirds what it is now—because, as planning permission has already been granted on that site, it is worth far more as a piece of real estate than it is as a place for skills training?
    Mr. Nicholls: It should be obvious from everything that I have said that the Government are totally committed to having a training programme which is of a proper quality. If the hon. Gentleman has a particular case where he believes that those high standards of training have fallen down, there is no reason why he cannot bring it to my, or my right hon. Friend's attention, and we will look at it. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman tries to pretend, by coming to the Dispatch Box with case details which we do not have, that that says something about the quality of the programme, but all it does is say something about the quality of Labour's opposition to the employment figures coming down.

    Quota Exemptions
    Mr. Ashley: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what guidelines are issued to his Department's staff regarding the distribution of quota exemption permits to employers.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. John Lee): Instructions to disablement resettlement officers require them to consider the availability of suitably registered disabled people, and the degree of commitment shown by employers towards meeting their obligations under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944.
    Mr Ashley: Does the Minister recognise that more than three quarters of firms do not fulfil their quota obligation to ensure that disabled people make up 3 per cent. of their work force? Is he aware that more than half of those firms receive a permit from the Department to enable them to evade their responsibilities to disabled people? Does the Minister accept that the Department is showering firms with permits as though they were confetti—18,500 of them—making a mockery of the quota system? The Minister should advocate granting permits only in exceptional circumstances when there are no disabled people available to do the job, which is not so today, with two thirds of disabled people looking for jobs.
    Mr. Lee: The right hon. Gentleman will know that we are examining the quota system as part of our wider review. The first draft of the review document is with Ministers now. The right hon. Gentleman said that we had been showering permits on firms. In fact, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, the numbers have been constant for some years.
    Mr. Evennett: Will my hon. Friend examine ways in which the public sector can increase the number of disabled people who are employed?
    Mr. Lee: We are always doing just what my hon. Friend suggests and I also stress that the Government have spent substantial amounts of money on help for the disabled—about£220 million in mainstream employment terms and a further £128 million on specific programmes in 1988–89.
    Mr. Wareing: Would it not make more sense if. instead of making threats about abolishing the quota system, the Minister made a positive attempt to ensure that the system worked? For example, when will the number of disablement resettlement officers be restored to its 1979 level? Should not the Minister be keen to help disabled people rather than trying to ruin the existing system which is being destroyed by his Government's policies through the Department's allocation of permits?
    Mr. Lee: As I have said, the Government are spending a substantial amount in trying to help disabled people in a host of ways. I resent the hon. Gentleman's claim that we are threatening the quota system. That is far from the truth. I am saying only that the quota system is being examined sensibly as part of our overall review. In addition, I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that the Public Accounts Committee questioned the quota system and pointed out that it was costing £1·4 million to administer.
    Mr. Sayeed: Does my hon. Friend agree that surveys show that disabled people give loyal, capable and consistent service? Will his Department point out to employers just how valuable disabled people are and encourage them to employ more, voluntarily?
    Mr. Lee: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We believe in a policy of promoting the employment of disabled people by good practice rather than by legislation and with the increasing tightening of the labour market there are greater opportunities than ever before for the employment of disabled people.

    Employment Training
    Mr. Wallace: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is now the number of organisations who are contracted to provide places under employment training.
    Mr. Nicholls: There are 1,307 organisations which are contracted with the Training Agency to provide training as training managers. A further 180 organisations are contracted to provide assessment as training agents.
    Mr. Wallace: In a written answer to the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) on 6 July, the Minister said that of the 23 large company employment training schemes, almost half had fewer than 50 per cent. of the maximum number of places allowed taken up. Apparently, the drop-out rate has been accelerating. Given that employment training is the only scheme available for the long-term unemployed and as someone who therefore wants that scheme to work, may I ask the Minister whether he accepts that those figures are unsatisfactory? What assessment has he made of what has gone wrong and what does he propose to do about it?
    Mr. Nicholls: For someone who expresses his commitment to employment training, the hon. Gentleman makes a highly selective use of the information given in parliamentary answers. The hon. Gentleman should look at the total number of placements provided by employers as training managers at both national and area level. If he examines the employer placements provided by many major national companies he will find that there are more than 14,000 places available in training managerships and a great many employment placements with major employers who are not training managers.
    Mr. Loyden: Does the Minister agree that the reason for the drop outs and the low take-up is that, with few exceptions, the employment training scheme is a sham? Evidence shows that in many areas many of the schemes are closing down because the places are not being taken up.
    Mr. Nicholls: No. That is just about as far from the truth as it could possibly be. The training programme has the support not only of Conservative-controlled authorities, but of many Labour-controlled authorities. It is that cross-party and cross-community support that helps to make the scheme so successful. The shame of the Liverpool city council, as the hon. Gentleman will know, is that it went further than merely not joining in; it actually tried to boycott the employment training programme. That says
    214
    something about the real commitment of Left-wing councils to doing something positive to help those who need help.

    Tourism
    Mr. Raffan: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he intends announcing the outcome of, and decisions arising from, his Department's review of tourism initiated in July 1988.
    Mr. Lee: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 6 July to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan) at column 278.
    Mr. Raffan: By asking the British Tourist Authority to devolve greater authority to its overseas regions, does my hon. Friend risk the possibility of more uniform and so less effective promotion of Wales overseas?
    Mr. Lee: Not at all. As a result of the findings of our review, we are asking the BTA to put more of its marketing effort and more of its personnel abroad at the sharp end. The problem at present, in our view, is that its staff is concentrated very much in this country. Of a total complement of 460 staff, only 170 are overseas.
    Mr. Cryer: In the review, has the Minister ensured that people working in the tourist industry have the right to join trade unions, and that the trade unions are given the opportunity to recruit in the tourist industry to ensure decent wages and working conditions in an industry which is notorious for the lack of either? Does he agree with his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that, if trade unions are good enough for Poland, they are good enough for our workers?
    Mr. Lee: I get a little upset when hon. Gentlemen, such as the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), knock the wage levels in the tourist industry. The truth is that the remuneration packages in the industry are increasing all the time. It is being increasingly seen as an attractive industry to join. I remind the hon. Gentleman that no other industry is creating jobs at the rate of nearly 1,000 net new jobs a week.
    Mr. Key: Does my hon. Friend accept that the Government's record of steady and modest support for the tourist industry is one of great success on which they should be congratulated? Will he, however, have a word with the chairman of English Heritage to press on him the importance of a speedy decision on the future of Stonehenge?
    Mr. Lee: On my hon. Friend's latter point, either I will have a word with the chairman of English Heritage or I will ask my successor to do so.

    Employment Training
    Mrs. Mahon: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information he has about the number of ET placements in the Yorkshire and Humberside region.
    Mr. Nicholls: We estimate that more than 19,100 people on employment training in the Yorkshire and Humberside region are on placements with employers or projects on any one day.
    Mrs. Mahon: Can I bring the Minister back to the quality of some of those placements and tell him of the experience of my constituent, Michael Pickles, who answered an advertisement in the Graduate Post for a qualification in higher management? He spent four months doing nothing and, when he complained, he found out that the course was for a BTech diploma that he could have obtained with 60 hours of correspondence learning. He has complained to the Minister's Department. Many of the post graduate courses are, in fact, rubbish.
    Mr. Nicholls: I would give a fraction more credibility to the hon. Lady's account if she had raised it with me in correspondence. If she wants to do so now, I shall he more than happy to look into the matter. Mercifully, the hon. Lady's attitude is not shared by all those responsible local authorities in her locality. I have no doubt that she will be pleased to record that the local authority careers service is a training agent for Calderdale, but perhaps she would have disparaging things to say about it as well.

    Strikes
    Mr. David Davis: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the ratio of strikes in the public sector to those in the private sector; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Cope: In 1988 the average number of working days lost per employee through strikes in the public sector was just under three times the average for the private sector.
    Mr. Davis: Does my right hon. Friend agree that that reflects the public's perception when they see strikes on television because those strikes are invariably in the public sector, not in the Marks and Spencer or Sainsbury of the private sector? Does my right hon. Friend further agree that we should address that issue at its fundamental point and deal with the fact that it is the state sector monopolies that are causing the strikes and set about returning many of them to a competitive private sector role at an even faster rate than we are doing?
    Mr. Cope: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend in principle. As he knows, studies are in progress on the privatisation of British Rail. However, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said earlier, that is obviously a longer-term issue than the present dispute.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Ward: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 18 July.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. I also attended the ceremony to mark the arrival of his Highness the President of the United Arab Emirates. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I shall be attending a state banquet at Buckingham palace.
    Mr. Ward: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the borough of Poole on the award of a European flag for clean beaches and bathing waters? Will she remind those people who are leaving these shores for
    216
    polluted beaches elsewhere in Europe that the Environment Commissioner of the EEC has complimented this country and has said that no other country in Europe has a greater awareness of environmental problems?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I gladly join my hon. Friend in congratulating the borough of Poole. I also thank the dockers of Poole for returning to work. I note the contrast with many less desirable resorts overseas. I am glad that the European Commissioner has at last congratulated my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment on the way in which this country is vigorously tackling its environmental problems, in contrast to the way in which the Labour Government failed to tackle them when they were in power. Under the EC directive, which we are now following, we have enabled the water authorities to spend £100 million per year to comply with that directive. Britain is the only European Community country with a programme to ensure full compliance in the 1990s.
    Mr. Kinnock: Will the Prime Minister tell us why, after 10 years of her Government, it is necessary to trawl Holland, Germany, Denmark, Australia, Barbados and other countries in a desperate search for trained teachers?
    The Prime Minister: Perhaps because we have a bigger proportion of teachers to pupils than was ever the case under the Labour Government—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Kinnock: The Prime Minister must be the only mother or grandmother in the land who does not realise that there is a great and growing shortage of primary school teachers and of teachers of science, maths and languages in secondary schools. She must also be unaware that her policies are making matters even worse. How can the right hon. Lady and her Ministers inflict on other people's children problems that they would never accept for their own children?
    The Prime Minister: I tell the right hon. Gentleman again that we have a bigger proportion of teachers to pupils than was ever the case, or was ever thought of, under the Labour Government. Classes have got smaller and we have a better curriculum and, yes, we have flexible pay to enable us to attract more maths, science and physics teachers, in whom I am particularly interested.
    Mr. Bowis: Will my right hon. Friend find time to make it clear that in the view of the Government, it can never be right to use industrial action against the old, sick and young—[Interruption.]—as is now happening because of the NALGO dispute? Will she also make it clear that it can never be right to be silent on such an issue, as right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench are silent?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I totally agree with my hon. Friend. The Opposition talk about compassion, but some of the unions do not practise it when it comes to the point. I also notice that in the railway strike, two of the unions went through the proper procedures, one to independent arbitration, and accepted the results of that arbitration and their members are prepared and ready to go back to work. The third union, under the militants on its executive, did not. The question is which unions do Opposition

    217
    Members support—those who follow the procedure or those who do not and who are prepared to put the public to great inconvenience?
    Mr. Bradley: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 18 July 1989.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Bradley: In the light of the comments by the Junior Health Minister, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, that the current financial crisis in the National Health Service shows that the figures are meaningless and misleading, may I ask the Prime Minister urgently to review the agenda for South Manchester health authority's meeting this coming Thursday, which proposes £1·2 million worth of cuts, the shedding of 100 health care posts and the option of compulsory redundancies? Will the right hon. Lady give assurances to the people of Manchester that extra resources will be made immediately available to meet the health needs of the mentally ill and the elderly of south Manchester?
    The Prime Minister: Having allocated enormous extra sums to the NHS, the service is not in crisis. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that for every £1 that Labour spent on the NHS per year, we are spending £3 per year. We have made available £2 billion by way of additional funding, which was announced at the time of the Autumn Statement, and since then £204 million has been made available to cover costs arising from doctors' and nurses' pay awards, plus £40 million of additional funding. That is a massive amount of extra funding because under the Conservatives the economy is successful and can afford it.
    As to the situation at the Withington hospital, about which the hon. Gentleman asked me, a 24-bed ward containing 21 patients has been temporarily closed, but the patients will continue to be cared for. Between 15 and 17 of them will be moved to other places within that unit. The remainder may be discharged, but only if the doctors are satisfied—[Interruption.] I have been asked the question. Opposition Members may not like them, but I have the answers—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister.
    The Prime Minister: The remainder will be discharged if the doctors are satisfied that their treatment has been satisfactorily completed and that the necessary support services are on hand for their aftercare.

    Labour Statistics
    Sir Michael Shaw: To ask the Prime Minister if she will make a statement about the fall in unemployment since June 1987.
    The Prime Minister: Since June 1987, the level of unemployment, seasonally adjusted, in the United Kingdom has fallen by 1,047,900 to 6·3 per cent. The number of people in work is an all-time record at 26,685,000.
    Sir Michael Shaw: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is she aware that her statement shows that in the months ahead, the firm economic policies that have been
    218
    pursued by the Government will not only provide reduced inflation, but will do so at no cost to the greater opportunities for employment that now exist?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. Our overriding priority now is to bring down inflation. That will ensure that we can maintain prosperity and continue to create more jobs because inflation in the long run is the enemy of more jobs. This is totally different from the policy of Opposition Members, who I understand are on record as wanting a less deflationary emphasis throughout the economy, which of course would lead to more inflation, which is a policy to which they are used.
    Mr. Turner: Was it the Prime Minister's decision or that of her Secretary of State for Employment to instruct Training Agency managers not to give information on filled employment training places to Members of Parliament? What is there to hide? Is that not an infringement of the rights and responsibilities of Members of Parliament?
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend's policy is to give as much information as he possibly can, particularly on training, where the Government's policies have been an outstanding success.
    Mr. William Powell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that unemployment in my constituency has fallen from 8,000 to 1,812 at the latest count? Is she further aware that the main cause for that is the Government's policies? Will she ensure that the good work continues so that unemployment is eliminated completely?
    The Prime Minister: Yes. My hon. Friend's constituency has a particularly good record. It had to diversify when a major plant was closed. The average unemployment figure for the European Community as a whole is 9·3 per cent. whereas for this country it is 6·3 per cent.
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: To ask the Prime Minister is she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 18 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Bennett: Would the Prime Minister be pleased if, after an 8·8 per cent. pay rise, her gross weekly wage came to only £105?
    The Prime Minister: Do I understand that the hon. Gentleman is backing the National Union of Railwaymen in continuing its strikes? [Interruption.] Oh, yes. Now we have the answer and it is what we thought. Labour Members do not back the unions that followed the established procedures, went to independent arbitration and accepted the result. They back the NUR which did not follow the established procedures and refused to accept independent arbitration because it would rather inconvenience the consumer and the travelling public. As always, Labour Members are in hock to the unions.
    Q.6. Mr. Irvine: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 18 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Irvine: Does my right hon. Friend agree that as the volume and importance of European Community legislation increases, so the importance increases of this

    219
    House giving it proper and adequate scrutiny and adapting its procedures to enable it to do so? In particular, does she agree on the importance of enabling the House to debate European Community legislation before it reaches the Council of Ministers?
    The Prime Minister: I recognise my hon. Friend's concern and that of many hon. Members on both sides, that a great deal of legislation is coming from the European Community in connection with the Single European Act. I share my hon. Friend's concern that it should be properly scrutinised by the House. Parliament is central to our activities in a way that it is not in some Community countries. My right hon. Friend the Lord President recently gave evidence to the Select Committee on Procedure and is discussing with the Chairman of the Select Committee on European Legislation possible improvements to the present system. My hon. Friend's remarks accord with what I should like to see happen.
    Miss Lestor: As of yesterday afternoon we, too, became a grandmother—[Interruption.] Would the Prime Minister join me in paying tribute to the team at St. George's hospital, Tooting which assisted in that rather premature birth, particularly to the doctor who delivered the baby? Ten years after the Prime Minister came to power that doctor, had worked from Saturday morning until the delivery at 5 pm on Monday.
    The Prime Minister: First, I gladly congratulate the new grandparents. I am sure that the birth has given them great joy and will continue to do so. I have visited St. George's hospital, Tooting following an accident, and while there I saw the new emergency department. We are naturally anxious to reduce the number of hours that medical staff have to work and we are negotiating to that end. In fact, the average number of hours being worked is less than it used to be, so there has already been some improvement.

Points of Order
3.30 pm
Mr. Harry Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During Prime Minister's Questions, I have become increasingly worried about the Government's practice of stationing a Government Whip at your right hand. The hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) stands at your right hand, Mr. Speaker, and nods approval at everything that the Prime Minister says. If he were wearing a wig, it would look as though you were nodding approval. I know your views, Mr. Speaker, so I think that you should deal with this matter.
Mr. Speaker: I take instructions from no one.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether you have seen the advertisement in The House Magazine in which an hon. Member offers himself for hire as a consultant. It states:
"Hard working Back Bench Tory MP of 10 years standing seeks consultancy in order to widen his range of activities. Please contact Richard Alexander at the House of Commons".
You will no doubt wish to deprecate such a practice, Mr. Speaker. It is not the way that a Member of Parliament should conduct himself. Will you, from your Chair today, deprecate that practice?
Mr. Joseph Ashton: Further to the point of order—
Mr. Speaker: Order. No, that is not a matter for me. If any hon. Member wishes to widen his experience, he has a perfect opportunity to do so through the Industry and Parliament Trust.
Mr. Ashton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to draw your attention to the fact that in the 1970s I wrote an article in Labour Weekly stating that a tiny number of Members of Parliament were available for hire. The House had me up before the Privileges Committee and I was severely censured for contempt of the House, even though it was proved at a later date that three Members had offered their services for hire. I received no pardon or apology. It appears that if a Member writes an article such as mine, he is up before the Privileges Committee for contempt, hut when it is proved later, he gets no recompense.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Is it on the same matter?
Mr. Bennett: It is further to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours).
Mr. Speaker: All right, I will take it.
Mr. Bennett: You may have noticed an advertisement in The House Magazine two weeks ago, Mr. Speaker, offering £8,000 for a secretary to work a 40-hour week, the advertiser having previously offered £6,000 and failed. Applicants were asked to contact "Simon". As Simon is the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), will he now explain why a member of a party that believes in putting up pay should offer such low pay for a secretary?
Mr. Speaker: I believe that we should move on to the debate on teacher shortages, but before doing so there is a Ten-Minute rule motion.

Waterloo to City Line (Privatisation)
3.34 pm
Mr. Ian Taylor: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to privatise the Waterloo to City Line.
On behalf of my constituents, I regret today's absurd disruption of British Rail by the National Union of Railwaymen which may overshadow the specific matter which this Bill addresses. I shall not attempt to comment further on the strike. Later, I shall make critical comments about the management of British Rail. I am not now trying to raise the issue of long-term restructuring of British Rail. The intention of my Bill is to draw the attention of the House—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should have a fair hearing.
Mr. Taylor: The intention of the Bill is to draw the attention of the House to the plight of a particular group of commuters, including many of my constituents, for whom travelling on a certain stretch of British Rail line is a daily, as opposed to an occasional, misery. I refer to the estimated 19,000 people who travel every working day from Waterloo to Bank stations on British Rail's underground Waterloo to City line, which is commonly and appropriately known by those who use it as "the Drain". As one of my constituents said, the passengers sometimes travel in conditions which would not be tolerated for animals by the RSPCA.
The Drain provides a vital rail link, carrying as it does those who have journeyed to Waterloo from all over the south-east to reach their places of work in the City. As this country's financial district has assumed ever-growing importance, so too has the Drain. Since the big bang, the number of passengers arriving at Bank station daily has risen by nearly 5,000. Yet the decline in service over the same period gives little credibility to British Rail's forward planners. [Interruption.]
For those lucky enough not to be familiar with the Drain, I shall give some details to the House. The line was built in 1898. The current rolling stock is only the second generation to operate on this route. It is of pre-war design and has been in use for nearly 50 years.
British Rail admits that the problems of running safely a railway with equipment dating back to the last war or beyond can temporarily overwhelm its capacity to cope. It says "temporarily", but in March this year peak hour services were cancelled for three weeks, when two of the four trains were out of action. When the service does work—between the constant delays, restrictions and cancellations—the trains run every four to six minutes and the journey time takes five minutes. Platform overcrowding at peak times is dangerous and leads to the necessary placing of large warning notices. The line has also variously suffered from flooding, fire, staff shortages and other mechanical problems. One of my constituents has written complaining that the Drain is an accident waiting to happen.
As the director of British Rail's Network SouthEast said in a letter to me only last week:
"We are only too conscious of our failure to provide an acceptable quality of service on this line in recent months."
However, the problem has not arisen merely in recent months; it goes back years. For British Rail, the line is
224
both embarrassing and an embarrassment. However, British Rail intends to seek investment authority from the Secretary of State this summer for new equipment compatible with London Underground's Central line. Why not before? Because, British Rail claims, it is impossible within the constraints of a uniform fare structure in central London to earn an acceptable rate of financial return on the necessary investment, and it is only the use of cost-benefit criteria which permits the proposed application to proceed.
It might help British Rail's analysis if tickets were checked and collected. At Bank station yesterday, the two automatic ticket machines demanded "exact money only" for the single-fare 60p ticket. I purchased mine, but several others around me gave up. My ticket was never collected, and I retain it as a souvenir of British Rail's inefficiency. [Interruption.]
The deputy chairman of the London Regional Passengers Committee urged me in a letter to The Times recently to put pressure on the Treasury to allow British Rail's latest submission for capital expenditure for the Drain to go ahead. But I have little confidence that British Rail is the right organisation to control the investment or to manage the line. It is time that attitudes to, and management and ownership of, the line changed. Major new investment is needed and a strategic plan for the line is required urgently.
For example, can a new station be built at Blackfriars, midway along the line, so that it joins up with the British Rail station and the Circle and District lines? Can the line be extended to link up with the separate underground line between Moorgate station and Finsbury Park? How can the line cope effectively with Channel tunnel passengers arriving at Waterloo in increasing numbers from 1993? How will the line's use contribute to helping the east London transport study, whose conclusions are awaited?
The problems of privatisation of this line cannot be under-estimated. [Interruption] The onus lies on those who stand to benefit from the modernisation and extension of the line—the banks and City institutions whose staff use it, the docklands developers who are worried about access from various points in the docklands and the City of London corporation, which is interested in acting as a sponsor and has told me that it might consider acting also as a financial investor.
I challenge these groups to put to British Rail a proposal that it cannot refuse, even if it means British Rail handing over the line for a nominal sum. [Interruption.] British Rail must go further than being
"quite willing to discuss further outside participation in the line"—
as if a bit more advertising is all that is necessary. Those who use the Drain call it "tarting up" in acknowledgment of the name of the advertiser on the outside of the train.
After all, if the line has proper investment, is extended despite technical problems and becomes reliable for the commuter, British Rail may attract more people into Waterloo, increasing its revenue. British Rail must not give the impression of operating the delaying tactics that some accuse it of doing in working with the private sector in respect of contracts for the Folkestone line, which will become an issue later this year.
This is a great opportunity. How it is structured is for others to decide. I hope that this enabling Bill will provoke an urgent debate and solutions. It is highly significant that there has been a constant barrage from Labour Benches to

225
what I have been saying. That shows a lack of concern for the commuters. Some 19,000 commuters travel from Waterloo to Bank every day. The Labour party cares not a jot for them, which is why the Labour party supports the NUR and its disruption of the services today. My Bill goes some way to alleviating the position of the weary commuter who is trying to earn his and the nation's bread. If that happens, and if the City institutions and others respond, my Bill will have been part of a worthy cause. I urge the House to support it.
3.43 pm
Mr. Tony Banks rose—
Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Gentleman wish to oppose the Bill?
Mr. Banks: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I do.
It is easy for the hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) to make cheap attacks on the railway workers. I remind him that the sort of wages that railway workers get are hardly likely to attract Conservative Members to seek a job on the railways. Conservative Members, particularly those who have a number of well-rewarded consultancy posts, should bear that in mind. I know that the hon. Gentleman gets a fairly sizeable chunk of his income from such positions. He is fairly open about it.
He is to be congratulated on moving the motion, and we are glad to have him with us. Judging by the list of outside jobs that he has, I am surprised that he has the time to be here. The list makes it clear that he should have declared some of the positions, because he will get some special benefit if the Bill were to be passed. He is involved in a number of consultancies which are involved in transportation work. At least he could offer his hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander) some good advice, because he clearly did not have to advertise in The House Magazine to obtain all those consultancies.
The hon. Gentleman said that the Drain, as it is called—the Waterloo and City line—is in a fairly bad state, and I agree. But we do not need any lectures from him or from any other Conservative Member about the appalling lack of investment not only in the Waterloo and City line but in British Rail and London Transport generally in recent years, certainly since 1979. We want to see more investment in the Waterloo and City line and in London Transport generally.
For those who travel around London, travelling on public transport is dirtier and more crowded and expensive than on any other urban transportation system in Europe. That is not mere coincidence; nor is the fact that we spend less on capital investment and less on revenue support on our urban transportation system than any other comparable European city. The problems are the direct result of the Government's policies.
The rolling stock on the Drain dates back to 1940. With the exception of the Isle of Wight, it is the oldest fleet of British Rail rolling stock still operating. The additional safety precautions installed after the Moorgate accident, which ensured that trains approached the terminus at Bank slowly, together with increasing train failures, mean a more restricted service than used to be the case, and
226
service suspensions are happening all too frequently. We agree that that is the case, but the answer is not privatisation; it is more investment.
The hon. Gentleman must know that Network SouthEast is actively developing proposals to renew the trains and the signalling equipment to a common specification to that provided by London Underground's new tube stock. That would avoid the costs and problems associated with commissioning a special build of rolling stock to a unique profile, and make the provision of spares and maintenance easier. However, it ties the time scale for re-equipping the line to that for the new trains being designed for the Central line, and British Rail intends to seek financial authority from the Secretary of State for Transport this summer with delivery of new trains planned for the summer of 1992.
When the hon. Gentleman voiced his constituents' complaints, he did not once plead with the Secretary of State to hasten that investment on the Drain. That is the way to deal with the problems of his constituents who use the Waterloo and City line, not an attempt by the Arthur Daley tendency of the Tory party to get its sticky hands on some more public assets.
If the line were privatised, it would effectively be taken out of London Underground's central zone I tariff, and there would be premium fares, because many fairly well-heeled people and business people use that line. They probably could afford to pay the new fares that a private owner would demand, but many low-paid City workers such as clerks and cleaners also use that line, and they would be forced on to the Northern line because they would not be able to afford those new fares. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman, with all his consultancies and all his experience, did not ask his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for some more investment on the Northern line.
The hon. Gentleman is completely wrong. He has chosen this occasion for some fairly cheap publicity at the expense of over-worked and underpaid railway workers and commuters exploited by the Government, who have failed to invest properly in our public transport system. I want my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote for the Drain to stay in public ownership, so that the only thing that will go down the drain will be the hon. Gentleman's ten-minute Bill.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 ( Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):
The House divided: Ayes 141, Noes 169.

Division No. 305]

[3.49 pm

AYES

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Buck, Sir Antony

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Budgen, Nicholas

Ashby, David

Burns, Simon

Baldry, Tony

Burt, Alistair

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Bellingham, Henry

Carrington, Matthew

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Cash, William

Bevan, David Gilroy

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Cran, James

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Boswell, Tim

Curry, David

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

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

Bowis, John

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Devlin, Tim

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Dickens, Geoffrey

Brazier, Julian

Dunn, Bob

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

227

Evennett, David

Page, Richard

Favell, Tony

Patnick, Irvine

Fishburn, John Dudley

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Fox, Sir Marcus

Pawsey, James

Franks, Cecil

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Fry, Peter

Porter, David (Waveney)

Gale, Roger

Powell, William (Corby)

Gardiner, George

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Gill, Christopher

Rathbone, Tim

Glyn, Dr Alan

Redwood, John

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Rhodes James, Robert

Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

Riddick, Graham

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Rost, Peter

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Rowe, Andrew

Hague, William

Shaw, David (Dover)

Hannam, John

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Haselhurst, Alan

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Hayes, Jerry

Shersby, Michael

Heddle, John

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Hind, Kenneth

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Holt, Richard

Speed, Keith

Hordern, Sir Peter

Stanbrook, Ivor

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Steen, Anthony

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Irvine, Michael

Stokes, Sir John

Jack, Michael

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Jessel, Toby

Sumberg, David

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Temple-Morris, Peter

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Thornton, Malcolm

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Thurnham, Peter

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Trotter, Neville

Latham, Michael

Twinn, Dr Ian

Lawrence, Ivan

Walden, George

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Ward, John

McCrindle, Robert

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Macfarlane, Sir Neil

Wells, Bowen

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Wheeler, John

McLoughlin, Patrick

Widdecombe, Ann

Mans, Keith

Wilkinson, John

Maples, John

Wilshire, David

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Wolfson, Mark

Miller, Sir Hal

Wood, Timothy

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Moss, Malcolm

Mudd, David

Tellers for the Ayes:

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Mr. Michael Brown and Mr. Roger Knapman.

Norris, Steve

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

NOES

Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

Blair, Tony

Allen, Graham

Blunkett, David

Alton, David

Boyes, Roland

Anderson, Donald

Bradley, Keith

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Armstrong, Hilary

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Caborn, Richard

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

Callaghan, Jim

Ashton, Joe

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Canavan, Dennis

Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

Barron, Kevin

Cartwright, John

Beith, A. J.

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

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

Clay, Bob

Bidwell, Sydney

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

228

Cohen, Harry

Marek, Dr John

Coleman, Donald

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Cousins, Jim

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Crowther, Stan

Maxton, John

Cryer, Bob

Meale, Alan

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Michael, Alun

Dalyell, Tam

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Darling, Alistair

Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Moonie, Dr Lewis

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

Morgan, Rhodri

Dewar, Donald

Morley, Elliott

Dixon, Don

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Dobson, Frank

Mullin, Chris

Doran, Frank

O'Brien, William

Duffy, A. E. P.

O'Neill, Martin

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

Parry, Robert

Eadie, Alexander

Patchett, Terry

Fatchett, Derek

Pendry, Tom

Fearn, Ronald

Pike, Peter L.

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

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

Prescott, John

Fisher, Mark

Quin, Ms Joyce

Flannery, Martin

Radice, Giles

Flynn, Paul

Randall, Stuart

Foster, Derek

Redmond, Martin

Fyfe, Maria

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

Galbraith, Sam

Richardson, Jo

Galloway, George

Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

Garrett, John (Norwich South)

Robertson, George

Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

Rogers, Allan

Golding, Mrs Llin

Rooker, Jeff

Gould, Bryan

Rowlands, Ted

Graham, Thomas

Ruddock, Joan

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Salmond, Alex

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Sedgemore, Brian

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Grocott, Bruce

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Hardy, Peter

Sillars, Jim

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Haynes, Frank

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

Heffer, Eric S.

Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

Hinchliffe, David

Snape, Peter

Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

Soley, Clive

Home Robertson, John

Spearing, Nigel

Hood, Jimmy

Steel, Rt Hon David

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Steinberg, Gerry

Howells, Geraint

Stott, Roger

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Straw, Jack

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

Janner, Greville

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Johnston, Sir Russell

Turner, Dennis

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Wall, Pat

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Wallace, James

Kennedy, Charles

Walley, Joan

Kirkwood, Archy

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Lambie, David

Wareing, Robert N.

Lamond, James

Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

Leadbitter, Ted

Williams, Rt Hon Alan

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

Litherland, Robert

Wilson, Brian

Livsey, Richard

Winnick, David

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Loyden, Eddie

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Tellers for the Noes:

McNamara, Kevin

Mr. Dennis Skinner and Mr. Harry Ewing.

Madden, Max

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Question accordingly negatived.

Points of Order
4.1 pm
Mr. Edward Leigh: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask for your assistance? As I understand our Standing Orders, if an hon. Member wishes to use them to request an emergency debate, he should have done so by now. In view of today's grave events, could you intimate whether you would be minded to grant an emergency debate if a leading Opposition spokesman were to make a request for such a debate? Important though teacher shortages are, this issue is even more important. We have heard nothing yet about the Opposition's views. The country needs to know. Should an Opposition Member rise to his feet now and request a debate, could you please intimate whether, in view of the importance of the subject, you would be minded to grant that request?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that requests for emergency debates under Standing Order No. 20 must be received before noon in my office.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think you will confirm that if the Minister who is responsible for these matters and who is sitting in his place wanted to make a statement on the strike, he is capable of making it. We do not need Conservative Members—the moonlighters, the representatives of the goose-stepping tendency—to tell railway men and women how much money they should be getting. If he has anything to say, the man who went to be educated beyond his intelligence should go to the Dispatch Box and tell us.
Mr. Speaker: I confirm to the House—
Mr. Harry Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Ewing: It is a different point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I have already heard the hon. Member on one point of order today.
Mr. Ewing: This is very important.
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a day on which the hon. Gentleman's own side has chosen the subject for debate. No fewer than 18 hon. Members wish to participate in it.
Mr. Ewing: As I say, Mr. Speaker, it is a very important point of order.
Mr. Speaker: I shall hear the hon. Member if he insists, but I hope that it is a genuine point of order.
Mr. Ewing: I am grateful to you for listening to me, Mr. Speaker, because I insist. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I should explain that when I raised my original point of order I did so for your benefit. As soon as one Government Whip disappeared from your right hand, he was replaced by another Government Whip, the Scottish Whip. My concern is that Government Whips are now rehearsing for the television cameras. Every time that you are in focus, one of the Government Whips will be standing at your right hand nodding approval. If it continues, by the time the television cameras are here in November, one of the Government Whips will be sitting on your knee. That is the last thing that I should like to see. I hope that you will deal with the problem.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not see why you should apologise because a Government Whip supports the Government. It is quite obvious that the Opposition Whips, who can stand behind your Chair, do not support those on the Opposition Front Bench.
Mr. Speaker: We had better get on.

Opposition Day
[17TH ALLOTTED DAY]
Opposition Day

  Teacher Shortages
  Mr. Speaker: No fewer than 18 hon. Members wish to participate in this debate, so I appeal for short speeches. Before I call the Opposition Front Bench spokesman to move the motion, I must announce to the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  4.5 pm
  Mr. Jack Straw: I beg to move,
  That this House condemns Her Majesty's Government for its education policies which have produced the worst teacher shortage crisis since the early seventies; and calls upon the Secretary of State to introduce an emergency programme of measures designed to halt the drain of teachers by improving their morale and rewarding them better, in order to guarantee that no child is without permanent properly qualified teaching this September.
  A popular, well-supported London secondary school loses eight heads of department this week. Three of those people—among the best paid in teaching—are taking jobs outside education, because the money and the conditions are better. One is to run a market stall with her husband.
  At a south London primary school, the head and all the teaching staff but one have resigned. Only a deputy head has been recruited. In Tower Hamlets, 500 Bangladeshi children have no school. Barking and Dagenham are considering the closure of 16 nursery schools to release teachers for children of primary age who otherwise would be sent home. Islington has already warned that there may be part-time teaching in September. ILEA is short of 638 primary teachers and 100 nursery teachers.
  This afternoon, in the House, the Prime Minister boasted that a bigger proportion of teachers to pupils exists today than hitherto. In many schools, the proportion of teachers to pupils is none, and there may be no teachers in those schools in September.
  Nor are the problems remotely confined to Labour London, as Ministers no doubt would wish. According to a survey by The Times Educational Supplement last week, Conservative-controlled Essex has 260 primary and 330 secondary vacancies—an increase of 150 in the past year. In the Prime Minister's Barnet, the authority has had to launch a major recruitment campaign in Australia and Ireland advertising 25 vacancies in primary schools and 56 in secondary schools. Hampshire, Kent, Bromley, Bedfordshire, Buckinghamshire, Dorset and many other local authorities all report problems worse than last year.
  Labour's own survey of 91 of the 104 local education authorities in England and Wales was among the most comprehensive yet. It showed that two thirds of local authorities faced serious concern about shortages—a figure compounded by the Daily Telegraph Gallup poll on 29 May, which reported that one third of teachers were trying to leave and the percentage among the best qualified teachers with the greatest experience—those with 20 years' experience or more—is 40 per cent.
  The evidence of a more major teaching crisis than at any time since the early 1970s when the Prime Minister was Secretary of State for Education is overwhelming, and is
  232
  undeniable to all except those who are responsible for the crisis—Ministers. Their response is simply to deny what everyone knows to exist.
  The Secretary of State's deputy, the Minister of State, this morning accused me of scaremongering, and described teacher shortages as a myth. She told an incredulous audience at the annual conference of the National Association of Head Teachers:
  "We really need to nail this myth that teaching has difficulty in securing recruits and in retaining them when it does secure them."
  In so far as the Minister thinks that there may be the odd local difficulty, or the odd blip, the fault lies with the local authorities. On 4 July she told the House of Commons:
  "It is wrong to say that the responsibility for the planning and recruitment of teacher numbers lies with the Government; the local education authorities are the managers of the education service".—[Official Report, 4 July 1989; Vol. 156, c. 145.]
  She was ignoring her responsibility for the funding of the service and for the pay and morale of teachers.
  The message from the Secretary of State may be more oleaginous, but it is essentially the same. In April, he told the Select Committee on Education:
  "I am determined that the action we shall take will ensure that we have the teachers that we need, and I am confident that it will."
  But the confidence of Ministers is pure bluff.
  Still less than they care do they know. Behind their claims is a black hole of ignorance and self-delusion. There is one basic piece of information needed to make a judgment on whether schools may be short of teachers in September and that is the number of teachers who have handed in their resignations to run from that date. Resignations to run from September have to be in by 31 May. Three weeks after that deadline, I asked the Secretary of State a simple question: how many teachers had submitted their resignation by 31 May? The answer was extraordinary. The Secretary of State said:
  "The information is not available … The latest data are for the year ending March 1987."—[Official Report, 29 June 1989; Vol. 155, c. 536.]
  He then gave me the figures.
  There are 2,565 staff in the Secretary of State's Department. There are 39 people in his press office. There are just 104 local education authorities. I suggested to the Secretary of State that he put just a few of those staff to the telephone. The Secretary of State obviously thinks that teacher shortages in other people's schools are a laughing matter. No wonder he wants to keep himself in ignorance.
  Mr. James Pawsey: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it right for the hon. Gentleman to give us the stuff we are hearing this afternoon—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."]—when we have heard it all on the radio this morning? He did not have the courtesy to come to the House in the first place, but delivered his speech first on radio. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The whole House knows that I am not responsible for what is said in the Chamber, provided that it is in order.
  Mr. Straw rose—
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does the hon. Gentleman not regret the fact that, since Labour came to office in Lancashire, the number of administrative

  233
  staff in the education department at county hall has gone steadily up, whereas the number of teachers at the chalk face has gone steadily down?
  Mr. Straw: Yes, I regret that. I regret that there have been so many impositions by central Government and so many circulars that Lancashire county council has had to increase the number of administrative staff. I also regret the fact that the Secretary of State has cut the capital building programme for Lancashire county council and that its rate support grant has been cut, so that the council has had no alternative but to cut the number of teachers.
  The bluff and apparent ignorance of Ministers is now compounded by their surreptitious actions. They are afraid to admit to a crisis today, but they are desperate to avoid a worse one in September. Thus, the newspapers have been fed regularly with unattributable stories of ministerial action. On 7 July, The Times Educational Supplement wrote:
  "Education Ministers have spent months seeking help from modern language experts to help tackle a growing teacher shortage which they publicly deny exists."
  On 3 July, The Independent reported:
  "Baker may recruit teachers in Hong Kong."
  Scarcely a day passes without a report of another local authority having to send scavengers across Europe to Holland, Denmark or West Germany, on a near-fruitless hunt to entice their teachers to the United Kingdom to teach in an education service with the worst conditions and the worst pay in Europe. It will not be West Germany's best who come here, but West Germany's rejects.
  Ministers have only themselves to blame for the crisis. They have been warned by local authorities, teachers' unions, parents and the Opposition, not least in the debate on teacher shortages on 2 May. What makes Ministers all the more culpable is that this crisis should never have happened. There is no absolute shortage of teachers in the United Kingdom. There are teachers everywhere except in our schools. For every teacher teaching, there is another, properly qualified, who is doing something else.
  Why is there such famine among plenty, so great as to threaten the education of many children in September? Why do one in three new teachers fail to go into teaching the next year? Why do one in four of those who go into teaching leave within five years? The answer is simple: it is to do with morale and money. Without the high dedication of the teaching profession, the education system would have collapsed months ago, but Ministers trade on that dedication and disingenuously confuse it with morale. The Secretary of State told the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts:
  "I think, by definition, that someone who is dedicated has a high morale".
  The right hon. Gentleman knows that they are quite separate considerations, because his interim advisory committee and his inspectors have told him so. His specially appointed committee said:
  "We continue to be impressed by teachers' commitment and high professional standards; but morale appears to have been as low as we judged it last year".
  In his report, the senior chief inspector of education has said that it is
  "of great importance … that teachers are not used as convenient scapegoats for all society's problems."
  Too many teachers feel that their profession and its work are misjudged and seriously undervalued. No one
  234
  has more sedulously fostered that misjudgment of teachers, that undervaluing of teachers, than Ministers. The early speeches in 1986 by the Secretary of State were full of sly attacks on the profession, such as his insinuation in August 1986 that teachers were contributing to a "yob society". A report in Today in August 1986 said:
  "Education Secretary Kenneth Baker has attacked the poor quality of teaching in state schools … In some schools nearly one in three classes are taken by teachers who are not trained in the subject, he says."
  That proportion has got worse since then, not better, as the latest secondary schools staffing survey shows. It has got worse not least because of the cheap and easy denigration of the teaching profession—so easily rolled off the tongue to get a cheap cheer before any Conservative party audience.
  Morale has been damaged, too, by the manner in which the needs of the maintained sector have been mocked by the meretricious policies of the Secretary of State. Private school fees, of up to £5,000 per child, are paid by the state under the assisted places scheme, whereas the Inner London education authority, like other local authorities, is rate-capped when it spends less than half that sum on its pupils.
  The Department of Education and Science estimates that there is a £3 billion backlog of repairs in maintained schools. Her Majesty's inspectorate says that one quarter of children are educated in buildings whose condition is so bad that it affects their schooling, yet the cash on capital repairs in many counties has been cut. More public money £10 million—has been devoted to a single city technology college in Nottingham than to the capital repairs and improvements in all the 1,175 maintained schools in Nottinghamshire, Warwickshire and Bedfordshire put together.
  There is a school down the road from my constituency, Crawshawbooth in the Rossendale valley, where one class has 45 children in it and another has 50. The Secretary of State knows about this, because I wrote to him after I visited that school in April. Its needs and the needs of hundreds of other such schools are ignored, while the budgets for assisted places and for CTCs are increased handsomely. In some areas, the Secretary of State has cynically and deliberately refused to agree to urgent repairs unless the school concerned becomes a city technology college.
  That is the truth of what has happened to the Bacon's school in Southwark, where the Secretary of State and the CTC trust have effectively blackmailed the governors and the diocesan board into making the school a city technology college with the offer of £10 million of taxpayers' cash if it becomes a CTC, whereas the Secretary of State refused to agree to £2 million if it remained a maintained school.
  The Secretary of State may tell us, as he usually does, how well endowed his schools now are. Perhaps he will explain why so many schools now have to raise funds, not for extras but for essentials.
  Mr. Jeff Rooker: Before my hon. Friend moves on from the subject of CTCs, will he reflect on one of the visits that he made earlier in the year to the Sylvan high school in Croydon—in your constituency, Mr. Speaker—which has been wrecked by the local authority's proposals for a CTC? Teachers are leaving in droves, 97 per cent. of the parents have voted against and the Secretary of State still will not make a

  235
  decision before the end of the school term. The parents will not know about the future of the school for the whole of the school holiday. What they do know is that there will not be the teachers to teach the children come September.
  Mr. Straw: I confirm what my hon. Friend has said. In pursuit of a shoddy partisan policy, the Secretary of State has wilfully presided over the disintegration of what was a good school, backed by its parents.
  The Secretary of State will tell us, as the Prime Minister tried to, that everything is lovely and that schools have resources like they never had before, but these days schools have to raise funds not for extras, but for essentials.
  The headmistress of Balfour infant schools, Patters lane, Rochester in Kent, wrote recently to parents to seek support for an activities day. We read from her letter that the funds raised were not for extras. The money raised is to be used
  "to purchase some large items of school equipment which we need to help us deliver the English and Science National Curriculum to the children."
  Flag days, sponsored activities, commercial advertising inside schools in Kent and charges for school lockers have had to fill the gaps—the gaping holes—left by the Government's neglect of the education service.
  Let me warn the Secretary of State, if he needs warning, that the Education Reform Act 1988 contains 450 new powers of central state control, but powers mean duties on the Secretary of State and on the Government. The Government and the Law Officers had better beware that if there is an inadequate teaching force to deliver the national curriculum, Ministers, not local authorities, will face court action by parents for a breach of their ministerial duties and responsibilities to the children of this land.
  Mr. Harry Greenway: What is the hon. Gentleman suggesting?
  Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman might like to put that question to the Secretary of State and to ask whether he has already warned his colleagues of the possibility of legal action if there are no teachers in schools. My understanding is that he has.
  Mr. Kenneth Hind: The hon. Gentleman has answered my hon. friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellet-Bowman) about Lancashire, where he and I both represent constituencies. This is an Oposition debate on teacher shortages. Conservative Members want to know what the hon. Member proposes to deal with the shortages. [Laughter.] Opposition Members laugh. They tell the public that they can do a better job than my right hon. Friend—
  Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Hind: Let them tell the people and Conservative Members what they would do about it.
  Mr. Straw: I will tell the hon. Gentleman that when he has understood the extent of the damage done by the education policies for which he has voted.
  Mr Harry Greenway: Answer the question.
  Mr. Straw: I shall. The hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) asks in whom people have confidence. He
  236
  should bear in mind the results of the county council elections in Lancashire, where, especially in his constituency, the Conservative party got a pasting. On that result, he would not be in the House for a second longer.
  Mr. Tony Baldry: The hon. Gentleman is in some difficulty with that line. The only thing we know about Labour party policy is what appeared in the policy review. The Times Educational Supplement described Labour policy as having a Conservative look. The truth of the matter is that every policy set out there is a mimic of policies introduced in the Education Reform Act 1988. A considerable amount of the froth that the hon. Gentleman is putting forward today is intended to disguise the fact that, in all the education initiatives of the past five or six years, the Conservative initiatives have set the pace.
  Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman has not even read Labour's policy review or the response in The Times Educational Supplement, which was far more—
  Mr. Baldry: I have it here.
  Mr. Straw: No. The hon. Gentleman is looking at the wrong piece. He has been quoting from the news report; he should read the editorial that appeared the week we produced our document, which compared and contrasted our policies and those of the Government. One difference is that Labour Members' children attend state schools—[HON. MEMBERS: "So do ours."] I am talking not about the labourers but about the men and women in the Cabinet, all but one of whom have sent their children to private schools and who care little and know less about the condition of state schools.
  In addition to the mocking of the education system by the Secretary of State, we have what the education editor of The Independent described yesterday as "system overload". There is one budget—[Interruption.]
  Ms. Hilary Armstrong: Oh, shut up.
  Mr. Harry Greenway: You shut up.
  Mr. Straw: There is one budget—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps it would not be a bad idea if Back Benchers on both sides of the House did shut up.
  Mr. Straw: There is one budget that has been subject to no constraint by the Secretary of State—the budget for his publicity, which has increased by 3,000 per cent. since 1980. Schools are knee-deep in glossy pamphlets and ring files all signifying the further half-baked hasty changes that they are expected to implement in too little time and with too little money. Local management of schools, the national curriculum, school governors, open admissions and opting out are just part of the burden; in London, considerable additional uncertainty has been created by the break-up of the Inner London education authority.
  The Government's Interim Advisory Committee on School Teachers' Pay and Conditions said in its latest report that it believed
  "pay to be a critical factor in morale, and in motivation."
  The committee was constrained before its work began by a pre-ordained cash limit on its recommendations, which led its members to doubt that the proposals that they could make within that straitjacket would

  237
  "secure the requisite degree of motivation among the generality of teachers at this crucial time."
  No doubt the Secretary of State will tell us that the crisis has been got up by his opponents—by the press. It has, indeed, been got up by the press—not just by The Guardian and The Independent but by the Sun and the Daily Mail. On Monday last, the Sun ran a so-called "special" on the crisis hitting our classrooms, with stories—far from untypical—of teachers who have doubled their salaries on leaving the profession. The Daily Mail said, rightly, that the pay rise that teachers were given earlier this year was less than the rate of inflation, and that, it said, "just isn't good enough". That view was expressed again in an editorial this morning.
  Teachers' starting pay—especially for those in London and the south-east—is far from generous, but the gap grows after five and 10 years.
  Mr. Pawsey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Straw: No. I have given way enough.
  The interim advisory committee pointed out last year that, after 10 years, the average good honours graduate teacher could expect a real-terms pay increase of only 56 per cent., whereas outside teaching the same person could expect a salary rise of twice that, or 110 per cent.
  It will take some years following the departure of this Government before all the damage they have done to the education system can be repaired. "Children First", Labour's detailed policy document on education, spells out proposals for reforming teacher training, for providing new teachers with much greater support and in-service training, for a proper career structure for teaching assistants—
  Mr. Pawsey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Straw: I have given way enough.
  We set out proposals for a general teachers' council.
  Mr. Pawsey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Straw: No.
  But a crisis requires crisis measures. First, the city technology colleges programme must be halted and the millions of pounds of public money—
  Mr. Pawsey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on this point—
  Hon. Members: Sit down.
  Mr. Straw: I have given way enough; I will not give way.
  The city technology colleges programme must be halted and the millions of pounds of public money earmarked for CTCs must be directed to the immediate needs of state schools.
  Secondly, an emergency programme to recruit and retain teachers must be introduced. That must mean an improved and nationally funded system of housing allowances for teachers in high-cost areas. It must also mean proper allowances for child care throughout the country to enable women—and some men—to go back to teaching when they have young children.
  We need an interim pay increase across the country for all teachers, which I understand the Council of Local Educational Authorities is to consider tomorrow and for
  238
  which Conservative-controlled Essex county council has already called. Thirdly, free collective bargaining should be restored as soon as possible.
  Mr. Pawsey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Straw: No, I will not. I am coming to the end of my speech.
  Meanwhile, fourthly, there should be an absolute guarantee by the Secretary of State and the Treasury that no preconditions will be imposed—no cash limit—on the recommendations of the interim advisory committee.
  Some of us know the anxiety caused to parents and children by the shortage of teachers, when parents cannot be told, just four days before term ends, who is to teach their child next term or even whether that child will have full-time schooling. The Secretary of State seeks to deny that there is a crisis. If there is no crisis, will the Secretary of State guarantee that, next term, no child will be without adequate, properly qualified, permanent teaching? There will be crisis enough in those children's lives if he cannot make that guarantee.
  According to the newspapers, every Cabinet Minister is now looking to his future, but for this Secretary of State we should look to his past. The man who invented the poll tax and who suggested water privatisation is now hoping to clear off—cut and run—once again, to leave another Minister to sort out his mess, while Britain's children suffer from it.
  Three years ago, in August 1986, just shortly after his appointment, the Secretary of State told Woman's Own magazine:
  "of course, I can make it better—if I can't, I might as well throw in the towel and resign".
  It has not got better; it has got much worse. As one head teacher put it to me earlier this week, "It's far worse than when the strikes were on; there is now a real sense of hopelessness." Only for one group has it got better—the private schools. The Secretary of State has made himself the recruiting sergeant for the private schools. What makes his smug insufferable complacency all the worse is that he is ready to see the schooling of other people's children disrupted and put at risk in a way that he would never accept for his children.
  In many schools, in many areas, the situation is now desperate. Britain's parents do not want to hear soft soap from the Secretary of State; they want action—an emergency programme of the kind that I have described. Britain's children deserve no less.
  4.32 pm
  The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Kenneth Baker): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  "congratulates Her Majesty's Government for its coherent and energetic programme to tackle teacher shortages, notably licensed teachers and articled teachers; welcomes the increase in the number of initial teacher training places; notes the substantial improvement in teachers' pay in the lifetime of this Government which contrasts with the modest increase under the last Labour Government; and urges local education authorities to use the flexibility available to them to recruit and retain a sufficient and well-qualified number of teachers."
  This is yet another debate on the important matter of teacher supply. The House is now used to exchanges across the Dispatch Boxes between the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) and myself. I must say that I shall miss him when he is moved to other responsibilities on the

  239
  Labour Front Bench. It is about time that the Labour Front Bench was reshuffled so that it could have an education spokesman with original and constructive ideas.
  This is the second time in recent weeks that we have debated this matter. It is one that merits further debate and it also requires proper action. In our previous debate I set out the action that the Government were taking and which I propose to take. Obviously, Opposition Members have ears, but they hear not—they did not hear what I said on 2 May. Obviously, Opposition Members have eyes, but they see not—they did not read in Hansard what I said on 2 May. However, over the weekend I took the trouble to read the speech of the hon. Member for Blackburn in the 2 May debate. I spent 20 minutes reading it, and it was a completely wasted 20 minutes. The speech was negative. There were no new proposals in it, as there have been no real new proposals this afternoon.
  Let me make it clear that teacher supply is a serious issue. We must get the teachers we need for our schools. We need good teachers, well qualified with the teaching skills to engage, excite and stimulate their pupils. I do not employ teachers.
  Mr. Hind: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Baker: If I could just get further launched into my speech, I shall be glad to give way to my hon. Friend, because he intervened in the speech of the hon. Member for Blackburn to make the point that that speech lacked originality and ideas.
  Local education authorities and schools have responsibility for employing teachers. The Secretary of State's role is to ensure that sufficient numbers of qualified teachers come forward for recruitment by the LEAs and schools.
  On 2 May 1 spelled out all the measures that the Government have taken in the past three or four years. They amount to a formidable list. If we had not taken the action that we took three years ago, the position would be infinitely worse today. For example, we have introduced bursaries. The hon. Member for Blackburn used to sneer about this, but he is not sneering now. The bursaries for maths, physics, chemistry and technology teachers have arrested the decline in applications for those posts. When I extended the bursaries to chemistry teachers earlier this year, the decline was arrested and applications to become chemistry teachers are up 13 per cent. compared with the same period last year. Of course, that is not sufficient and there will still be a shortage of chemistry teachers, but the bursaries have none the less arrested the decline.
  In addition, I have increased the number of initial teacher training places by 2,000. I made that announcement only a fortnight or so ago. I have also announced an education support grant of £4 million over two years to make teacher recruitment packages attractive—
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan rose—
  Mr. Baker: I should like to get a little further into my speech, but I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment. [Interruption.] Yes, I shall give way because I enjoy debate.
  The question of teacher supply is vital. It is crucial. It is not helped by defeatism and talk of crisis. All that the hon. Member for Blackburn does is to seek to spread gloom and doom. He talks up the issue. If he is not careful he will turn a difficult situation into a crisis and I am sure
  240
  that that is not what he wants. I do not believe for a moment that he objects to the various measures that I have announced or to the other measures that we have taken in the past three years. The hon. Gentleman owes the House a more effective way of putting forward his own ideas for dealing with the problem of teacher supply.
  Ms. Harriet Harman rose—
  Mr. Baker: I will give way to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan), who rose earlier.
  Mr. Morgan: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for allowing me to comment on one of the claims that he has just made. He says that he has increased by 2,000 the number of teaching places available. If that is so, will he explain why, winging its way to University college, Cardiff today, as I understand it, is a letter rejecting its bid to be allowed to preserve initial teacher training there in spite of the fact that it is consistently over-subscribed and that this year it had to close its application list at Christmas because of the number of students wishing to join even though it had a death sentence hanging over it?
  What guidance has the Secretary of State given to the Universities Funding Council about which institutions are to be given the 2,000 extra places? Can he explain how a place as popular as University college, Cardiff, which could make a major contribution to solving the teacher supply crisis, has been cut off and will be stone dead in a year's time?
  Mr. Baker: I have increased the number of teacher training places by a net figure of 2,000. Within that 2,000 are some adjustments as regards teacher subjects. Some subjects are being expanded, such as those in the technology and science area, and others have to be reduced. I will check the exact figures and the position of University college, Cardiff, and perhaps return to that matter later.
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: Closure?
  Mr. Baker: Some courses are reduced, but overall there has been an increase of 2,000 teacher training places. We have to make adjustments because there is a surplus of teachers for some subjects and school courses and it would be absurd to continue to train people if there are surplus teachers in those subjects. We must be concerned about the areas in which there are shortages.
  I shall now report to the House about where we stand today and give the overall position. I turn first to the pupil-teacher ratio, which the hon. Member for Blackburn mentioned and which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister also referred to at Question Time today when she scored yet another bull's-eye against the Leader of the Opposition. There are more teachers relative to pupils now than ever before. The overall pupil-teacher ratio is at its lowest ever, at 17:1. When we came into office—when the last Labour Government finished their period of office—the ratio was 19:1. This is having its effect on provision in schools. I remind the House that resources per pupil have increased in real terms by 37 per cent. since we took responsibility for education in 1979 when we came into office. That is good news and I am sure that hon. Members of all parties will welcome it.
  Mr. Simon Hughes rose—
  Mr. Baker: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not give way for a moment.
  From the way in which the matter is presented by the hon. Member for Blackburn—and, I am sad to say, by some union leaders—one would think that nobody wanted to become a teacher. The plain fact is that about 27,000 people become teachers each year. That number of people find it a satisfying and rewarding profession.
  Mr. Harry Greenway rose—
  Mr. Baker: I intend to give way as much as possible during my remarks.
  Mr. Hind: My right hon. Friend will agree that what we have been offered by Opposition Members, in contrast to his own positive planning, are the banalities of a recruitment drive. Housing allowances are not a new idea. The concept of nursery allowances has been around for some time. As for no cash limits on teacher's pay, we have no idea how much the Opposition would spend or how they would target the money to produce recruits and better quality teachers.
  Mr. Baker: That is true. The hon. Member for Blackburn has produced a vapid document containing his proposals for education policy, but he has not made the mistake of attempting to cost it because he knows that hidden in the document, along with various statements that have been made by his hon. Friends since it was published, are some extremely expensive commitments. Although the hon. Gentleman has not costed it, we are beginning to do so.
  Mr. Straw rose—
  Mr. Baker: I was pointing out that 27,000 people entered the teaching profession each year.
  Ms. Harman rose—
  Mr. Baker: I promise to give way to the hon. Lady later, perhaps when my remarks come closer to London.
  There was a survey in The Financial Times last week of the attitudes of university and polytechnic students towards various professions. The most popular profession was the media, but after that came teaching, well before the law, medicine and financial services. So there is a great deal of interest and commitment among people wishing to go into teaching.
  The figures for recruitment to initial teacher training courses were particularly good in 1988, with the recruitment of young people into initial teacher training up by 5 per cent. over the 1987 level. Nearly 20,200 students entered initial teacher training last year, 1,000 more than in 1987.
  In the primary sector, the figures for recruitment to initial teacher training have been notably good. Nearly 11,400 students were recruited to primary courses last year. That was 9 per cent. above the target that we had set. I am glad to tell the House that this year applications by young people to go into initial teacher training this September and October are 11 per cent. up on last year. That represents 5,500 more. On the secondary side, applications are up by just over 1 per cent., and on the primary side, they are up by 15 per cent. That is good news which will be welcomed by hon. Members in all parts of the House.
  Mr. Straw: As things are so good, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to offer a guarantee to every parent that, come September, all children in Britain will have adequate and sufficient properly qualified teaching—yes or no?
  Mr. Baker: My responsibility under education law is to ensure that there is a flow and good supply of well qualified teachers so that LEAs and governors can recruit and employ them. I am dischaging that responsibility under the legislation to ensure that the schools are staffed to supply the national curriculum. I have taken measures in respct of initial teacher training and in-service training to ensure that teacher training recruitment levels are higher than they have been for the last three years.
  Ms. Harman rose—
  Mr. Baker: The hon. Member for Blackburn said on radio this morning, and repeated at the Dispatch Box, that there was no absolute shortage of teachers. That is the beginning of wisdom for him. It is only the beginning, and we live in hope.
  Ms. Harman rose—
  Mr. Baker: I will give way to the hon. Lady in due course. At the moment I am dealing with the hon. Member for Blackburn, who was right to say that there was no shortage of teachers. Apart from making it attractive for young people to go into initial teacher training, we must also make it attractive for the many trained teachers—the 300,000 to 400,000 who have been trained as teachers, and particularly married women re-entrants—to return to the profession. In the last three years there has been a steady increase each year. This year, about 15,500 former teachers will be returning to teaching.
  Mr. Straw rose—
  Mr. Baker: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for not giving way to him again immediately. I must allow a few hon. Members other than himself to intervene. Indeed, I probably owe it to the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) to allow her to intervene first.
  Ms. Harman: Parents in Southwark will be shocked at the complacency with which the right hon. Gentleman appears to be treating the situation. Will he take this opportunity to guarantee to parents in Southwark that there will be sufficient teachers for all children intending to start school in September to have teachers in their classrooms, and that we shall not see next term what we have seen this term—junior school children being sent home for up to two days per week because there are not enough teachers? Will the right hon. Gentleman give that guarantee to parents in Southwark who are desperately concerned about this issue?
  Mr. Baker: The hon. Lady should criticise ILEA for its complacency in inner London—[Interruption.]—and I will explain why. ILEA has responsibility for the recruitment of teachers in Southwark, as in other parts of inner London. Only in the last three months has ILEA produced a teacher recruitment package. ILEA has been in existence for 25 years. Only now has it produced a package covering, for example, creches—to which the hon. Member for Blackburn referred—and making it easier for married women to return to teaching with better training.

  243
  It makes it easier for them by giving them greater credit for the number of years they have been away looking after their families.
  ILEA has got around to doing that only in the last three months, and as a result I have some good news for the hon. Member for Peckham about teacher shortages in London. I have been chided in the past by the hon. Member for Blackburn about vacancies and particularly about resignations. He has always claimed that the vacancy figures for teachers, which are published each January, do not give the latest position because the resignations relate to the end of May.
  The figures that we produce each January show that the number of' vacancies in January this year in the primary sector for the country as a whole were just over 3,100 vacant posts nationwide. That is out of a total of 171,000 primary teachers, which means that the vacancy rate is under 2 per cent. It varies enormously. Even in London there were authorities with low numbers of vacant primary posts—for example, Bromley, Harrow, Kingston, Richmond and Sutton—whereas in London as a whole there were vacancies for 1,300 out of 24,600 teachers, and the problem is more grave in the east end of London.
  In the secondary sector—I am dealing with January; I will come to May shortly—the number of vacancies rose by 400 between 1988 and 1989 to 2,400, but that is out of a total of 192,000 posts, the vacancies representing 1·3 per cent. of total teaching posts. That is not an alarming proportion. Again, the problems were far greater in London than elsewhere.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Blackburn runs its affairs so badly that DHSS recipients and the unemployed come crowding into Morecambe, crowding out the schools there, so that my right hon. Friend's constituents and mine are deprived of the chance of going to the schools that their parents attended?
  Mr. Baker: There is further evidence why Blackburn is so bad.
  I wish to deal with the question of vacancies, because the hon. Member for Blackburn has attacked me about vacancies and resignations, remembering that resignations come later in the year. Vacancies were not at alarming proportions in January, as I have pointed out. What has happened since?
  The hon. Member for Blackburn made great play of the resignations position, and quoted from a reply that I gave showing that the Department's figures for resignations are two years out of date. That is correct, because the figures are provided by LEAs late in the day. The hon. Gentleman wrote asking if I would ask my officials to telephone the LEAs to discover the resignation position. Ever willing to be helpful to Jack, I asked my officials to telephone several LEAs, particularly in London. They found that several authorities were unable to say what the position on resignations was. They had not collated the figures but said that they would send the figures to us.
  Ms. Harman: Tory authorities.
  Mr. Baker: No, some were Labour authorities. The position was largely as expected in the other LEAs. In some the position was no worse than last year and in others it was worse. The picture was patchy.
  244
  We had figures from eight out of the 10 ILEA divisions. Last year there were 1,908 resignations and at the end of May this year there were 1,439. That was a reduction of nearly a quarter. A figure of about 1,400 resignations is unacceptably high, but I say to the hon. Member for Peckham that it is up to ILEA to put forward its package. The package that it has now put forward is beginning to attract more teachers to ILEA appointments.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: A few moments ago the Secretary of State said that he accepted his responsibility under statute to ensure a good supply of teachers throughout his term of office. He has been in office for three years and the Government have been in office for 10 years. On his own admission, at the beginning of this year there were 5,400 vacancies. How is it that the Secretary of State has not been able to carry out his responsibilities?
  Mr. Baker: In a teaching force of some 404,000, to have about 5,500 vacancies on any particular day is not a problem out of all proportion. A proportion of vacancies of about 1·3 per cent. in any large administration is a containable problem. We have put in hand a range of proposals which are attracting a record number of young people into the profession.
  Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend put on the record—this should be borne in mind, considering what the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) said—that whatever teachers could earn outside teaching, they are now better paid in real terms than ever and much better than when the Government came to office 10 years ago? Will he also correct the hon. Gentleman's persistent claim that the Government have cut spending on education as a percentage of GNP, when in reality it has risen from I I per cent. to 12 per cent.? It is about time that the hon. Gentleman learned the truth.
  Mr. Baker: The figures on teachers' pay speak for themselves. Since we have been in office teachers' real pay has increased by about 30 per cent. When Labour was in office it increased by 6 per cent. The Labour party cannot possibly claim to be the friend of teachers.
  The position in Tower Hamlets has been mentioned by the hon. Member for Blackburn and in many newspapers. I recognise that there is a problem and I want to do what I can to help. Recently I met a delegation fron ILEA led by the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), and my hon. Friend the Minister of State has held discussions with the London boroughs. I understand that 200 or 300 children are out of school because of a lack of teachers. Some dozen to 15 teachers are needed to teach 300 pupils. That is alongside the Tower Hamlets teaching force of about 1,500. The problem is not incapable of solution. ILEA can take measures to make good the deficit. It should have been taking such measures for some time, but it has been slow off the mark.
  This is not a question of money. ILEA has the funds to pay for extra allowances for teachers and to put together attractive financial packages to attract more people to London. I am told that, according to the latest figures, ILEA is not likely to spend its entire budget this year. It is not short of funds.
  Mr. Straw: ILEA will cease to exist from 1 April 1990. Does the Secretary of State offer the same guarantee to all the successor London borough authorities, that they will not be short of money?
  Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman will have to wait for the rate support grant settlement, particularly for inner London.
  In our talks with the new London borough education authorities, which are predominantly Labour-controlled, we have been impressed by their dynamic approach towards planning for education and teacher shortages. They have already developed their own schemes, which include attractive packages for teachers. Help with housing is particularly attractive. In the past, ILEA was distainful towards the London boroughs and was not prepared to talk to them about council housing and other such assistance for staff. Now the individual boroughs are putting together teacher recruitment packages involving council estates and housing support. That will be helpful.
  The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney is not in his place. I do not criticise him for that, because he takes a great interest in this. I wish to assure Tower Hamlets that I want to do what I can to help. The TASC unit in my Department deals with the promotion of teaching as a career and meets with ILEA to find solutions. Although it is late in the day, there is still time to tackle the problems of inner London. I shall do what I can to help. The Department will be willing, in partnership with Tower Hamlets or any other east end London boroughs, to support teacher recruitment campaigns and to advertise the new packages that have been devised.
  Another measure will be of help to teachers in London. The hon. Member for Blackburn has been disdainful and attacked the introduction of licensed teachers in September. That scheme aims to attract people from other careers to come into teaching. I hope that the original criticism of that scheme by the hon. Gentleman and by the unions has now abated. It has been widely accepted not only by Conservative but by Labour authorities as a way of attracting more people into teaching. It means that people who have experience of higher education can be trained on the job. In addition, the articled teachers scheme will be introduced next year. I wish that the hon. Gentleman would welcome those schemes.
  In recent years about 1,000 teachers from overseas have come each year to take up posts in our schools, throughout the country but principally in London. Their skills and expertise are welcome. In September, we shall be the first country in Europe to implement an EC directive requiring member states to recognise each other's teaching qualifications. Teachers from overseas will be able to gain qualified teacher status here on application. Some authorities have already begun to recruit in other EC countries. I was surprised at the hon. Gentleman's attitude to recruitment in Europe. He talked about sending "scavengers across Europe" and made an unwarranted attack on German teachers. A month ago the Labour party posed as the European party, yet it attacks the quality of teaching in our partner countries. Its first test in moving closer to 1992 has resulted in a disgraceful, shallow attack.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell rose
  Mr. Baker: I ask the hon. Gentleman to forgive me, but I have given way many times.
  From September we shall accept overseas qualifications of teachers from the Common Market and they will be given qualified teacher status.
  246
  We have some overseas trained teachers from outside the EC. It is a characteristic of many Australian and New Zealand teachers that they come to teach in inner London. They complain that although they are qualified back home, they are not qualified here. There have been protracted debates about qualified teacher status for them and I have considered how we can improve their position. Our proposal for the new scheme was originally that, provided they were qualified, licensed teachers would receive qualified teacher status if they underwent training for a year. In the light of our responses to the draft proposals I am happy to announce today that I plan to go further and allow LEAs and schools exceptionally to recommend experienced overseas trained teachers to become qualified in this country after only one term. That will be especially attractive to young Australian and New Zealand teachers.
  I welcome this opportunity to outline once again the actions that I am taking to tackle the problem of teacher shortages. I hope that the House recognises that there has been a substantial increase in the numbers of young people going into teacher training. No profession receives as much in-service training as the teaching profession—about £300 million per year.
  The hon. Member for Blackburn suggested that the Government had not put forward new ideas, whereas in fact during the past two or three years we have put forward a whole range of proposals. It is the hon. Gentleman who has failed to put forward any new ideas, and he has certainly given us none today. He merely asked for an interim pay award, but even that was not his idea—it was suggested by the National Union of Teachers. Like the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery), the hon. Member for Blackburn has become a spokesman for the NUT. By the hon. Gentleman's own definition, an interim pay award would not help the problem of teacher shortages. Any analysis of the problem clearly shows that it varies from one part of the country to another.
  The hon. Gentleman did not quote the article in The Times Educational Supplement which said that there were no teacher shortages in areas such as North Yorkshire, Hereford and Worcester, the city of Liverpool and Walsall, which in particular has no shortage of maths teachers. We all recognise that there are shortages in the home counties and in London, but the hon. Gentleman did not put forward any ideas to deal with that.
  The hon. Gentleman's response to our proposals has been simply to attack them. He attacked the plans for licensed teachers and articled teachers and wanted us to abandon them.
  Mr. Derek Fatchett: No.
  Mr. Baker: I am glad that the hon. Member for Blackburn has, at last, accepted the idea of licensed teachers—[Interruption.] His silence, I hope, conveys consent. As least the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) supports our proposals.
  Over the years, the hon. Member for Blackburn has adopted a policy of plagiarism of Government policies. He has followed a policy of destruction. Does he believe that that will improve the morale of the teaching profession? What are his proposals to improve the morale of the teaching profession, which he claims so concerns him? He wants to abolish the remaining grammar schools, grant-maintained schools and city technology colleges and

  247
  to weaken the national curriculum. How will that improve teachers' morale? The hon. Gentleman has come up with a series of gimmicks—that is his stock in trade—the purpose of which is the exploitation of anxiety. Only the Government's proposals can deal with the problem.
  5.2 pm
  Mr. Martin Flannery: Having listened to the Secretary of State many times, I know that the outstanding quality that he brings to our debates is his belief that no matter what is wrong, nothing is wrong. He speaks as though everything is wonderful in the best of all worlds. He pretends to have a grip of his subject and says that everything is all right. In fact, a large section of the press—not just the National Union of Teachers or the Opposition Front Bench—profoundly disagrees with him. Today's editorial in The Guardian said:
  "Our crippling, intensifying teacher shortage takes centre stage in the Commons today."
  The right hon. Gentleman claims that there is no such shortage, yet he failed to answer the question of what will happen in September. He has given no guarantee that sufficient teachers will stand in front of the classes. The Guardian continued:
  "These problems are exacerbated by the increased competition from industry for graduates, the erosion of teachers' pay compared to other graduates, and the manifest decline in the morale of the profession."
  The Minister of State is on record as saying that there is no low morale. Only a fortnight ago the Secretary of State, under questioning, also said that. Surely he is aware that, with one exception, every group that appeared before the Select Committee referred to the reasons for low morale in the profession and treated it as a fundamental problem. Only the group from the Department of Education and Science said that there is no low morale. The DES leading figure said that he had not noticed any low morale, and that view was endorsed by the Secretary of State.
  Although endless warnings have been given to the Government, they have taken not the slightest notice. They are whistling in the dark and trying to bolster their courage by pretending that there is no problem. At the behest of the Opposition, the Select Committee decided to carry out research into the reason for teacher shortages. We had hoped to publish the report by the end of the Session but, unfortunately, that is not possible. Certain people do not want the report published that quickly. The Opposition want it published because it will confirm the serious problem of teacher shortages. Every member of the Select Committee is well aware of the problem.
  Every time that the Secretary of State or his Ministers say that nothing is wrong, they get a great clap on the back from their young Turks—many of whom will be missing after the next election—because they are grovellers. Indeed, I see that three of them are sitting behind the Minister today. They never say a critical word to the Secretary of State, so nobody takes any notice of them anyway. All they do is grovel.
  Many questions must be answered. Who created the teacher shortage? It is the fault of the Government, the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State before him. For years they have been launching vicious attacks on the teaching profession. They have demeaned it and said that all sorts of things are wrong with it. The many quotes over the years are on the record. The Secretary of State refuses to admit that anything is wrong and that morale is low. Is
  248
  he not aware that morale is low because he has demeaned the profession? Students, some of whom may want to become teachers, read in the press of his constant demeaning of the profession. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that, following such attacks, those students will want to enter the profession?
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Flannery: The Secretary of State gave way many times, and on two occasions to the same person. The hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) has fled the Chamber now that she has intervened twice. There is only a short time available and many hon. Members wish to speak—[Interruption.] Where has the hon. Lady gone? I do not know. She seems able to intervene on the Secretary of State, but I am not so successful.
  All the interested organisations agree that there is a crisis. We visited Warwick university, whose education department said that there was a major and developing crisis—a view endorsed by the university's students. The education department of Manchester polytechnic, all the teachers' unions—even the Professional Association of Teachers, which is tame enough—said that. The general secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers, said that the problem of teacher shortages was a developing catastrophe. He was pulled up for saying such a naughty thing, but he repeated it anyway. Such statements from all the leading organisations make it clear that there will be a serious problem of teacher shortage next September.
  In the primary sector, any number of teachers who have taught for many years are miserable and terrified by the number of documents and the bureaucracy. Under the new Education Reform Act 1988, which is an educational disaster for this country, our teachers are being made to teach subjects which they have not taught for a long time. They receive glossy documents from their local education authority which is made to send them out by the Secretary of State, who takes the authorities to task for not taking certain action. However, he knows that the Government have rate-capped the local authorities so that they do not have enough money to carry out the work.
  The teaching profession is grossly overworked, under-paid and undervalued. The attack which is being launched against teachers to ensure that they are not paid properly and to deny them negotiating rights stems from the top of the Government. Meanwhile, the Baker city technology colleges, which were to be paid for privately, are not being funded in that way: 80 per cent. of the money for them comes from the public purse.
  Mr. Bruce Grocott: Is my hon. Friend aware that Ministers are totally out of touch with their own Conservative councillors? When a quite stunning and outrageous proposal for a city technology college in Telford was recently made, to the amazement of everyone in the town who knew nothing about it, the reaction of the all-party county council was reported in the Shropshire Star. The report stated:
  "County Councillors of all political colours today united to denounce the way plans for a city technology college at Telford were sprung on the county."
  An all-party resolution was passed, stating:
  "no decision be made before the potential serious implications for education in Shropshire have been fully considered."

  249
  Does my hon. Friend agree that, even if the Government do not agree with us, it is time they started to listen to their own councillors?
  Mr. Flannery: I agree with my hon. Friend. There has been an all-round attack on comprehensive schools, which have brought more and better results in education than ever before in the history of this country. The Government hate that fact and have introduced the technology colleges which siphon off money from the state system and channel it to selected pupils. As was mentioned, the assisted places scheme takes about £70 million a year, and that amount is rising massively. That money is being taken from the state sector. The Government intend to build up the private sector which their children use and take money from our children. They are good at doing that.
  As has been said, the Secretary of State has about 400 new powers which he uses as a diktat and lays down to the profession. Members of the teaching profession act as any reasonable professionals would after years of sustained attack, by voting with their feet and leaving the profession. The Secretary of State will find not teachers in Australia or Barbados, but from among the 400,000 teachers in the so-called pool of inactive teachers, which he has created in the profession.
  It is utter nonsense for the Government to say that the teacher-pupil relationship is wonderful. No one believes that for a moment. The Government could make the position worse by sacking more teachers, but instead they tyrannise and demean them. The Education Reform Act is being severely questioned because of the lack of teachers, which is not admitted.
  When a problem exists, the high road to its resolution is the recognition that it exists. The Government and the Secretary of State act as if there is no problem. If they do not act to set it right, they will have the educational state system round their necks. They will be on the fringes of a grave problem with which we shall be grappling long after the Secretary of State and the Government have gone. The Secretary of State should be sacked for what he has done to state education; and when he goes, he should take the Government with him.
  5.14 pm
  Mr. Andrew MacKay: That was a sadly confused speech. If the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) believes that teachers are grossly underpaid now, what position were they in when the Labour Government, of which he was a prominent and senior Back Bencher, were in power? Teachers' pay increased in real terms by only 6 per cent. under the last Labour Government. We are all well aware that it has increased by nearly 30 per cent. in real terms this time round. That is an indictment of the bad economic policy of the Government which he continually supported when he went through the Lobby night after night.
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett rose—
  Mr. MacKay: I shall not give way because one matter on which I agree with the hon. Member for Hillsborough, is that many people want to speak. We have had many interventions and I wish to get on with my speech so that as many Members as possible may make contributions.
  250
  This has been a disappointing debate, mainly because of the silly motion in the name of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) and others. It has not answered any of the questions and is grossly overstated. The hon. Member for Blackburn has missed a good oportunity this afternoon to get to the heart of the problem which is worrying many of his constituents: teacher shortages and potential teacher shortages in areas in which house prices are very high.
  I fundamentally disagree with Opposition Members who say that teachers' pay is low in this country, per se. That is not so; teachers' pay is fair and reasonable in most parts of the country. It is low where it is quite impossible for teachers to purchase a house. It is a regional problem. I shall illustrate the problems which we have in Thames valley, where a small, modest, family house fetches more than £100,000 and a single, one-bedroomed flat fetches between £75,000 and £80,000. One clearly needs to be on a high salary, and to have saved a considerable sum, to be able to purchase such a property and service the mortgage on it. There is no incentive for any man or woman in the teaching profession to move from other regions of the country to the south-east because they cannot afford to buy a house there.
  The problem is exactly the same for nurses, postmen, medical secretaries and ancillary workers. Teachers and nurses receive the same job satisfaction no matter which school they teach in or hospital they nurse in. Therefore, if they have a choice of teaching or nursing in the north of England where, on their salary, they can own a home and also afford a holiday and one or two other luxuries, they will do that. With the high cost of housing in the south-east, they can ill afford a house or flat in the first place and, certainly, can ill afford any luxuries such as holidays. The problem is particularly bad in primary schools in my constituency. In the primary schools in my constituency which I regularly visit, I find no male teachers. The schools are almost entirely staffed by ex-housewives returning to work after their children have grown up. Their husbands are on a considerable salary so their joint salary enables the couple to take out a mortgage to buy a house.
  I pay tribute to those ladies, who are excellent teachers, but I think that the House would agree that it would be much healthier for a school to have both male and female teachers in its common room and a good mix of ages as well as sexes. That would be in the schools' interests, but we should be concerned about a shortage of male teachers particularly in primary, but also in secondary, schools.
  There are many multinational companies in my constituency and many companies that have units, offices and plants throughout the country. A director, salesman or secretary is paid differently in the Thames valley than in Carrickfergus or Hartlepool because of the different level of house prices. We have to grasp this problem and solve it, but how do we do that? I was interested to hear the suggestion—repeated by the hon. Member for Blackburn, so it appears now to be Labour party policy—that if we ever had the misfortune to have a Labour Government again, they would introduce a nationally funded housing allowance for teachers. If housing allowance means supplying teachers with rented accommodation or council housing, that would be unsatisfactory because teachers, like nurses and everybody else, have a considerable desire

  251
  to be part of the property-owning democracy. We shall not attract teachers to the south-east if they own a house in the north and are offered only a council house in the south.
  Mr. Andrew Smith: He did not say that.
  Mr. MacKay: If the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) is assuring us, as a Front Bench spokesman, that the hon. Member for Blackburn did not say that, we must assume that this nationally funded housing allowance will be a mortgage subsidy to help to pay for the cost of the house.
  This is an interesting policy. I represent a relatively prosperous constituency in the south-east, and I would not sleep easy if I knew that the constituents of the hon. Members for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) and for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) were subsidising, through their taxes, education in my constituency. This is the one difficulty about regional pay in the public sector. Is it right and proper, where there is a need for higher salaries and mortgage subsidies in the public sector in the more prosperous areas, for these to be paid out of national taxation? If so, it means that people in the poorer parts of the country on lower salaries will fund my prosperous constituents. I hope that Labour Members would also not sleep easy if they thought that that way forward was to be taken.
  Another way forward is to say that people should pay higher rates or a higher community charge in these areas. This has slightly more appeal. In areas with high house prices, it is reasonable to pay a higher rate or community charge so that teachers, nurses, postmen and other such people can get higher rates of pay. If we do not do that, we shall have second-rate schools in the south-east, compared with the regions. We already have inferior hospitals because wards are being closed and expensive equipment is not being used because we cannot get the nurses in the south-east for the same reason—they find it more agreeable to be nurses in hospitals in the regions, where they can buy their own homes.
  Another way is better still—to ensure that there is not this great divide in house prices between the south-east and the rest of the country. I have been gratified, since I spoke on this subject some 18 months ago, to see the difference reduced, although it has gone nowhere near far enough. You will be aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, that in Sandwell in West Bromwich, one can still buy a house much more cheaply than in Bracknell, Ascot or Sunningdale. However, the move is in the right direction. While I feel deeply for those of my constituents who bought their houses when prices were at the top, before they started to fall, and who now have to service a high mortgage, I know that others of my constituents are breathing a sigh of relief because at last there is a possibility that their children will be able to own their own homes. Therefore, I welcome the fact that in my constituency prices have fallen by 20 per cent. in the past six months. That is one of the best pieces of news that we have had for a long time.
  However, more private sector firms must be persuaded to move out of the south-east and into the regions, where houses are less expensive, there is a plentiful supply of labour, more skills in the labour force and cheaper office and factory spaces.
  I was laughed at by my hon. Friends when, two and a half years ago, I said that in my constituency I was
  252
  encouraging companies to get out. There were gasps about that, but I wanted it because our economy is overheated, we have negative unemployment, skill shortages, congestion on the roads, problems in the hospitals and the potential problems in the schools that I have just mentioned. For these companies to be at their most prosperous and efficient, they should not necessarily be operating out of the south-east, because there their unit labour costs are high and they are not competing properly in the world markets. I am delighted to say that a number of them—British Aerospace, Racal, Ferranti, BMW and others—are moving out of the constituency.
  Far from unemployment being created as a result of this move, plenty of people are waiting to offer jobs to those who are made redundant. If there were a better balance between private sector industries in the north and south, house prices in the south-east would come more into line with those in the rest of the country. There would then be less of a problem with regional pay differences in the public sector.
  This is a problem that my hon. Friend the Minister and her colleagues in the Departments of Health, Social Security and Trade and Industry will have to tackle. There are no easy solutions in the way suggested by the hon. Member for Blackburn. It is offensive to put the burden of increasing regional pay on those in the worst-off regions, so that they have to subsidise the pay increases of people in the best-off regions. I am loth to go down the road that I half suggested, of an increase in the community charge, but there must be some acknowledgement that it is becoming increasingly difficult to attract teachers to our part of the world. If that is not acknowledged and dealt with, I fear that the children of my constituents will get a worse education than the equivalent children in Wales, the midlands, the north, Northern Ireland. Scotland and elsewhere. As a Member representing the Thames valley, I could not stand by and let that happen.
  5.28 pm
  Mr. Simon Hughes: If one had had no other evidence, listening to the Secretary of State, one would have been persuaded that there was no problem. He said that the problem was not alarming, but was "containable". He was extraordinarily selective about statistics. The pupil-teacher ratio has come down, that is true, but is it acceptable that it should go up if teachers are deployed elsewhere? He said that 27,000 teachers had entered the profession, but was silent about how many had left. He gave no estimate of the shortage of vacancies now, despite having promised them, although at last he gave us the figures of vacancies in January—5,400. With the pupil-teacher ratio of 17:1, that means that 100,000 pupils had no teacher last January. It is probable that today the numbers are more.
  Mr. Kenneth Baker: Rubbish.
  Mr. Hughes: That is not rubbish. It is true that these figures relate to ILEA, which is one of the worst authorities, but the probability is that in September, not on resignations but on vacancies, 7,000 children will not be taught. If that is not a crisis, and if after three years in office the Secretary of State is not willing to admit that it is, we have indeed heard a complacent speech.

  253
  So complacent is the Secretary of State that The Independent was driven to put the education editor's viewpoint column on the front page yesterday. He said:
  "Morale among teachers is so low that, according to one opinion poll, one in three is considering leaving the profession."
  Dealing with a point made by the Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay), he said:
  "Teachers' pay, which has fallen far behind comparable professional groups during the past 14 years and has clearly not risen in line with market demands, is the key to the problem."
  Pay has gone up, but pay in the private sector has gone up much more. The reality is that people who might return to teaching or stay in teaching do not do so because they can do far better for themselves and for their families elsewhere.
  Perhaps the most commonly held view of all, repeated in the article, is:
  "Mr. Baker's handling of teacher supply is not an aberration. It is symptomatic of his wider approach. Mr. Baker is strong on conception, weak on execution. He has a good eye for short-term publicity advantage, a poor one for underlying problems."
  It says something about the working of the Department of Education and Science that the first time that it thought about discovering the up-to-date position was in May 1989. It was not until there were abundant signs of a crisis, not just in inner-city Labour-controlled authorities but in Tory-controlled authorities as well, that it bothered to ring round to find out just how severe the problem is.
  We have heard many statistics and I do not propose to adduce many more, but the reality is that many primary and secondary schools lose teachers not just to jobs outside teaching but to higher-paid jobs in other authorities. Some authorities are desperately pinching teachers, leaving others short of people at the last minute when they cannot recruit replacements.
  Mr. David Evennett: I and my hon. Friends have listened with great interest to the picture that the hon. Gentleman has painted with the help of The Independent, but how would he deal with the problem that he has outlined?
  Mr. Hughes: I shall deal with that, but first I should say that, if the Government have no ideas, they should not be the Government. The only new idea from the Secretary of State today, which I welcome and which the Minister of State will confirm that I was speaking with her about only this morning, was in relation to teachers from Australia and New Zealand and qualified teacher status. That was the only new idea, other than saying that the Department would help local authorities to recruit teachers. If it has not been doing that for the past 10 years, there is something wrong with it.
  The consequences of the problem are practical, severe and immediate. The hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) intervened earlier. Many parents in boroughs such as ours in Southwark view with great alarm the prospect of what will happen to them and their children when the new term begins.
  Those parents know that existing staff will come under additional pressure as they have to take on additional responsibilities. Some of them may receive a merit award,
  254
  but many of them will not. Putting more stress on the teachers who are there, many of whom already cover to prevent classes from being sent home, means that they have the problems of looking after the classes of other teachers at the same time as the Secretary of State is requiring them to take on further responsibilities under the national curriculum by way of assessment and so on. I predict today that the number of teacher vacancies in primary and secondary schools will be greater at the end of this year than it is now.
  Many authorities are desperately turning to new graduates to fill empty places. Many schools are now believed to be taking a far greater number of teachers in their probationary year than before. That is short-sighted, because a new teaching recruit will not benefit from the good supervision that will make him or her a committed teacher, able to remain in the profession. As the Minister will know, I was critical of that issue last year. If probationary teachers do not remain in the profession, we lose the very people whom we should be encouraging to remain. They should be given the support that they need and the pressure on them should be reduced.
  A war is being waged against supply teachers who have traditionally filled the gaps in the teacher service. If local authorities continue to pay supply teachers only for the hours that they work rather than by the day, their supply will dry up and matters will be far worse.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) wants to point out that in Wales—I realise that this is not wholly the Secretary of State's responsibility—the problem is predictably acute. The Labour party is not blameless. More than 1,000 supply teachers in West Glamorgan have had their salaries cut by 36 per cent. in the past year, a reduction of £5,000 per annum, from point 11 to point 4 on the scale, and that has given rise to protests. Of those supply teachers, 92 per cent. are women. The problem is compounded because not only are they on low pay but they are being discriminated against. I hope that the Labour party will not say that everything in their garden is rosy.
  Many schools have relied on temporary staff and, over many years, many of those in London have come from Australia and New Zealand. They come here to gain overseas experience. The Minister will confirm that a New Zealand teacher who attended a debate upstairs confirmed that she was leaving teaching because the salary of £105 per week was not sufficient to support her. It is welcome news that such teachers will at last be paid more, but the Secretary of State should have thought of that many months ago.
  Perhaps what is most resented by many teachers is the suggestion that they are now enjoying a number of special offers and attractions. In reality, most of them are not. It is all very well having new incentives by way of one-off payments or help with the house to catch new recruits or having incentives to bring back into teaching those who had left to do something else, but the biggest group of teachers are those who have stayed. They are the ones whom we need to hang on to, and many of them resent the special tricks to attract others. We need to spend money on upgrading the status and pay of all teachers in order to recruit and retain those whom we need in our schools.
  Mr. Bob Dunn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hughes: I shall, although the hon. Gentleman has only just come in.
  Mr. Dunn: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I apologise profusely for not listening to the start of the hon. Gentleman's speech, but he has made some interesting points. Is he, like me, in favour of regional pay and local bargaining? I represent a constituency in the south-east and I fully understand the difficulty of attracting and retaining staff there, a problem which does not exist to the same extent north of Birmingham.
  Mr. Hughes: I am not in favour of regional pay, because if the teaching profession is to be properly structured, teachers should be adequately remunerated not only when they enter it but in mid-career. Until people in public service are valued and adequately remunerated, we shall continue losing them to the private sector, whether or not there is regional pay. If more money is paid to teachers in the south-east, their salaries would still be below those paid in the private sector. Of course it depends on the market, but, region by region, those working in the public sector are paid substantially less than those in the private sector. The fundamental problem will not begin to be addressed until those in the public sector—above all, teachers—receive an adequate basic remuneration.
  Today, on what might be the Secretary of State's last opportunity to prove that he has any ideas of substance, he must have come to the House aware that the Select Committee's report, which we already know is exceedingly critical, is waiting in the wings. It argues for a substantial increase in funding, asserts that the teacher shortage is likely to have been underestimated, and acknowledges that teachers deserve salary increases and mid-career incentives. The evidence given to the Select Committee is known to the Secretary of State; it is irresponsible of him to deny its existence and not respond to it today. It places the education of many children at direct risk in September.
  All that the Secretary of State does is meet with the unions.
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett: No, he meets the unions.
  Mr. Hughes: The right hon. Gentleman, as I heard him explain on the radio this morning, meets with the unions and puts off democratic negotiations being re-established for another year. Although the Secretary of State argues that only one union pressed for an interim settlement, it is not enough to say that there cannot be such an arrangement. There should be an interim settlement, and there could be. If the right hon. Gentleman carries sufficient authority with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he should be able to persuade his right hon. Friend to provide the necessary money.
  It is crucial that, in areas of obvious and acute shortage, additional money should be made available in the form of special merit awards.
  Mr. Bennett: The hon. Gentleman means regional pay.
  Mr. Hughes: No, I do not. It may be that there are shortages in central Birmingham, as in central London, or in other areas of the north-west and north-east, but there may be no shortages in adjacent areas, as the Secretary of State's figures tend to confirm. He cited the example of Liverpool, which does not have a shortage, although nearby areas obviously do.
  256
  The teachers' tune is an old one, but they sing it every day. It is that, unless they are properly remunerated from the start of their careers to the end of them, many will not be able to afford to stay in the profession. Unless we reward properly those whom we charge with the responsibility for our children's education at the most important time of their lives, we shall be failing in our responsibility as a nation. That is the failure of the Government after 10 years, and the failure of the Secretary of State after three years in office. They have only now begun to wake up to the problem, but still do not believe that it is anything other than containable or that it is anything to be alarmed about. That response is nothing but a disgrace.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. Unless right hon. and hon. Members make briefer speeches, many others will be very disappointed by 7 o'clock.
  5.43 pm
  Mr. Mark Wolfson: I welcome the acceptance by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State early in his speech that teacher supply is a serious matter. Earlier this year, I did not receive a similar response from other Ministers, and I am glad that the position has changed. Teacher shortage is not a new problem but one that has existed for many years, especially in respect of science, mathematics, technology and, in recent years, modern languages. However, problems are there to be overcome—and Ministers as well as the Government collectively are charged with that responsibility.
  In 1988, 1·5 per cent. of all primary posts and 1 per cent. of all secondary posts were unfilled. That was an improvement on 1987, but those figures for actual vacancies do not include hidden shortages, where subjects are taught by teachers who have inadequate qualifications or who work in a temporary or part-time capacity when the job should preferably be filled permanently by a teacher in a full-time post.
  The latest available statistics are unsatisfactorily out of date. The figures that I obtained are for 1984, and suggest that 13 per cent. of mathematics and 18 per cent. of physics teaching posts were filled by teachers having no higher education qualifications in those subjects.
  I now turn to the example of Kent, in which I obviously have a particular interest, and for which I have up-to-date figures. Kent education committee's trawl of vacancies at the end of June revealed that 150 primary posts and 250 secondary posts were unfilled. Interviews are continuing and appointments are still being made, but that state of affairs, which is similar to that of last year, is still serious. I do not call it a crisis, but it is serious.
  Of those vacancies, 34 are in mathematics, 39 in science, and 27 in modern languages. Such figures might be expected because there are shortages nationally of teachers in those subjects. More disturbing is that there are also 38 vacancies in English and 29 in physical education, which many people think are not shortage areas.
  The situation in Kent is not as bad as it is in Essex, and it is comparable to that of one year ago, but I emphasise that it is still serious. I hope that that point is fully appreciated. The situation in Kent bears exactly on the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire,

  257
  East (Mr. MacKay). House prices and other factors that bear on the cost of living create particular problems in the south-east and London.
  The number of candidates interviewed for unfilled posts is markedly down. Sometimes they number only one or two for each vacancy at all levels—from the most junior to headships. It may be argued that this demonstrates that there are good career prospects for teachers, but it also reveals that education authorities have a limited choice of candidates for any particular vacancy.
  Kent has taken several steps. It provides a range of mortgage packages and is flexible on removal allowances. It also provides creche facilities. Those initiatives are constructive and helpful but, against an overall shortage in certain subjects, such benefits represent only a short-term attraction, as surrounding education authorities rapidly offer the same incentives. My hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire, East made the point that salaries outside the profession, in commerce and industry, have a direct bearing on the shortage.
  The recruitment of licensed or articled teachers would help. It is beyond belief that this practical step to attract people from outside the profession was vehemently opposed by the Opposition and by the trade unions. I am delighted that a different view now appears to prevail,—a practical view and one that can benefit our children. Licensed and articled teachers are not, however, a panacea; they may deal with only 5 or 10 per cent. of the identified shortfall.
  Improved pay is necessary, and, at the right time, the restoration of the pay negotiating machinery—to which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is committed—will be helpful. Above all, teachers need to regain the standing of their own profession, and to an extent that is in their own hands. I am not critical of most of the profession; I hold teachers in high regard, considering that they perform a difficult and enormously worthwhile job, often in trying circumstances. Nevertheless, they have done appalling damage to their standing through strike action.
  Perhaps most important is the need to give education authorities the opportunity to arrange for regional pay to reflect the different costs of living in various parts of the country. That is what the private sector does, and I think that the public sector must, increasingly, do the same.
  5.51 pm
  Mr. Gerry Steinberg: I could weep over what is happening to the teaching profession. I was a member of that profession for more than 20 years, and I only wish that the Government realised what they are doing to it, and have been doing to it for the past 10 years. Morale is at its lowest ebb; teachers are disillusioned and dejected. No doubt they will feel even more depressed in the morning, when they read what has been said today by the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and other Conservative Members.
  Why are teachers in this state? They have been rubbished by the Government to such an extent that they feel they are no longer in a worthwhile profession. Their pay is extremely low compared with that of others in the private sector, and pay, of course, is an important aspect
  258
  of anyone's life. Dedication is all very well, but teachers who are not paid enough to eat and live properly cannot be expected to exist on dedication.
  Moreover, teachers' work load has increased considerably over the past few years, and—especially in view of the enforcement of the Education Reform Act 1988—is still increasing daily. They are, however, receiving no further remuneration or other help.
  We constantly hear the claptrap uttered by the Secretary of State and his officials. They claim that morale is high and that the problems are being exaggerated, but they are the only people to do so. Whom have they been talking to? Do they ever go into schools and talk to the teachers? Whichever schools I visit and whichever teachers I consult, I always hear the same story of low morale, deep depression and extreme anger at what the Government are doing. The Secretary of State would have to be a contortionist to do some of the things that teachers have told me to tell him to do.
  Teachers are indeed dedicated, but dedication must not be mistaken for high morale. Clearly the Secretary of State does not understand, or rather, he refuses to do so. More and more teachers are leaving the profession, and that bastion of Socialism The Daily Telegraph tells us that nearly a third of those in the profession want to get out. That, of course, makes the current shortage even more serious. Between 35 and 40 per cent. of those who begin training do not enter the profession, and it is entirely unacceptable that 20 to 25 per cent. of those working for a postgraduate certificate of education do not even begin teaching.
  The introduction of the national curriculum, which has received few extra resources, has led to more shortages—which, incidentally, will jeopardise the Secretary of State's dream of its success. As well as the general teacher shortage, there are glaring specific shortages in subjects such as maths, science, foreign languages, English, business studies and information technology. There are also regional shortages, particularly in London. The lack of teachers has meant no education at all for some, and partial education for others.
  The shortage is having a knock-on effect on the recruitment of educational psychologists, who must be recruited solely from the teaching profession. If the implementation of the Education Act 1981 is to continue successfully, and if the 1988 Act is to function to the benefit of those with special educational needs, we must attract suitably qualified teachers into the psychology service. Recruitment is already low, for exactly the same reasons as the low recruitment in the teaching profession—poor pay and an increased work load.
  The Government do not wish to accept that there is a major problem, because they know that if they did they would have to provide increased resources. The Secretary of State is being deliberately complacent, claiming that the problems of low morale and shortages have been exaggerated. If he really believes that, he should quit, because he obviously cannot see beyond the nose on his face. But the Secretary of State is not daft: we all know that. He knows the position as well as anyone. If he admits the truth, he will have to spend more money—and we all know what the Prime Minister would think of that, and the likely effect on the right hon. Gentleman's future career.
  As a member of the Select Committee on Education, which has been considering teacher shortages, I regret the

  259
  recent leaks in the press. I hope, however, that certain Conservative Members will not use them as an excuse to ensure that a report is not published very soon. Such a report, giving the facts about the shortage, would be politically sensitive and damning to the Government, but if that excuse is used it will he a disgrace—and the country will know very well why it has happened.
  If the Government deny that low morale and staff shortages are causing major problems in the education system, they are alone in doing so. Their views are being rejected, not only by the National Union of Teachers and the National Association of Head Masters/Union of Women Teachers, but by organisations that support them, such as the Secondary Heads Association, the National Union of Head Teachers and even the HMIs.
  Virtually every local education authority is facing teacher shortages. The problem is getting worse. Why is that so? More pupils are entering schools but the number of graduates who are leaving universities and polytechnics is declining. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] Oh, yes, they are. The market for graduates is highly competitive. We should be tempting them into the teaching profession, but their salaries are far too low and their salary increases are well below the rate of inflation. How, therefore, can we expect graduates to enter the teaching profession? It cannot hope to compete. We cannot wait until there is a Labour Government. Action must be taken now.
  What action ought we to take? A national monitoring body should be established, consisting of Government representatives and also of representatives of local authorities, teachers' organisations, parents, business interests and the community. Its task would be to advise on teacher supply and demand and also on initial and in-service training, taking into account developments in education—for example, the national curriculum. Action must be taken now to tackle the immediate shortages. The only readily available supply of teachers is the pool of inactive teachers. They should be encouraged to return to the profession. Many of them left it because of family commitments.
  Local education authorities should be asked to provide creche, nursery and extended day-care facilities. Up-to-date refresher courses ought to be provided. Flexible hours should be introduced, which might involve job sharing. The only difficulty is that local authorities have not been provided with the resources to introduce these facilities. That is a central Government responsibility. They must provide the resources.
  Conservative Members have referred to the introduction of regional pay awards. We reject that suggestion. The introduction of regional pay differentials would only lead to the shortages being shifted around. The flexibility to deal with teacher shortages already exists. They can be overcome by means of incentive allowances.
  Initial teacher training will continue to be the main route into teaching. The first priority is to make a career in teaching sufficiently attractive to recruit a large number of graduates. That must involve a significant increase in teachers' pay and improvements in their career prospects, perhaps by means of changes to the incentive allowance structure. However, the local education authorities have not been provided with the money to bring about those changes. Central Government must provide the resources.
  New routes into the profession must be opened up. We must provide for mid-career changes. However, we reject the Secretary of State's proposal for licensed teachers.
  260
  That would lead to a dilution of the profession. I accept that more graduates could be recruited locally. Family ties and other responsibilities mean that they are unlikely to be able to uproot themselves for a year in order to go to university, having been provided with a grant.
  However, their practical teaching experience could be gained in a local school, which could be combined with regular release to a local college for professional training. They could be paid an unqualified teacher's salary. Their professional training would lead to a qualification that was equivalent to the postgraduate certificate of education. Their in-school practical experience could be supervised by a teacher in the classroom who would be with them all the time. They would be in addition to, not an alternative to, the school's normal complement of teachers.
  Teachers' negotiating rights must be re-established in line with the International Labour Organisation's conventions, if a start is to be made on improving morale in the teaching profession. Teaching as a profession must be made more attractive by ensuring that adequate resources and equipment are available and also by ensuring that there is an attractive, high-quality environment. Only the Government can provide the money to pay for it. While the Government refuse to analyse the scale of the problem, they cannot hope to tackle it. Anything they do is likely to be inadequate.
  Unless the Government listen to what is said in the debate and take notice, teacher shortages will remain and will increase. Teaching morale will grow even worse and state education will deteriorate. I hope that the Secretary of State does not want that to happen, but sometimes I wonder. I hope that the Secretary of State for Education and Science is moved from education in the reshuffle and that he will be given the chairmanship of the Tory party, where he will do to the Tory party what he has done to education.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Before I call the next speaker, it may be convenient if I were to say that the winding-up speeches will begin at 6.35. If hon. Members were to speak for 10 minutes each, I should be able to call three of them. If they spoke for less than 10 minutes, I might be able to call even more.
  6.5 pm
  Mr. James Pawsey: I was disappointed by the speech of the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg). It lacked his usual constructive and positive approach. He seemed to talk down an honourable profession and to overstate his case. However, I agreed with him that most teachers are dedicated. That is entirely right.
  The arguments of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) reminded me of a bra for a teenager—small, unformed and with very little point. The real reason for this second debate on teacher shortages is that the first time around the Opposition made no impact at all. They are now coming back for a second bite at the cherry, but I suspect that they will be no luckier than they were last time. Their choice of subject tells us more about their lack of imagination in choosing subjects for Supply days than anything else.
  I found it particularly significant that the hon. Member for Blackburn refused to give way on the question of teachers' pay. I give him the opportunity now, if he wishes

  261
  to intervene, to tell the House precisely what are his party's intentions on teachers' pay. Would he increase teachers' pay by 10 per cent., 15 per cent. or 20 per cent.? As this is an Opposition Supply day, I feel that they have a duty to the House to answer that question. The teachers of this country are waiting to hear what the hon. Gentleman means when he talks about teachers' pay. If he wishes to intervene, I shall willingly give way.
  Mr. Straw: I am glad to know that the hon. Gentleman expects there to be a Labour Government following the defeat of the present Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] The answer is that the decisions that we make then will depend on the economic mess that has been left by the present Government. Support for the Conservative party by teachers has fallen to an all-time low of 14 per cent. On education, Labour has a 10 per cent. lead among teachers, parents and others. They know that Labour has a far better approach to education than the Conservatives.
  Mr. Pawsey: I suspect that when the teachers of this country read that answer they will realise that the hon. Gentleman was unable to come up with a positive figure on teachers' pay. When invited to do so, he positively refused to give a specific figure. The teachers will draw their own conclusions.
  There is a slight difference between the two debates. When we last discussed the subject we took into account only teachers' pay. The debate has been broadened today to take into account teachers' morale. There is some evidence of disquiet. When we debated the matter 11 weeks ago I remember saying that the overwhelming majority of teachers are committed to their profession and to the young people in their charge and that their remuneration should be commensurate with their responsibilities. I agree with the hon. Member for City of Durham about that.
  I have been saying for some years that the teaching profession plays a substantial part in the education, moulding and development of our young people. Their role is second only to that of parents, but I do not believe that their importance is fully recognised by society. Responsibility for violence and indiscipline can often be traced back to the home and school. We are now reaping the benefit of the free expression and empathy teaching of the 1960s and 1970s.
  The strikes and disruption of two and more years ago seriously undermined the status of the teaching profession, a point that was well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson). The standing of teachers has been much reduced, particularly when on television parents could see members of the profession shambling through the streets, carrying placards which, frankly, were illiterate, taking industrial action organised by the trade unions. Parents were not impressed by teachers leaving classes and taking time off which resulted in schools being closed and pupils sent home.
  Understandably, the reputation of the profession suffered, the esteem in which teachers were held has fallen, and with it their morale. One hopes that that is in the past and, as I said earlier, the majority of teachers are committed to their profession and to the children in their
  262
  charge. Again I ask my right hon. Friend to persuade the Treasury to be more generous with a pay settlement this year than in the recent past.
  I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the amendment in his name and in the names of his ministerial colleagues. It is significant that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer put his name to that amendment. I hope that he understands and appreciates the need to increase the funding available for teachers. There is another reason why the Treasury should loosen the purse strings. Teachers are no longer able to negotiate pay or conditions. That option has been removed, so a pay settlement should be more generous. We should show teachers that they have not lost through the abolition of Burnham—rather they should be seen to have gained.
  In regard to numbers of teachers, the pupil-teacher ratio of 17:1 is the best ever and there have been improvements in class size, with the number of pupils taught in classes of 31 or more having fallen by an average of more than 10 per cent. Having said that, local education authorities are increasingly able to help themselves. My own local education authority of Warwickshire is doing a great deal to keep in touch with inactive teachers and seeking to bring back to the profession those women who left it to have families. That point was made by my right hon. Friend in his opening speech. However, those returning to the profession need more support and training. When the Minister of State replies to the debate, she may wish to refer to that specific point.
  Clearly, there is a substantial reservoir of teacher talent in society which should be brought back into the schools where it can do most good. But it is important to get teacher numbers into perspective. We should remember that last year only 1·5 per cent. of all primary posts and 1 per cent. of all secondary posts were unfilled. That is fewer than in 1987. I was interested that the Universities Funding Council said earlier this year:
  "It is pleasing to note that in 1988, after a slight dip in 1987, the figure for qualified students known to have obtained a teaching post in the United Kingdom returned to its normal level (75·1 per cent.): this was despite the increase in output."
  The Opposition believe that they have discovered an issue out of which they might make some cheap political advantage. Not for the first time, they are wrong—they were wrong last time and they are wrong again today.
  6.13 pm
  Mr. Win Griffiths: Having heard the Secretary of State's speech, once more we can give him 10 out of 10 for complacency, but when it came to recognising the nature of the problem, he attempted to brush it aside as something of little or no consequence. According to the Secretary of State, if there was a problem, the ultimate responsibility lay with the local education authorities. He told us grandly that he trained the teachers and it was up to the local authorities to employ them. Rather like the way in which the Secretary of State for Employment has reduced unemployment artificially, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer would dearly love to take mortgage calculations out of the retail price index, the Secretary of State for Education and Science is fiddling with the problem.
  The problem first became serious in London, but there is plenty of evidence that it is spreading to other local authority areas. In Oxfordshire and Devon, local education authorities are experiencing serious shortages,

  263
  although hon. Members might think that those places would have sufficient attraction for teachers. The city of Birmingham has more than 600 vacancies in September—350 in the primary sector and 264 in the secondary sector, of which more than 40 are for English. Those places probably will not be filled in September. There is a great likelihood that the problem in Tower Hamlets and Southwark, where pupils are not getting full-time education, will spread to other parts of the country.
  The problem is not simply particular areas suffering teacher shortages; it is much more widespread in certain subjects. The Secretary of State boasted that it was his duty to provide training for teachers and that there were more teachers entering training than ever before. But he did not tell us that, in certain subjects, the DES targets in 1988 were well below the requirement for the subjects in which the shortages were most serious. For example, in mathematics there was a 27 per cent. shortage of students entering the PGCE course. In physics, the figure was 23 per cent., in chemistry 42 per cent., in craft, design and technology 22 per cent., and in modern languages 14 per cent. There may be more graduates entering teacher training but in certain critical subjects the DES targets are not being met, and, by definition, the existing problem is bound to become worse.
  Mr. Dalyell: Figures from the Royal Society of Chemistry suggest that in July 1987 there were 669 applications and in July 1989 there were only 540. The Royal Society of Chemistry has every reason to be extremely concerned.
  Mr. Griffiths: I thank my hon. Friend for those figures, which underline exactly what I have been saying about the failure of the DES to get teachers into training in certain critical subjects.
  That is not the end of the story. More graduates and more students are taking the BEd route into teacher training, but a large number of them are not completing the courses. There is a 25 per cent. drop-out rate for the BEd. Thankfully it is lower for the PGCE—only 10 per cent.—but there is a drop-out rate. The Secretary of State expressed no concern about that and boldly trumpeted the fact that more men and women were entering teacher training of one sort or another. When those teachers are trained, one third of them in the first year do not go into teaching, so that is a further dampening of the glowing reports on those going into training by the Secretary of State. Let us not divert ourselves from the fact that, whatever figures the Department of Education and Science comes up with, the problem is getting worse.
  The Secretary of State did not have a great deal to say either about pay in the profession. We need to examine that point specifically. After all, his Interim Advisory Committee on School Teachers' Pay and Conditions said in its last report, when it had been given a limit of £385 million:
  "we have found the £385 million limit on the Committee's recommendations for 1989–90 to be gravely constraining."
  The committee realised the problem and knew then that the limit would cause problems in arriving at a settlement.
  In its report last year, the Committee told the Secretary of State:
  "We can do no more than urge the Secretary of State to consider further how much he is prepared to make available to secure the willing co-operation of all teachers."
  264
  Conservative Members should not be asking us how much we shall pay the teachers. We are not able to pay them now. It is their own Secretary of State who has that role and duty, and he is the person who should be asked how much he is prepared to pay teachers in the coming year.
  The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): He has already done it.
  Mr. Griffiths: Although the Minister says that the Secretary of State has already done it, I have heard no global figure or promise of a percentage. If there are such figures, I should be interested to learn of them afterwards.
  We are told in glowing terms that teachers have received a 30 per cent. increase in real terms in the past few years. As my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) pointed out, it is not how much teachers have received, but the comparison with other graduates that counts. The Financial Times recently carried out a survey, dividing the professions and industry into 11 different sectors. In 1988, the starting pay for the public services, which included teachers, was at the bottom of the scale. At the end of the first year, it was still at the bottom, as it was at the end of the third year. At the end of the fifth year, graduates in the public service had, on average, managed to pull themselves up to eighth place in the league.
  As for the development of salaries, a graduate in teaching after five years would expect his salary to he 40 per cent. higher, whereas a graduate outside teaching would expect his salary to be 70 per cent. higher. After 10 years, the salary of a graduate in teaching would be 56 per cent. higher, whereas a graduate outside teaching would have more than doubled his salary. Pay is critical and fundamental for such reasons.
  The interim advisory committee said in its last report:
  "We continue to be impressed by teachers' commitment and their high professional standards; but morale appears to be low as we judged it to be last year. We believe pay to be a critical factor in morale."
  The committee spelled out its views clearly, and I hope that the Secretary of State will respond.
  I want to refer to my own local education authority, the county of Mid Glamorgan, and the problem of teacher shortages in the context of the introduction of the national curriculum. Although the Secretary of State has announced several initiatives which should make some small impression on the problem, there will still be significant problems in Wales in, for example, the introduction of the teaching of the Welsh language. My own local authority is well known in Wales as one of the foremost promoters of bilingual education. It found, in a survey of its schools, that almost 500 teachers were unable to teach Welsh, but many of them were willing to undertake training so that they could teach the language. However, the amount provided by the Welsh Office for in-service training for Welsh language teaching in the county of Mid Glamorgan was about one quarter of what the county hoped to receive. Obviously, there is a need for an increased commitment of resources for the challenges to be met.
  The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. Wyn Roberts): We are spending some £233,000 this year on in-service teacher training in the Welsh language. We shall he spending a total of £1·2 million over the next three years.
  Mr. Griffiths: I thank the Minister for that intervention. However, he will be aware that he provided me with those figures in a written answer only the other day. Despite the £233,000, and despite the £1·2 million over the next three years, there will be barely enough to touch the real problem. That problem is repeated throughout education in England and Wales. The resources do not meet the problems.
  A survey of science teaching in Mid Glamorgan secondary schools showed that that one county alone needed about 80 more teachers. If that figure were repeated across the United Kingdom—the position in Mid Glamorgan is likely to be better than in most other places, because the problem of teacher shortages is not as severe in Wales—one would see that the Government are not providing sufficient resources to deal with the problem. I hope that the Minister of State will outline clearly what she considers the nature of the problem to be and how the Government's resources will deal with it.
  6.27 pm
  Mr. David Evennett: I am always delighted to follow the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths), with whom I serve on the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts; but, together with his hon. Friends the Members for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) and for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery), who also serve on the Select Committee, his analysis is wrong and his solutions, precious few though they are, are also wrong. I also want to correct the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), who said that the Select Committee was about to publish a report. The report has not yet been agreed, so he can believe it to be critical only as a result of press speculation, not fact. Until the report has been agreed by the members of the Select Committee, it cannot be critical.
  We can all agree that there is a problem of teacher supply. The reasons for that are many and varied and the blame cannot be put at any one door. The Opposition motion and the support for it are far too negative and simplistic. We know that there is a shortage of teachers in certain parts of Greater London and we know that there are shortages in certain key subjects. But emotive words such as "crisis" are not only untrue, but do not help. We are not numerically short of teachers. If one considers the number in the pool of inactive teachers, we would have no problem if we could bring them back into the profession. We should be exploring the possibilities of job sharing or part-time work. We should consider packages to encourage people to move into teaching shortage areas.
  The reasons for the shortages are many and varied. We have discussed them at great length in the Select Committee and in the Chamber today. Morale, pay, career structure, professionalism, the constant re-organisation of schools in the 1970s and the decline in the value that the public give to education and the education service all play a part. The Government, especially my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, are to be congratulated on several important innovations during my right hon. Friend's term of office. He has put education back in the centre of national life. He has stressed its importance and brought about radical reforms to enhance education provision.
  Mr. Robert Key: Hallelujah.
  Mr. Evennett: The national curriculum, local management at schools, opting-out proposals and CTCs are all important in improving the relevance of education, thereby enhancing the status of teachers. Such reforms should be welcomed, but Labour does not do so—it merely condemns and criticises.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State disbanded the Burnham system, an outdated and unworkable piece of machinery for determining teachers' salaries. Now he proposes new ideas to deal with the annual salary awards of teachers. A better negotiating machinery will enhance the status of teachers. The innovative proposals to increase the number of teachers by the articled and licensed teacher routes are to be welcomed. They offer opportunities for well-qualified people to go into the profession and ensure that there is more on-the-job training in schools rather than in the ivory towers of the colleges.
  Merely increasing salaries will not encourage more people to be teachers. We must ensure that we get the right people for our children, for the taxpayer and the ratepayer, and for the future of the country. Children are our future and teachers have an important and special role to play. Most teachers do a good job in difficult circumstances, and Conservative Members praise them, but the profession and the trade unions must change some of their attitudes. More money is needed—not across the board, but selectively. I should like to highlight the position of the middle-range teachers, who have been in the profession for 10 to 15 years and who are aged between 35 and 45 and underpaid.
  We need to consider housing for teachers in Greater London, where house prices are astronomical and a disincentive to teacher mobility. Teachers cannot move into Greater London and the home counties for promotion because they cannot afford to buy a house. When determining teachers' salaries, more emphasis should be placed on market forces with greater regional differences to take account of the different regional costs of living. Only then will there be greater staff mobility and an influx of people into the teaching profession. Local management of schools will be of great value, as will the other Government-sponsored reforms which are designed to increase value for money in education and provide a better quality education service. Better schools with better educational emphasis would generate more and better teachers and a vocation to teach could again be in vogue.
  This has been an interesting debate. We have heard little from the Opposition about what they would do if they ever returned to power. They have no idea what to do, other than just throwing money at a particular problem. Putting in money across the board will not solve the problems in the shortage areas. Other measures are needed, and Conservative Members have made constructive suggestions.
  There is a problem, and more action is needed—we all accept that. The Government are aware of the problem and are actively working to reduce the shortages. Teaching remains a fine career, which interests many young people, and also many older people. We have a duty to encourage more entrants to go into the profession and to ensure that they are well rewarded and have a good career structure. Much has been done, but there is more to be done, especially in the shortage subjects and in the home counties and Greater London. We look for a partnership of trade

  267
  unions, teachers, Government and local education authorities to solve the problem. I believe that we can and will solve it.
  6.35 pm
  Mr. Derek Fatchett: We have made substantial progress since the last debate on this subject on 2 May. In that debate, almost all the Conservative Members who spoke tried to argue that there was not a problem of teacher supply and teacher shortage. The ground has shifted substantially since then. The hon. Member for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay) made a number of references to the problems of teacher supply and shortage in his constituency. The hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) made a telling contribution about the problems facing the Kent local education authority. He said that he noticed the differences between the earlier comments by Ministers and their comments now, and that point struck home. The hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett) said that there was now a problem of teacher supply and shortage.
  The consensus is growing, and it is now so strong that we have taken the Secretary of State with us, although not all the way. Perhaps, if I were writing his end-of-term report, I would say that he had made some improvement in terms of understanding the problems of teacher supply and shortage. He admitted that there was a problem. He defined it as a regional problem and limited it to London and the home counties. He was right, but he told only half the tale. There is a more substantial problem, of which the right hon. Gentleman is fully aware and about which his Department provided great detail in its evidence to the Select Committee on teacher supply and teacher shortage.
  It is worth reminding ourselves of the likely shortages by the mid-1990s, according to the Government's current projections. They predict shortages of 1,000 teachers out of a total demand for 20,000 in mathematics; 1,500 and 2,000 respectively out of a total demand for 11,000 teachers each in physics and chemistry; 6,000 out of a total demand for 22,000 in technology; 2,500 out of a total demand for 19,000 in modern languages; and 2,000 out of a total demand for 7,000 in music. It is not just a regional problem; it is also very much a subject problem, and the Secretary of State was wrong not to refer to that.
  The Secretary of State was wrong also not to draw the attention of the House and the country—although parents already recognise this, as I am sure do teachers—to the substantial hidden shortages in terms of the delivery of the school curriculum. The most recent available figures are for 1984. The Department of Education and Science seems to be reluctant to collect figures on teacher supply and teacher shortage. According to the Department's evidence to the Select Committee, 13 per cent. of timetabled tuition in mathematics and 18 per cent. in physics were provided by teachers with no higher education qualification in those subjects. There is not only a regional shortage but a hidden subject shortage.
  Mr. Harry Cohen: The Secretary of State said that east London is a particularly bad area for teacher shortages, and it has been confirmed by parents in my own constituency that there will be a big shortage. Does my hon. Friend agree that, apart from one small pilot project in Newham to get ethnic minority teachers, the Secretary of State has outlined no action to tackle that problem in east London?
  Mr. Fatchett: My hon. Friend makes a telling point from his own experience. Perhaps I can refer back to it later in my speech.
  Conservative Members have given a number of explanations of why we have a problem. The hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) made a speech that was unusually disloyal to the Government. Presumably it had not been vetted—for the first time ever—by the Whips. He said that he would like the Treasury to loosen the purse strings on teachers'pay. He is not alone in saying that. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman gets most of his political ideas from the Daily Mail—that would come as no great surprise to those of us who have watched his intellectual development over the years.
  He will have noticed, no doubt, that there have recently been two articles on the subject in the Daily Mail. Last Tuesday, II July, its education correspondent made the important point that this year's pay rise will be less than the current rate of inflation. He added:
  "That simply is not good enough."
  Today, a Daily Mail editorial says that a recent survey showed that many young graduates are drawn towards teaching as a career and concludes:
  "it is only the poor pay that puts them off."
  The Government say that there have been increases in real pay for teachers since they came to office, and that that makes teaching more attractive as a profession but, as hon. Members on both sides of the House have said, it is the comparison with other graduate professions that is crucial. The growth of average earnings in other graduate professions is better than the growth of average earnings in teaching.
  I shall illustrate that point with some figures. During the 10 years that the Government have been in office, average real earnings for teachers have increased at an annual rate of 3·9 per cent. We should compare that with the figure for accountancy—which must be dear to many Conservative Members—which is 4·1 per cent. For the financial, insurance and taxation sector, the figure is 6·4 per cent., for computer programmers it is 4 per cent, and for medical practitioners it is 4·8 per cent. Despite all the Government's claims about teachers' pay, it has grown more slowly than the comparable all-graduate professions that I have referred to.
  Mr. George Walden rose—
  Mr. Fatchett: I will not give way, because of the shortage of time. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that.
  The Government's argument on teachers' pay does not hold up. As the Daily Mail and many hon. Members have said, there is clearly a need to look again at teachers' pay.
  There has been substantial reference to low morale in the teaching profession. The Secretary of State says that the Labour party does not like to make proposals on how to deal with the crisis of teacher shortage and supply. Let me offer him three or four points about morale that would have a very positive impact on teacher supply.
  First, it is important for the Government, and any future Government, to restore to teachers the right to bargain over their pay and conditions. The loss of that right was a deep blow to morale in the teaching profession, and the longer the Government go on imposing their own pay increases on teachers, the further morale will collapse.
  Secondly, is it not the case that, when the Government introduced the Education Reform Act 1988, and when the

  269
  Secretary of State has talked about his reform of education, until recently, he has never thought it necessary to take the teachers, their professionalism and their experience with him in the process of change? Throughout, the Secretary of State has denigrated the teachers' contribution and their professionalism and tried to impose change without taking them with him.
  Perhaps I visit more schools than the Secretary of State—that would not be a great achievement—but when I visited a secondary school in north Yorkshire the other day, the head teacher told me that the school's science teachers were training and offering advice, out of school and without pay, to primary teachers in feeder schools so that they had some feel for, knowledge of and involvement in the development of primary science and the national curriculum.
  Mr. Key: Well done.
  Mr. Fatchett: Yes, it is well done by those teachers, but how often are they criticised by Conservative Members, and how often is their commitment recognised by the Government? If the process of change under the Education Reform Act 1988 had taken teachers with the Government and with the reforms, we would have had a very different situation in relation to morale.
  Thirdly, there are roughly 400,000 people in the pool of inactive, qualified teachers, yet we rarely hear any proposal from the Secretary of State or Conservative Members to try to attract them back into teaching. Why does he not find out more about that pool of inactive teachers and their child care needs, so that they can go back into the teaching profession? Why do the Government not provide more refresher courses so that some of those teachers can go back into the classroom, do the job that they trained for and make the contribution that they want to make?
  The Government seem to have written off totally those inactive teachers, but they are an important pool of expertise and it is about time that the Government came forward with proposals for them.
  One of the most notable elements of the debate was the Secretary of State's refusal to answer the question put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). It was a simple, important and potent question for parents throughout the country. Will the Secretary of State give parents a guarantee that no child will be without a teacher, and so be sent home from school, this autumn? Will he give that guarantee? The Secretary of State refused to answer that question. He can fiddle with his papers now in embarrassment, but he knows that the answer is that he does not have the ability or the policies to deliver the duties that are placed upon him in the Education Reform Act 1988. Nor does he have the ability or the policies to deliver the moral responsibility placed upon him to ensure that all our children have equal access to education.
  During the debate, every Conservative Member, in lines presumably provided by the Department of Education and Science, said that responsibility lies with the Labour Opposition, as they called the debate. I remind the Government that they have been in office for 10 years, and that they are the cause of the problem. The time will come, very shortly, when the Conservative party is out of office. Meanwhile, the Government have to stand up to their
  270
  responsibilities. While they fail to stand up to those responsibilities, the education of thousands of children is being endangered and the standard of their education is being reduced. It is time that the Government stood up to those responsibilities and made sure that there is a real guarantee to parents and children that there will be teachers in our classrooms this September.
  6.49 pm
  The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): I have listened with care to the remarks of hon. Members on both sides of the House. I have accepted some of the points made by my hon. Friends and I congratulate them on making some sensible suggestions. I was saddened by the remarks of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery), whose very tone served only to exacerbate the problem by reinforcing the views repeatedly expressed by the media and by Opposition Members about low teacher morale. One almost has the feeling that Opposition Members want that to continue—[HON. MEMBERS: "It is true."]—although I know that that cannot be true because many Opposition Members have the interests of children at heart.
  Opposition Members should listen more often to speeches such as that made by my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett). Instead of repeatedly endorsing low morale and referring to difficulties in teacher supply and so on, my hon. Friend rightly paid tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the way in which, during his three years in office, he has raised the level of public interest in education to such an extent that teachers now begin to feel that they are appreciated as members of our society because of the job that they are doing in schools and for children.
  Teachers also have much to achieve by implementing the national curriculum. In that regard, I was surprised to hear the hon. Member for Hillsborough attacking the national curriculum, which, after all, was a direct response to the long-standing debate about the standards of education in this country, that had been going on since 1977, when a Prime Minister of the hon. Gentleman's own political persuasion raised the subject.
  Mr. Flannery: I did not make any formal attack on the national curriculum—I attacked the Secretary of State, and, indeed, the Minister, because they will not give us enough teachers to deliver the national curriculum.
  Mrs. Rumbold: I am glad that the hon. Member for Hillsborough is a late convert to the idea of the national curriculum.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay) made a thoughtful speech. He started by saying that he was disappointed—rightly so, in my view—at the level of this debate. He rightly identified the serious problems which arises from high housing costs in some parts of the country. Ministers are fully aware of that problem. We take the point that it has a bearing not only on teachers but on all those who work in areas which have experienced astronomical increases in house prices over the past few years. I share my hon. Friend's view that it is a good thing that house prices in badly affected areas are now beginning to fall.
  My hon. Friend also made the valid point that it is important to be able to attract men as well as women into our primary schools. We need the right balance of good

  271
  men and women teachers in our primary and secondary schools and Ministers have some sympathy with the view that we should consider how to tackle the regional differences.
  In parenthesis, I want to ask a question, to which I am sure I shall get an answer. The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) referred to Labour's policy of a national housing allowance for teachers. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire, East, I have a little difficulty with, and certainly distaste for, the idea that taxpayers should subsidise such a policy. Perhaps the hon. Member for Blackburn will take this opportunity to tell us what Labour's national housing allowance means, how it will be applied and to whom and how much he would expect it to cost. That information would he most interesting.
  Mr. Straw: I am delighted to accept the Minister's invitation. Almost every Conservative Member who spoke in the debate referred to the problems caused by high housing costs in some parts of the country. The answer to that problem is not regional pay—it is to deal with the high cost of housing through a nationally funded allowance which would vary from area to area according to variations in housing costs.
  Mrs. Rumbold: I am afraid that the worst fears of my hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire, East have been realised. Not only do we not know how much the allowance would cost—we know that it is to be nationally funded and we must therefore assume that it will be financed from the taxpayer's pocket.
  The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) was concerned about the Inner London education authority and the cost of teachers. Similar problems apply in many other high-cost housing areas. The hon. Gentleman welcomed my right hon. Friend's initiative to enable teachers from New Zealand and Australia to gain qualified teacher status after one term. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we discussed that this morning. It is an unfortunate condemnation of ILEA's policies that the young woman concerned is contemplating leaving its employ because she is not being paid as a qualified teacher although qualified teacher status has been granted to her by the Department of Education and Science. I should like an explanation from ILEA of its policies on employing teachers.
  In my view, we need to take a hard look at the way in which some local authorities operate a ring-fence, no-redundancy policy, which means that good, well-qualified new teachers cannot find jobs. In the north, for example, some teachers trained in the secondary shortage subjects about which we have heard so much, and who have already received our £1,300 bursary, cannot find jobs locally. I am told that other authorities will not employ probationary teachers. People are being turned away from teaching because local education authorities are not interested in using their services.
  In other parts of the country, early retirement is virtually an open door—
  Mr. Straw: Will the Minister give way?
  Mrs. Rumbold: No, I have too much to say.
  The policy on early retirement is a crazy policy at a time when some schools and authorities cannot recruit teachers to take the place of those whom they are letting go. The
  272
  hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey will agree with me that it is extremely important that we should address ourselves to that problem.
  It has also been suggested that under the present system teachers from overseas have to be paid as instructors, and at a lower rate, pending the successful outcome of their application for qualified teacher status. That is simply not true—under the present regime, and under the new licensed teacher regime starting in September, those people can be paid as qualified teachers. If London authorities have a real problem in that regard, the solution now lies in their hands.
  I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) for his thoughtful speech and I was interested to hear of his support for our licensed and articled teachers policy, about which we heard nothing from the Opposition.
  The hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) made a sad little speech largely based on inaccurate information. He claims, for example, that we have fewer graduates now than in 1979. In fact, we now have 200,000 more students coming into higher education than in 1979. The hon. Gentleman must be amazingly out of step to say such things.
  I am delighted to support the excellent speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey), who made the very good point that local education authorities can be active in helping teacher recruitment. My hon. Friend said that the extra money granted by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in the education support grant should be used to help recruit people back into teaching.
  Mr. Straw rose in his place, and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
  Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 220, Noes 302.

  Division No. 306]

  [6.59 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Buckley, George J.

  Allen, Graham

  Caborn, Richard

  Alton, David

  Callaghan, Jim

  Anderson, Donald

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Canavan, Dennis

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Ashton, Joe

  Cartwright, John

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Clay, Bob

  Barron, Kevin

  Clelland, David

  Beckett, Margaret

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Beith, A. J.

  Cohen, Harry

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Coleman, Donald

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

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Blair, Tony

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Blunkett, David

  Cousins, Jim

  Boateng, Paul

  Crowther, Stan

  Boyes, Roland

  Cryer, Bob

  Bradley, Keith

  Cummings, John

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Darling, Alistair

  273

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  McWilliam, John

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Madden, Max

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

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Dewar, Donald

  Marek, Dr John

  Dixon, Don

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Dobson, Frank

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Doran, Frank

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Douglas, Dick

  Martlew, Eric

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Maxton, John

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Meacher, Michael

  Eadie, Alexander

  Meale, Alan

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Michael, Alun

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Fatchett, Derek

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Fearn, Ronald

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

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

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Fisher, Mark

  Morley, Elliot

  Flannery, Martin

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Flynn, Paul

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Foster, Derek

  Mullin, Chris

  Fyfe, Maria

  Nellist, Dave

  Galbraith, Sam

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Galloway, George

  O'Brien, William

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  George, Bruce

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Parry, Robert

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Patchett, Terry

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Pendry, Tom

  Gordon, Mildred

  Pike, Peter L.

  Gould, Bryan

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Graham, Thomas

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Radice, Giles

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Randall, Stuart

  Grocott, Bruce

  Redmond, Martin

  Hardy, Peter

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Richardson, Jo

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Haynes, Frank

  Robertson, George

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Rogers, Allan

  Hinchliffe, David

  Rooker, Jeff

  Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Home Robertson, John

  Salmond, Alex

  Hood, Jimmy

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Howells, Geraint

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Hoyle, Doug

  Short, Clare

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Sillars, Jim

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

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

  Illsley, Eric

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

  Ingram, Adam

  Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

  Janner, Greville

  Snape, Peter

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Soley, Clive

  Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Kennedy, Charles

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Stott, Roger

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Straw, Jack

  Lambie, David

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Lamond, James

  Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Lewis, Terry

  Turner, Dennis

  Litherland, Robert

  Vaz, Keith

  Livsey, Richard

  Wall, Pat

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Wallace, James

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Walley, Joan

  Loyden, Eddie

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  McAllion, John

  Wareing, Robert N.

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  McFall, John

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  McKelvey, William

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  McLeish, Henry

  Wilson, Brian

  McNamara, Kevin

  Winnick, David

  274

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Worthington, Tony

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Wray, Jimmy

  Mr. Allen McKay and Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie.

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Alexander, Richard

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Amess, David

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Arbuthnot, James

  Forman, Nigel

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Ashby, David

  Forth, Eric

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Atkins, Robert

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Franks, Cecil

  Baldry, Tony

  Freeman, Roger

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  French, Douglas

  Bellingham, Henry

  Gale, Roger

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Gardiner, George

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Boswell, Tim

  Gill, Christopher

  Bottomley, Peter

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Bowis, John

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Gow, Ian

  Bright, Graham

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

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

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Gregory, Conal

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Hague, William

  Burns, Simon

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Burt, Alistair

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Butcher, John

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Hannam, John

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

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

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Harris, David

  Cash, William

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Hayes, Jerry

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Hayward, Robert

  Chapman, Sydney

  Heddle, John

  Chope, Christopher

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Churchill, Mr

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Hill, James

  Colvin, Michael

  Hind, Kenneth

  Conway, Derek

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Howard, Michael

  Cormack, Patrick

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

  Couchman, James

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Cran, James

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Critchley, Julian

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Curry, David

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

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

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Day, Stephen

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Devlin, Tim

  Irvine, Michael

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Irving, Charles

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Jack, Michael

  Dover, Den

  Jackson, Robert

  Dunn, Bob

  Jessel, Toby

  Durant, Tony

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Dykes, Hugh

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Eggar, Tim

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Evennett, David

  Key, Robert

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Kilfedder, James

  Fallon, Michael

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Farr, Sir John

  Knapman, Roger

  Favell, Tony

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  275

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Knowles, Michael

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Knox, David

  Rost, Peter

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Rowe, Andrew

  Lang, Ian

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Latham, Michael

  Ryder, Richard

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Lightbown, David

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Lilley, Peter

  Shelton, Sir William

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Lord, Michael

  Shersby, Michael

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  McCrindle, Robert

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Speed, Keith

  Maclean, David

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Squire, Robin

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Malins, Humfrey

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Mans, Keith

  Steen, Anthony

  Maples, John

  Stern, Michael

  Marland, Paul

  Stevens, Lewis

  Marlow, Tony

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Stokes, Sir John

  Mates, Michael

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Summerson, Hugo

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Mellor, David

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Thorne, Neil

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Thurnham, Peter

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Tracey, Richard

  Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

  Trippier, David

  Moss, Malcolm

  Trotter, Neville

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Mudd, David

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Neale, Gerrard

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Nelson, Anthony

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Neubert, Michael

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Walden, George

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Waller, Gary

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Ward, John

  Norris, Steve

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Warren, Kenneth

  Page, Richard

  Watts, John

  Patnick, Irvine

  Wells, Bowen

  Patten, John (Oxford W)

  Wheeler, John

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Whitney, Ray

  Pawsey, James

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Wilkinson, John

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Portillo, Michael

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Price, Sir David

  Wood, Timothy

  Raffan, Keith

  Woodcock, Dr. Mike

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Yeo, Tim

  Redwood, John

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Renton, Tim

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Riddick, Graham

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory and Mr. John D. Taylor.

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments):—
  The House divided: Ayes 271, Noes 215.

  Division No. 307]

  [7.14 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Franks, Cecil

  Amess, David

  French, Douglas

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Gale, Roger

  Ashby, David

  Gardiner, George

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Atkins, Robert

  Gill, Christopher

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Baldry, Tony

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Bellingham, Henry

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Boswell, Tim

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Bottomley, Peter

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Gow, Ian

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Bowis, John

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Gregory, Conal

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

  Bright, Graham

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Hague, William

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Burns, Simon

  Hannam, John

  Burt, Alistair

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

  Butcher, John

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Harris, David

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hayes, Jerry

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hayward, Robert

  Cash, William

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Heddle, John

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Chope, Christopher

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Churchill, Mr

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hill, James

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Hind, Kenneth

  Colvin, Michael

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Conway, Derek

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Howard, Michael

  Cope, Rt Hon John

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

  Cormack, Patrick

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Couchman, James

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Cran, James

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Critchley, Julian

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Curry, David

  Hunter, Andrew

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

  Irvine, Michael

  Day, Stephen

  Irving, Charles

  Devlin, Tim

  Jack, Michael

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Jessel, Toby

  Dover, Den

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Dunn, Bob

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Durant, Tony

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Eggar, Tim

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Key, Robert

  Evennett, David

  Kilfedder, James

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Fallon, Michael

  Knapman, Roger

  Farr, Sir John

  Knowles, Michael

  Favell, Tony

  Knox, David

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Lang, Ian

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Latham, Michael

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Forman, Nigel

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Forth, Eric

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  277

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Lightbown, David

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Lilley, Peter

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Lord, Michael

  Shelton, Sir William

  McCrindle, Robert

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Shersby, Michael

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Maclean, David

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Speed, Keith

  Malins, Humfrey

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Mans, Keith

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Maples, John

  Squire, Robin

  Marland, Paul

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Marlow, Tony

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Steen, Anthony

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Stern, Michael

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Stevens, Lewis

  Mates, Michael

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Summerson, Hugo

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Thorne, Neil

  Mudd, David

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Neale, Gerrard

  Thurnham, Peter

  Nelson, Anthony

  Tracey, Richard

  Neubert, Michael

  Trotter, Neville

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Norris, Steve

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Page, Richard

  Walden, George

  Patnick, Irvine

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Waller, Gary

  Pawsey, James

  Ward, John

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Warren, Kenneth

  Portillo, Michael

  Watts, John

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Wells, Bowen

  Price, Sir David

  Wheeler, John

  Raffan, Keith

  Whitney, Ray

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Redwood, John

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Renton, Tim

  Wilkinson, John

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Riddick, Graham

  Wolfson, Mark

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Wood, Timothy

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Woodcock, Dr. Mike

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Yeo, Tim

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Rowe, Andrew

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Ryder, Richard

  Mr. Stephen Dorrell and Mr. Sydney Chapman.

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Barron, Kevin

  Allen, Graham

  Beckett, Margaret

  Alton, David

  Beith, A. J.

  Anderson, Donald

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

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

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Blair, Tony

  Ashton, Joe

  Blunkett, David

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Boateng, Paul

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Boyes, Roland

  278

  Bradley, Keith

  Howells, Geraint

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Hoyle, Doug

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Buckley, George J.

  Illsley, Eric

  Caborn, Richard

  Ingram, Adam

  Callaghan, Jim

  Janner, Greville

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Kennedy, Charles

  Canavan, Dennis

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Lambie, David

  Cartwright, John

  Lamond, James

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Lewis, Terry

  Clay, Bob

  Litherland, Robert

  Clelland, David

  Livsey, Richard

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Cohen, Harry

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Coleman, Donald

  Loyden, Eddie

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  McAllion, John

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Cousins, Jim

  McFall, John

  Crowther, Stan

  McKelvey, William

  Cryer, Bob

  McLeish, Henry

  Cummings, John

  McNamara, Kevin

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  McWilliam, John

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Madden, Max

  Dalyell, Tam

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Darling, Alistair

  Marek, Dr John

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

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

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Dewar, Donald

  Martlew, Eric

  Dixon, Don

  Maxton, John

  Dobson, Frank

  Meacher, Michael

  Doran, Frank

  Meale, Alan

  Douglas, Dick

  Michael, Alun

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Eadie, Alexander

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Fatchett, Derek

  Morley, Elliott

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

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

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Fisher, Mark

  Mullin, Chris

  Flannery, Martin

  Nellist, Dave

  Flynn, Paul

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Foster, Derek

  O'Brien, William

  Fyfe, Maria

  O'Neill, Martin

  Galbraith, Sam

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Galloway, George

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Parry, Robert

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Patchett, Terry

  George, Bruce

  Pendry, Tom

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Pike, Peter L.

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Gordon, Mildred

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Gould, Bryan

  Radice, Giles

  Graham, Thomas

  Randall, Stuart

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Redmond, Martin

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Richardson, Jo

  Grocott, Bruce

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Hardy, Peter

  Robertson, George

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Rogers, Allan

  Haynes, Frank

  Rooker, Jeff

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Rowlands, Ted

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Ruddock, Joan

  Hinchliffe, David

  Salmond, Alex

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Home Robertson, John

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Hood, Jimmy

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Short, Clare

  279

  Sillars, Jim

  Wallace, James

  Skinner, Dennis

  Walley, Joan

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Warden, Gareth (Gower)

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

  Wareing, Robert N.

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

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

  Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Snape, Peter

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Soley, Clive

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Wilson, Brian

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Winnick, David

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Stott, Roger

  Worthington, Tony

  Straw, Jack

  Wray, Jimmy

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Turner, Dennis

  Mr. Allen McKay and Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie.

  Vaz, Keith

  Wall, Pat

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  MR. SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House congratulates Her Majesty's Government for its coherent and energetic programme to tackle teacher shortages, notably licensed teachers and articled teachers; welcomes the increase in the number of initial teacher training places; notes the substantial improvement in teachers' pay in the lifetime of this Government which contrasts with the modest increase under the last Labour Government; and urges local education authorities to use the flexibility available to them to recruit and retain a sufficient and well-qualified number of teachers.

  King's Cross Railways Bill
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That the Promoters of the King's Cross Railways Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
  That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House;
  That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;
  That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed);
  That all Petitions relating to the Bill presented in the present Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill, together with any minutes of evidence taken before the Committee on the Bill, shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;
  That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the present Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;
  That in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words 'under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)' were omitted;
  That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
  That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  7.26 pm
  Sir George Young: The House will recall that the purpose of the Bill is to give powers to British Rail and London Underground to carry out works at King's Cross. The House debated its provisions for five hours on Second Reading.
  The works include the expansion of the stations at King's Cross and St. Pancras to handle more and longer trains, connecting lines to allow spare capacity at St. Pancras to be used, and expansion of the underground station to deal with the increased number of passengers who use that station each day.
  Key elements of the proposals are the provision of secondary exits from underground platforms and the relief of congestion in the ticket hall which will improve safety by making emergency evacuation of the station considerably easier.
  A major element of the scheme is the new low-level station proposed for international trains via the Channel tunnel and for cross-London Thameslink trains. Increased capacity on the Thameslink route is an important part of the initiatives included in the Central London rail study and are designed to relieve overcrowding on London's underground system and to encourage the use of public transport to relieve road congestion.
  The international terminal is designed to allow trains to run beyond London, to the midlands, the north of England and Scotland. It will also provide good

  281
  connections between international trains and regular InterCity services to the north and to local British Rail and underground services.
  The House gave a substantial endorsement to the principles of the Bill on Second Reading, the majority being 211 to 41. Detailed scrutiny of the Bill is already well under way in Committee, under the distinguished chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton). The Committee has sat for about 40 hours and today completed its ninth day. Two witnesses today finished giving their evidence, for the British Rail Board and for London Underground, on policy. In addition to the nine sitting days, the Committee spent a full day on a site visit.
  It must be right to allow the Bill to proceed, and in particular that the Committee's considerations of the matter should be concluded. Much effort has been put in by petitioners and by the promoters in preparing evidence for the Committee, and with the progress that has been made, it must be right that the matter should proceed.
  Any alternative which involved deferring consideration of this important project would be unjust on the petitioners and would cause delay, uncertainty and anxiety for many who live and work in the area. It would also delay a project which, if the House approves, will bring substantial benefits to thousands of daily travellers.
  Mr. Frank Dobson: Will the hon. Gentleman name one petitioner who wishes the motion to be passed?
  Sir George Young: It would be unfair on the petitioners, who have already incurred considerable expense, if the motion were not carried. It would not serve their interests to leave the matter in abeyance, yet that is the case that the hon. Gentleman will make. He must know that every Bill promoted by British Rail since 1979, except one general powers Bill, has had to be carried over at least once. If private Bills are blocked, as the hon. Gentleman has blocked this one, and they have to go into Committee, it is practically impossible to complete all their stages in a single Session. There is nothing unusual about the motion.
  Mr. Dobson rose—
  Sir George Young: For many Sessions both Houses have accepted that to deny carry-over motions on private Bills causes needless expense to the promoters and the petitioners, and increases uncertainty for those whose land may be subject to compulsory acquisition. Against that background, it is right to allow the Bill to proceed, bearing in mind that the House will have the opportunity to consider it again on Third Reading before it goes to another place.
  7.30 pm
  Mr. Chris Smith: I vigorously opposed the Bill on Second Reading and I oppose it now. It should not be carried over. The sooner it falls, the better for all concerned.
  I confess that I am astonished at the arguments put forward by the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), which are usually of better quality. He seemed to imply that it would be unfair to petitioners if the Bill were not carried over. Each and every one of the petitioners
  282
  against the Bill would be only too delighted if it were not carried over tonight, but sent into the state of limbo that it richly deserves.
  Sir George Young: The hon. Gentleman must know that the Bill would simply be reintroduced. To reject the motion would not solve the problem.
  Mr. Smith: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to develop my arguments. The crux of the debate is precisely the necessity for British Rail to get its proposals right before reintroducing a Bill on a second Channel tunnel terminus in London. I am sure that all petitioners who are my constituents would endorse that sentiment.
  I wish to remind the House of what the Bill does to my constituency and to my constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). It involves the destruction of 31,000 sq m of property in two conservation areas, the demolition of four listed buildings, the destruction of a valuable Victorian townscape, the enforced relocation of 88 families living in 88 residential units, the possible closure of 116 businesses involving 1,950 jobs and the destruction of the Camley street natural park, which brings joy and education to thousands of school children in a part of London which has fewer open spaces than anywhere else in the country.
  We are talking about the destruction of homes, jobs, livelihoods and an entire neighbourhood. That should be permitted only in the most exceptional circumstances, with the most pressing need and in the absence of a viable alternative. In this instance, that simply is not the case. There are several specific reasons why British Rail should go back to the drawing board and think again about its proposals for a second London terminus. By rejecting the motion, that is what we shall ask British Rail to do. I suspect that no one is against maximising the benefits of the Channel tunnel and the traffic that will flow from it, but the Bill is not the right way to go about doing that. British Rail must go back to the drawing board.
  Clause 19 establishes a frightening precedent. The issues that it raises must be resolved before we give the Bill a fair passage. Clause 19 proposes to remove all the usual planning requirements and controls for listed buildings, conservation areas and scheduled ancient monuments. There are seven listed buildings in the development area covered by the Bill. Four of them face demolition as a consequence of British Rail's proposals. The grade 1 listed buildings of St. Pancras and King's Cross stations are likely to be substantially affected by the proposals. In addition, there are Saxon and Roman archeological remains to be protected.
  The problem with clause 19 is that it establishes an awesome precedent by removing entirely the legal controls which protect listed buildings and valuable archeological sites. A private Bill will override public legislation. English Heritage, in particular, has expressed the gravest anxiety about that precedent and even the Secretary of State for the environment—for once siding with the angels on conservation—has expressed concern about it. It is simply not acceptable to enshrine a proposal to overturn all the present protections for our heritage in a specified area in a private Bill which is being rushed through the House. This issue is too important to remain unresolved if the Bill is to proceed at its present leisurely pace through

  283
  Committee. Before we allow it to carry over, we must resolve the issues surrounding the preservation of our heritage thrown up by clause 19.
  Clause 28 raises similar issues. I am tempted to observe that clause 28 always seems to end up being controversial. This clause 28 relates specifically to the case being mounted by the trustees of St. Bartholomew's hospital and the Church Commissioners against British Rail about their rights over some of the land contained within the purview of the Bill. That is the subject of litigation. A revealing exchange took place during the Committee proceedings. The Chairman expressly asked counsel for the promoters of the Bill:
  "Can you tell us whether it is expected that they will determine the questions"—
  that is, the questions relating to clause 28—
  "before this Committee winds up its own proceedings?"
  The answer from counsel for the promoters was:
  "I think that is probably unlikely, sir."
  Counsel for the promoters was of the opinion that the legal issues relating to clause 28 and the ancient rights of the trustees of St. Bartholomew's hospital and the Church Commissioners—not insubstantial bodies—over the land would not, in all probability, be resolved before the Committee concluded its proceedings. It would be much better for those issues to be resolved before we continue with our consideration of any proposals from British Rail relating to the land in question.
  Thirdly, there is the issue of the Camley street natural park. As hon. Members will remember from Second Reading, the park was created several years ago, with help from the Greater London Council, to provide an area of natural wilderness with trees, shrubs, water, insects, birds and the fullness of wild natural landscape in the middle of an area of considerable dereliction. The Bill will destroy that park. It is remarkable that British Rail has, in its list of prospective witnesses on its behalf, failed to include any ecological experts. It is even more remarkable that in Committee counsel for British Rail specifically said that the London Wildlife Trust, which is petitioning against the Bill and which is currently charged with the running of the park, was absolutely right in its assessment of the value of the park. British Rail's case was not that nothing of value would be destroyed by the Bill, but that, although something of value would be destroyed, something even better—in BR's view—would be put in its place.
  Unless and until there is proper ecological evidence putting British Rail's case and outlining what would be done to reinstate that park, we cannot seriously consider the Bill's proposals. British Rail must have the support of ecologists of note and weight. Whatever British Rail proposes, even if it is the most superb proposal—which I doubt—for the reinstatement of a better and larger version of the park, it is undeniably true that for at least five years there will be no park for the enjoyment of the school children in my constituency and the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras. Virtually an entire generation of schoolchildren will be deprived of the opportunity to enjoy that park.
  Fourthly, there is the absolutely crucial question of the traffic that will be generated above ground by the development in the King's Cross area and beyond. The promoters' environmental statement is a weighty document, but has only a relatively short section—section 12—on the vital question of traffic impact. It reaches the somewhat unbelievable conclusion that traffic flows will
  284
  increase in the locality of King's Cross, but only to a very limited extent. The detail about traffic flows provided in that statement is worthy of close examination. Surely there must be better and more credible traffic impact information on the siting of the second station at King's Cross before we can begin properly to assess the effect of British Rail's proposals.
  The statement deals with roads in the immediate vicinity of King's Cross. York way runs immediately beside the existing King's Cross station and divides the constituencies of myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras. It is one of the principal routes from the north to King's Cross area. The environmental statement says that traffic flows on York way
  "will not be significantly different to forecast flows"
  for the general proposals for development in the King's Cross area. The statement admits that on Pancras road there will be some increase in traffic flows. It says that between Euston road and the new east-west road forecast flows in the northbound direction will be 80 to 90 vehicles per hour higher than they would otherwise be. On Euston road, in both eastward and westward directions, the statement says that there will be about 40 vehicles per hour more than there would otherwise be.
  A picture emerges of York way having no significant increase, an increase of 80 to 90 vehicles per hour on Pancras road and an increase of 40 vehicles per hour in each direction on Euston road—none of which is of enormous significance to the present traffic congestion.
  Most unbelievable of all is the statement's forecast for Copenhagen street—and east-west road running directly through much of my constituency which comes to a right-angled junction with York way immediately opposte the site of the proposed major office development just to the north of the new international station. Copenhagen street will undoubtedly carry an enormous amount of extra traffic as a result of the Bill's proposals. Yet the statement said:
  "In common with the results of the LRC development only, it is predicted that traffic flows on Copenhagen Street with the addition of the International Rail Terminal will be no greater than at present."
  I challenge the authors of this environmental statement, especially the authors of the traffic implication assessments in the statement, to come with me to meet the people who live on Copenhagen street and tell them that, because they do not believe it for one moment. So long as we have traffic assessments of such a dubious quality and traffic consultants suggesting that the greatest impact of the construction of a new international terminus at King's Cross, with upwards of 10 million or 15 million extra passengers a year travelling through it, will be an additional 150 cars per hour, those assessments will be entirely unbelievable. Until we see some better traffic assessments and more reliable witnesses, we cannot possibly continue to consider the Bill properly.
  Mr. Dobson: The hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) may raise the same question, but my understanding is that, in addition to the international platforms, there will be two carrying Kent commuter trains into the international station. Having looked through the evidence, I am not at all clear whether the traffic assessments allow for the likelihood of 12,000 commuters arriving from Kent at the new King's Cross-St. Pancras Station. According to the authority's figures at least 6,000 of them are expected

  285
  to continue by tube, which leaves another 12,000 who will have to get their place of work by some other means. Undoubtedly, some will go by road.
  Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We know that British Rail's proposals involve the construction of an eight-platform station underground, rather than the original proposal of a six-platform station underground. We also know that British Rail is assuming that the vast majority of travellers on to the international trains—presumably this is the same for the suburban trains—will come to and leave from King's Cross by public transport. I do not believe that British Rail is making anything other than a hopeful guess when it says that. The likely increase in congestion in the King's Cross area should be taken into account if we are to consider the Bill further.
  Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): I wonder if the hon. Gentleman is being wholly fair to British Rail. Its record on forecasting has been impeccable to date. For example, he will remember that it forecast, on the basis of a 13-year decline in traffic, that a high-speed railway link would not be needed at all. Would the hon. Gentleman care to extrapolate from some of British Rail's figures to see what sort of figure he comes up with if its margin of error is as great for road traffic generated by King's Cross as it was for rail traffic?
  Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman is right to be entirely sceptical of British Rail's record as a forecasting agency. It appears to be rivalled only by the Chancellor of the Exchequer's forecasts for the British economy.
  Three years ago, British Rail said, in its evidence to the Select Committee considering the Channel Tunnel Bill, that King's Cross would not be needed as a second Channel tunnel terminus and that Waterloo would be sufficient well into the 21st century. It went on to say that King's Cross was not a feasible option precisely because of traffic congestion in the King's Cross area. That position has not changed—the only change has been that the traffic congestion there has become even worse. For British Rail to come to us now with the totally unbelieveable tale that the traffic impact of a new international station at King's Cross will be an extra 150 cars per hour at most is something that we cannot possibly accept. We must demand a better quality assessment before we can proceed properly with the Bill.
  Mr. Dobson: I am sorry to interrupt the free flow of the speech of my hon. Friend and neighbour, but my understanding—I am afraid that I have the information at second hand—is that today, in evidence to the Committee, Mr. Richard Meades of London Underground said that the information about the decision to have two platforms devoted to Kent commuter trains had not been communicated to London Underground in time for it to assess the extra impact of those commuters on the Underground system. It would be unfair to expect my hon. Friend to know the answer to my question, but perhaps the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) could intervene on my hon. Friend's speech and give us the facts.
  The question is: was the information about the intention to use two platforms for Kent commuters available to those making the traffic assessments or were
  286
  those assessments made in total ignorance of British Rail's intention? If, as I suspect, the latter is correct, that is all the more reason why the Bill should be deferred, taken away, re-drafted and returned in the next Session or not at all.
  Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend makes an extremely telling point. I suspect, although I do not know, that the answer is that the assessors did not take account of the added impact of traffic on King's Cross and the surrounding area. It would not surprise me in the least if in this, as in so many other matters, British Rail was moving the goalposts in the middle of the game.
  An important issue, on which much of the Second Reading debate focused and which was subsequently highlighted by discussions in Committee, was that of through trains travelling to other parts of the country. Some extremely interesting points arose in Committee. In the second volume of Committee proceedings, on page 23, the issue of through trains from places such as Newcastle was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay) in his questions to counsel for British Rail. When he pressed her on this subject, she said:
  "we would not expect to run a very high frequency service from Newcastle to Paris."
  On the same page, British Rail estimates the through services that it expects to provide.
  We should bear in mind the fact that British Rail has been selling King's Cross to hon. Members as the ideal location for through traffic from the Channel tunnel to all the northern parts of the country. That is the line that British Rail has been peddling to get support from hon. Members on both sides of the House for its proposals for King's Cross. However, in the report of the Committee proceedings, we see the reality of what British Rail actually proposes, which is as follows:
  "a number of overnight services from north of London, perhaps something like a train from Edinburgh, a train from Glasgow, and a train from the South-West and South Wales, to go to the Continent, and in the daytime to run something like four trains a day each way, and those four trains a day each way would basically be two from the West Coast Mainline, probably from Birmingham, Wolverhampton and Manchester, joining up at Rugby, and two from the East Coast Mainline, probably from Edinburgh and Newcastle and a portion from Leeds, also joining up probably at Peterborough."
  In other words, from the Committee proceedings we know that British Rail's intentions on services through King's Cross running direct from Paris or Brussels to the north of the country are three night trains and four day trains. Seven through trains in 24 hours will be the sum of this marvellous opportunity for people in the north, in Scotland and in the north-west to enjoy the benefits of the location of the international station at King's Cross.
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: I take it that my hon. Friend is saying that the evidence that we have received is enough to decide us that the Bill should not proceed further. On forecasting, leaving aside the ridiculous idea that one can forecast traffic 20 or 30 years hence, let alone the 50 years that would be the life of the station, will my hon. Friend comment on my surprise at the fact that only four international platforms are designated? Bearing in mind the expansion likely in railways, another eight platforms jointly between King's Cross and St. Pancras, which have not been markedly extended since the turn of the century, would be adequate

  287
  for domestic traffic. Does that not predicate that this terminal will be far too small for any through-London or terminal station for the Channel tunnel?
  Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend makes a valid and important point. He should have added that, when one builds a station underground in a box that one has specially created for the purpose of that station and that station alone, one cannot extend it. That ought to be borne in mind by British Rail if it is at all confident of its predictions about future traffic.
  Mr. Dobson: Is not the evidence that my hon. Friend has just read out a demonstration of British Rail's chicanery? That was not the explanation that it got the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) to proffer against the instruction that I proposed on Second Reading—that the Committee should ensure that this project would permit a frequent, safe and reliable service of fast trains to the midlands, Scotland and the north. We know now that this wondrous service will amount to seven trains, three of which will be "night flights", with all that that implies, and that the connection with the west and the north-west may be by way of travelator between King's Cross and Euston stations. In other words, much of the information that was given both during and before Second Reading, was wholly and falsely misleading, and calculated to mislead the House into approving the Second Reading.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. We are not in Committee and interventions should be brief.
  Mr. Smith: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. It is my contention that British Rail peddled this Bill on a fallacy when it came to the House before Second Reading and it is now revealed for what it intends, which is a minimal service of through trains beyond King's Cross from the Channel tunnel.
  I cannot stress too strongly the importance of the number of through trains. The direct services that were promised by British Rail to chambers of commerce, trades councils, hon. Members and the country are now revealed for what they are—four trains per day in daylight and three at night. It is no wonder that British Rail wanted to defeat the instruction that my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras tabled, which asked for fast, frequent and reliable services to the north and to Scotland.
  My hon. Friend also raised an issue that has been linked to the western main line route. Again, we had interesting evidence in Committee, which showed that British Rail has in mind the faint possibility that there might at some stage be a link called the West Hampstead link to connect the east coast lines with the west coast lines. It is not definite about that. All its references were along the lines of, "We hope to implement the West Hampstead link," or, "We think it probable that we might." There is no guarantee as yet of a proper link with the west main line services. Yet that link is vital if we are to ensure that the trains can get to Manchester, Liverpool, the north-west and on to Glasgow.
  The Committee proceedings tell us that a travelator is being considered to link King's Cross with St. Pancras and Euston. Engineering assessments are being carried out, but British Rail does not know whether it will be done by cut and cover or by tunnel. It talks blithely about how easy it is for people to walk the 800 yards from King's Cross
  288
  station to Euston to transfer from the international station to the west coast lines. That is nonsense, and until British Rail makes specific proposals for the lines to be linked by the West Hampstead link, or by a travelator from King's Cross to Euston, inadequate though that would be, until it comes forward with definite information on those points, we cannot ask the Committee to continue to consider the Bill in its present form.
  We must also bear in mind the fact that the Committee proceedings reveal that the drive for King's Cross as the choice location for the second international station is clearly coming not from railway considerations but from considerations of railway land development immediately to the north of the proposed site for the new international station. At the first sitting of the Committee, counsel for British Rail revealed this when she said;
  "What is, however, of crucial importance in terms of timing is that a decision about the extent of railway works at King's Cross, including a second Channel Tunnel terminal, is made before any development takes place on King's Cross railway lands."
  We have the Bill before us this Session and it is being rushed through in advance of the consideration of the Channel tunnel link to King's Cross. The British Rail board took only 45 minutes to reject Stratford in favour of King's Cross. All this has been done with unseemly haste because the board wants to get on with the office development to the north of the proposed station, so as to make as substantial a profit as possible from it. That is what drives British Rail—not the strategic planning of railway services for the country as a whole, which should be its motivation.
  Mr. Rowe: The hon. Gentleman has studied these matters much more closely and in far greater detail than I have. Does the forecast of additional traffic generated by the works at King's Cross include the additional traffic generated by property development?
  Mr. Smith: That is one item, and one item only, that British Rail appears to have got right. It has looked at the likely traffic impact, as it sees it, of the office development and the international station. It is the paucity of difference between the two which raises major doubts about the accuracy of the traffic forecast in the environmental statement. Surely it is the wrong way to go about taking a large-scale strategic transport decision in Britain—and, indeed, a large-scale planning decision—to be in such a hurry before the full considerations can be put before us.
  The intensity of my protest against the Bill and my argument that it should not be carried forward into the next Session is heightened by the treatment that has been meted out to local people and to local petitioners against the Bill. Of some 280 petitions initially submitted against the Bill, only 151 survived the massacre that British Rail perpetrated upon them. Local people and organisations with a perfectly legitimate interest in the Bill, its contents and overall impact, have been debarred from making their voices heard in protest against it and from putting their arguments to the Committee. Among those excluded have been English Heritage—with a direct interest in clause 19—the London boroughs of Newham and Lewisham, residents who live immediately to the south of the proposed development, and even the Islington, South Conservative Association.
  Many of my constituents feel disfranchised by the procedure that the Bill is going through. The process will

  289
  end in the destruction of a neighbourhood and untold disruption to thousands of people, and it represents a denial of democracy for many thousands of my constituents. More than 200 years ago, Tom Paine sat down in a room above the Old Red Lion public house at the Angel, not half a mile from where British Rail is proposing to put the station, to begin writing the first part of "The Rights of Man". The rights of men and women are being trampled on by British Rail and by the Bill. I urge the House to seize this opportunity to throw it out.
  8.12 pm
  Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): The local horror of this major development is a matter for colleagues from London constituencies and my brief contribution to the debate this evening will be on the credibility of the promoter and whether the House should allow a promoter, whom I hope to show to be barely credible, the right to carry through a Bill into another Session.
  The trouble with British Rail is that it thinks on its feet. Cogito ergo sum, said the philosopher. Today, when to all intents and purposes British Rail is not at all, is a good day to examine that ancient philosophical saw.
  I used to be innocent enough to believe the theory of the private Bill which I absorbed when I first arrived here and before I arrived here at all. It was that a private Bill was introduced after the project to which it referred had been thought through and designed. All my experience of recent months has revealed to me that private Bills are introduced and then some hurried thinking is done on what is really meant.
  Mr. Dobson: The hon. Gentleman will find confirmation of what he is saying on page 46 of the sixth day of the Committee's proceedings, when a Mr. Edgley, representing British Rail, was asked whether British Rail intended to produce a master plan for everything to do with the consequences of the Channel tunnel development. He replied:
  "No, we do not intend to produce a master plan. We do intend to produce plans for single issues."
  British Rail's whole approach is one of temporary spatchcock plans for different issues in the hope that it will be able to con the House into passing a long succession of allegedly unrelated Bills.
  Mr. Rowe: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. It was Mr. Edgley who told the all-party Transport Committee of the House that on the high-speed rail link, which immediately affects my constituency, British Rail had intended to conduct consultations with the local public on the basis of the plans that it had put forward on 6 March. But the people of Kent had been so swift in producing alternative plans that it had to carry them out in a piecemeal fashion. In fact, the consultation in Kent has been a complete farce because people have had to debate propositions which they already knew had been overtaken by events.
  British Rail is full of nice, polite people who mean well. The trouble is that we all know the terminus to which roads paved with good intentions lead. Let me exemplify why I believe that British Rail is not to be trusted as the promoter of this massive enterprise.
  As we know, British Rail told the Select Committee that there would not need to be a high-speed line at all. Now it
  290
  cannot cope without one. It told—this is an extraordinary story—Swale borough council this month that that assertion to the Select Committee was based on traffic figures relating to 1966—not 1986.
  British Rail told the Select Committee that it would be bad for the travelling public to have two termini for the Channel tunnel trains. Now it not only insists on having two, but is full of all sorts of powerful arguments why two termini are so much better than one. They were not better than one a year ago, but they are much better than one now.
  British Rail published its original plans last year showing Stratford as one of the options. Let it be known that it was a front runner. Now it says that Stratford will not do at all.
  Mr. Tony Banks: Unlike British Rail, the London borough of Newham has had a proper study made of the merits of Stratford as the site of the terminal vis-a-vis King's Cross. The hon. Gentleman probably already knows, but the study shows that Stratford would be £1 billion cheaper. Travel to central London is only a matter of a few minutes slower and connections with the rest of the United Kingdom are similar to those provided by King's Cross. In addition, there is ample car parking space which there is not at King's Cross, and there are direct connections to the M11 and the M25. Any reasonable person would conclude that Stratford was the obvious choice. Does the hon. Gentleman agree?
  Mr. Rowe: The hon. Gentleman forgets that it would be impossible to choose Stratford because whereas the people there want Stratford to be chosen, the people of King's Cross passionately do not.
  It is impossible to believe that British Rail reached the view that it did after taking into account the studies into the east-west and north-south London lines. After all, a promoter who admits using figures that are 20 years out of date may not be scrupulous about the date on which he closes his consideration of the available evidence. Those studies show, as does the Buchanan report commissioned by Newham, that Newham's accessibility is superior to that of central London.
  It is essential to remember the point made so well by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), that it will not be possible to undertake any expansion at King's Cross. Throughout the whole saga, British Rail consistently under-estimated demand. It originally said that the line was not needed at all. We were led to believe that British Rail was very reluctant to embark on great works, because it did not see either a need for, or a profit from, them. British Rail is now saying that, because everything is getting so busy, it cannot wait even a few months.
  British Rail came late to the understanding that there is a future in railways after all. Had I been British Rail, I might have been doubtful about the future for railways. Nevertheless, in Europe at this very moment, 12,000 miles of railway are being planned, whereas British Rail is thinking very small and very incrementally. My belief is that no sooner would the new King's Cross be completed than British Rail would return to the House with a plan to expand another location, because its choice of a central London site left no scope.

  291
  Another example of the same kind of thinking is British Rail's assertion that it must have a commuter station in Kent—and one where there can be massive car parks. Everyone knows that commuters need to get to and from their station in their cars, yet British Rail turns that argument on its head in respect of King's Cross. As more and more offices and centres of work are moved from their formerly convenient positions in central London, commuters want to drive their cars to the station. The prospect of thousands of commuters driving their cars to King's Cross, and then finding that there is no car park for them there, is bizarre. [Interruption.] The sponsor of the Bill is making noises, and I think is agreeing with me that it would be absurd to have no car parking space at King's Cross.
  Mr. Tony Banks: Perhaps the sponsor is saying that there will be 100 parking spaces at King's Cross, and that the 3,000 places at Stratford would not be good enough.
  Mr. Rowe: My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) may be saying that. He may be saying that the commuters who use King's Cross are different in kind, or are a different species, from the commuters in Kent.
  Sir George Young: My hon. Friend draws an absurd parallel between a railway station in Kent and King's Cross, which is served by five Underground lines. The parking requirements of commuters using a station in Kent are totally different.
  Mr. Rowe: My hon. Friend makes an interesting argument. One might argue just as well that there need be no parking facilities at a railway station because it is served by a railway line. One might equally argue that a railway station in Kent should be served by a bus service. No, in reality commuters must be able to use and to park their cars.
  I wonder whether we should buy a Bill from a punch-drunk promoter who changes his forecasts and plans, and even his rolling stock. When one asks British Rail what rolling stock it will use, it says that it is still negotiating with the French, to establish whether Mickey Mouse-sized wheels can be used, so that rolling stock can be used on track on both sides of the Channel.
  Question put:
  The House divided: Ayes 134, Noes 44.

  Division No. 308]

  [8.25 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Colvin, Michael

  Alexander, Richard

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Ashby, David

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Atkins, Robert

  Couchman, James

  Beith, A. J.

  Cousins, Jim

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Curry, David

  Bottomley, Peter

  Dixon, Don

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Boyes, Roland

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Bright, Graham

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Durant, Tony

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Buckley, George J.

  Fallon, Michael

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Fearn, Ronald

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Cash, William

  Forman, Nigel

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Freeman, Roger

  Chapman, Sydney

  Gardiner, George

  292

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Maples, John

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Mates, Michael

  Green way, John (Ryedale)

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Hague, William

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  O'Brien, William

  Hayward, Robert

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Patchett, Terry

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Hinchliffe, David

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hind, Kenneth

  Portillo, Michael

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Redmond, Martin

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

  Riddick, Graham

  Howarth, G (Cannock & B'wd)

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Howells, Geraint

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Shephard, Mrs G (Norfolk SW)

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Shersby, Michael

  Hunter, Andrew

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Illsley, Eric

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Irvine, Michael

  Speed, Keith

  Jack, Michael

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Jessel, Toby

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Squire, Robin

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Steen, Anthony

  Kennedy, Charles

  Stern, Michael

  Key, Robert

  Stevens, Lewis

  Kilfedder, James

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Knapman, Roger

  Thompson, D (Calder Valley)

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Knowles, Michael

  Trotter, Neville

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Lightbown, David

  Warren, Kenneth

  Lilley, Peter

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Wilshire, David

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Winterton, Nicholas

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Wood, Timothy

  Maclean, David

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Tellers for the Ayes

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Sir George Young and Mr Anthony Nelson

  Mans, Keith

  NOES

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

  Beckett, Margaret

  Lewis, Terry

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Litherland, Robert

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

  McFall, John

  Caborn, Richard

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Cryer, Bob

  Nellist, Dave

  Dalyell, Tam

  Pike, Peter L.

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

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Dobson, Frank

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Dunn, Bob

  Rowe, Andrew

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Short, Clare

  Flannery, Martin

  Skinner, Dennis

  Flynn, Paul

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Spearing, Nigel

  George, Bruce

  Vaz, Keith

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Gordon, Mildred

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Graham, Thomas

  Wray, Jimmy

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Mr. Chris Smith and Mr. Tony Banks.

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Ordered,
  That the Promoters of the King's Cross Railways Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed

  293
  with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
  Ordered,
  That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House;
  Ordered,
  That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;
  Ordered,
  That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed);
  Ordered,
  That all Petitions relating to the Bill presented in the present Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill, together with any minutes of evidence taken before the Committee on the Bill, shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;
  Ordered,
  That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the present Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;
  Ordered,
  That in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words 'under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)' were omitted;
  Ordered,
  That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
  Ordered,
  That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.

  Animal Health
  8.35 pm
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Donald Thompson): I beg to move,
  That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 4183/89, 4839/89 and 5057/89 relating to the animal health aspects of trade in certain animals and animal products; and supports the Government's intention to negotiate satisfactory arrangements to ensure effective safeguards against the introduction of animal disease.
  I welcome this early opportunity to outline the Government's position on three very important proposals. They are the first of 20 or more measures that the Commission intends to publish this year on animal-health aspects of trade in animals and animal products.
  Let me say at the outset that the Government have no intention of jeopardising our current high health status. Let me also thank the hon. Members for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) and for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells), who sought me out yesterday and today to ask me about this important measure.
  The three proposals should be seen as part of a wider process of rationalisation leading to the eventual completion of the Common Market. The Government's general position on animal health matters in the context of the single market is clear: we fully support the overall objective of harmonisation of Community health requirements and are committed to the eventual removal of trade barriers, but—as I have said—we have no intention of jeopardising our current status. We therefore welcome the Commission's frequently declared intention of ensuring that the completion of the single market is achieved without giving cause for animal disease to spread into areas where it is not currently prevalent.
  To the extent that the Community achieves uniformly high health standards, the need for controls over the movement of animals and animal products between member states will, of course, eventually diminish. In the meantime, the progress towards achievement of such standards must not be put at risk by a premature relaxation of existing safeguards. For geographical and historical reasons, the position of different member states on animal disease varies considerably. Safeguards are needed to protect the health status of the regions that are relatively free from disease—including, of course, the United Kingdom.
  I know that those general principles are widely shared by many interested organisations that we have consulted. With them in mind, let me now deal with the three specific proposals that are the subject of the motion.
  The proposal concerning intra-Community trade in, and imports from, third countries of bovine embryos has been discussed in detail at official level. It is likely to be presented to the Council of Ministers in the week beginning 24 July, which is why we are having this debate this evening. As matters stand, after the Council working-group discussions, intra-Community trade in bovine embryos will be subject to a common set of rules covering the animal-health status of donor animals and the conditions under which embryos are collected, processed, stored and transported.
  Embryos will be permitted to be moved from one member state to another only if they are accompanied by an official health certificate confirming that they comply

  295
  with the prescribed health requirements. Designated embryo collection teams will, under veterinary supervision, be responsible for carrying out collection, processing and storage of embryos.
  Imports of bovine embryos from third countries will be permitted only from countries, or parts of countries, approved by the Community. Approval will be considered on a case-by-case basis and will depend on animal health in the country concerned, the structure of its veterinary service and its ability to respond to and control outbreaks of disease. Where approval is granted, all consignments will need to be accompanied by an official health certificate, under conditions that are specific to the country or areas concerned. In line with intra-Community trade requirements, the collection, processing and storage of embryos will have to be carried out by officially approved collection teams under veterinary supervision.
  As explained in the explanatory memorandum, submitted on 22 March 1989, the proposal, if adopted as it stands, will provide protection against foot and mouth disease for the United Kingdom, Denmark and the Republic of Ireland which do not vaccinate against the disease and therefore have fully susceptible livestock populations. Article 4 allows imports of fresh embryos to be prohibited from member states where vaccination against foot and mouth disease is practised and, in the case of frozen embryos, for pre-export virus isolation tests of flushing fluids for the foot and mouth disease virus. There has been some pressure from other member states at working group level for a less stringent provision, but we shall continue to resist any measure that does not provide adequate guarantees against the introduction, even remotely, of foot and mouth disease.
  We are satisfied that bovine embryos, imported under the conditions that I have briefly described, would provide the same high level of protection against the introduction of animal disease as is currently the case under our national import rules.
  The sheep and goats proposal, No. 4612/89, also covers trade between member states and imports from third countries. Sheep and goats would have to be accompanied by official health certificates confirming compliance with prescribed health requirements. Member states could seek approval to demand guarantees over and above the minimum laid down if they have, or propose to have, national disease control programmes which require the same guarantees for movements within their territory. Therefore we could lay down stricter conditions, provided that we were willing to impose the stricter conditions in our own country. We already do so and we shall continue to do so. As with cattle and pigs, we should be able to require post-import quarantine against foot and mouth disease.
  Imports of sheep and goats from third countries would be subject to the same set of rules as already apply to the import of cattle and pigs from third countries under directive 72/462. Imports of sheep and goats would only be permitted from those countries, or parts thereof, that had been approved by the Community. All animals would have to be accompanied by an official health certificate and would be subject to an official animal health inspection immediately upon arriving within the Community. The list of diseases in directive 72/462 would be enlarged to include those significant epizootic diseases of sheep and goats.
  Unlike the bovine embryos proposal, the sheep and goats proposal would not provide the same degree of
  296
  protection against the introduction of diseases as the current national rules. For example, in the case of contagious agalactia, which is prevalent in many South American countries but absent from the United Kingdom, the proposal requires animals to be six months clinically free in the herd of origin, but we require three years of freedom and pre-export testing. Because of the chronic nature of the disease, we believe that the proposal as it stands could significantly increase the chances of it being imported. If that happened, affected animals would have to be destroyed, which would be extremely costly. We understand that it costs Spain about £26 million a year.
  The sheep and goats proposal has been discussed by national experts in a Council working group. My officials expressed our concerns. It became clear that other member states are also concerned that the proposal is deficient in several respects. There is a lot of work to be done. We shall continue to press for the necessary level of protection.
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: I do not think that the Minister referred to the extent to which the eventual legislation will be decided by majority or unanimity voting. The motion refers to the Government's intention to negotiate satisfactory arrangements. The Minister has referred to the fact that other member states are unhappy. Complete satisfaction can be assured only if there is unanimity. If there is less than unanimity, satisfaction cannot be guaranteed.
  Mr. Thompson: If the majority is against it, we shall be satisfied. The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that these measures will be decided on a qualified or a proper majority. He knows that not every country has the same number of votes. We have 10, Ireland has three and Luxembourg has two. The hon. Gentleman was instrumental in urging us to hold the debate so that the concerns of hon. Members could be put before Ministers and their officials. He has just put one of those great concerns before us. We fully understand that we shall have to work very hard to ensure that health status is preserved.
  Directive 5057/89 relates to the poultry and hatching eggs proposal. Its main provisions for intra-Community trade require that all export consignments must originate from premises approved by the member state and in accordance with plans approved by the Commission, that special provisions be made for exports from member states that vaccinate against Newcastle disease to those that do not, that any voluntary or compulsory disease control programme in force, or introduced by member states, must be approved by the Commission and that each member state must designate a national laboratory responsible for co-ordinating disease diagnostic methods.
  As for third country trade, imports would be permitted only from countries approved on the basis of, first, their animal health status, secondly, their freedom from classified diseases and, thirdly, their veterinary service structure and ability to guarantee compliance with the prescribed import conditions. In addition, as with the other two proposals, consignments would be subject to a check at the first point of entry into the Community.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: The Minister will recollect that he gave me a most courteous and constructive hearing when I went to see him in his office on 18 May regarding the importation of poultry, but particularly parrots, and especially Amazonian parrots. Can the Minister report any developments that have

  297
  occurred in the past two months? He was full of good will at the time and I have no doubt that he is doing his absolute best on this difficult subject.
  Mr. Thompson: Knowing that the hon. Gentleman would be in his place tonight, yesterday my officials sent me a letter on the four points that he raised. I was not entirely satisfied with the thoroughness of that letter so I sent it back as I felt that we could get closer to what the hon. Gentleman and I seek regarding the importation of exotic birds into this country, their despatch from their country of origin and the way in which they are looked after here before they go into the retail trade. I knew that the hon. Gentleman would be here, but I was not prepared not to go as far as I could.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. Is that category of poultry within the framework of document No. 5057/89?
  Mr. Thompson: I would not wish to suspect that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, had not read the document. It mentions single birds and perhaps the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) was worried about single birds.
  Mr. Dalyell: The family of psittacus is classified as a game bird and the document includes game birds.
  Mr. Thompson: We had better not argue with Mr. Deputy Speaker any longer as we have a long time to go and we shall need him later.
  Quarantine would be permitted for imports from third countries only if disease were suspected. The proposal is scheduled for a first reading by a Council working group later this week. With the support of the House, my officials will press for our genuine concerns about the implications for the health of our national flock to be taken fully into account.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: The memorandum provided by the Select Committee on European Legislation states on page 9:
  "The trade criteria which third countries would have to meet in order to export to the Community have yet to be defined, but Member States would have the general power to impose post-import isolation on third country birds or hatching eggs suspected of being diseased."
  It continues:
  "This could … be too late to prevent the spread of Newcastle disease".
  Is the Minister satisfied that the trade criteria which third countries would have to meet would be of a sufficiently high standard to prevent the onset of such diseases?
  Mr. Thompson: I am not entirely satisfied with that at present, and I shall deal with the matter in a moment.
  I shall move on to a subject that worries many people—rabies. Hon. Members on all sides of the House have written to me on this matter.
  The Government naturally support action at a Community level for the eradication of rabies but we would resist any suggestion that the Community should commit itself to any particular date for the elimination of quarantine. The Government's position is that the elimination of quarantine can be considered only when quarantine is no longer necessary to exclude the disease. Although the Government support the Commission's revised proposal that member states should implement
  298
  eradication programmes before the end of 1989, we believe that eradication will take longer to achieve than the three years originally provided for. It is therefore likely that quarantine will remain necessary beyond 1992.
  The United Kingdom, in common with a majority of member states, believes that we must retain the right to take urgent safeguard action against imports from other member states when a serious disease threat arises from that quarter. At present there can be no reason for confidence that the Commission would be capable of taking rapid and effective action in such circumstances. Speed of response can be crucial if the spread of a serious disease is to be prevented.
  That is one reason why the Government attach considerable importance to quarantine, which is a necessary measure in relation to particular diseases while zones of different health status remain. In some cases, such as Newcastle disease, quarantine at the point of destination has proved to be effective, but in the case of foot and mouth disease, for example, quarantine needs to be applied at the point of entry, and isolated from native animals, to avoid the spread of disease. In the United Kingdom, quarantine facilities are largely provided by the private sector. We must make sure that the private sector is willing to pay for adequate safeguards to maintain the standards necessary for our successful import and export of animals.
  8.55 pm
  Mr. John Home Robertson: I hope that the House will be completely united in demanding the development and the maintenance of the most effective measures possible to prevent the spread of animal diseases. Rather earlier than he expected, the Minister has moved his take note motion which
  "supports the Government's intention to negotiate satisfactory arrangements to ensure effective safeguards against the introduction of animal disease."
  Just this once, we shall give the Minister the benefit of the doubt, but we shall demand a full debate on the final proposals when the negotiations in the European Community have been completed. It would be interesting if the Minister were to give us some idea of the timetable which the Government and the European Commission have in mind.
  The House must reserve its right to vote on a matter of vital national importance. For once we can use the word "vital" literally, as it is a matter of life and death.
  Mr. Spearing: I agree with my hon. Friend that it is proper for us to debate the substantive legislation when it appears, but I hope that he is under no illusion that the resolution of 30 October 1980, under which the debate is being held on the recommendation of the Select Committee on European Legislation, gives no guarantee that such a debate can take place. Such a debate would occur only through the willingness of the Leader of the House or the use of a precious Supply day. I hope that my hon. Friend is under no illusion that a debate on this important and vital matter is assured or automatic.
  Mr. Home Robertson: The House is indebted to my hon. Friend for his work in these matters. Technically he is quite right, but I was trying to obtain from the Minister an undertaking that in due course the House will have an opportunity to debate and vote on this vital matter of life and death. The House must retain and establish its rights

  299
  and I hope that the Minister will give an undertaking that the Government will provide time for such a debate in due course. I am more than willing to give way if he wishes to deal with that point now.
  Mr. David Maclean (Lords Commissioner to the Treasury): Usual terms.
  Mr. Home Robertson: That was a helpful intervention by the Government Whip from a sedentary position, but we hope to hear from the Minister in due course.
  We have at present—
  Mr. William Cash: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Home Robertson: No, because I want to make progress.
  Mr. Cash: Will the hon. Gentleman not give way?
  Mr. Home Robertson: All right.
  Mr. Cash: I am surprised by the hon. Gentleman. I did not realise that we were in such a tearing hurry. Perhaps he has something more important to do later.
  I want to ask the hon. Gentleman whether he is suggesting that we shall be able to amend any future Westminster legislation if it is derived from the directive? Surely he understands enough about the European Community to know that that will not be possible.
  Mr. Home Robertson: I understand that clearly, and the hon. Gentleman is right. We have plenty of time for this debate; I understand that we can continue until 11.30 pm. However, I do not want to take too many interventions, because Front Bench speeches can go on interminably in that case. I simply seek an assurance from the Minister that there will be a debate and a vote on the subject in due course.
  We have admirably effective safeguards for animal health at present in the form of the North sea, the Irish sea, the English channel and the Atlantic ocean, combined with rigorous controls at ports and airports, and effective quarantine regulations. However, sadly, the Commission regards any frontier controls as anachronistic obstructions to the internal market, which must be swept away in 1992.
  I am a long-standing supporter of the principle of European unity, so I hope that I shall be allowed to say, in the best communautaire spirit, that this proposed extension of the European principle may turn out to be fraught with unjustifiable dangers which should and must be avoided. No political or economic ideal can justify measures that would lead to the avoidable spread of disease, and surely frontier health controls are one manifestation of national sovereignty which is wholly justifiable in international terms. We urge the Government to forget about Britain's sovereign rights to opt out of the social charter or to pollute the sea and instead to concentrate on protecting our livestock and people against imported diseases.
  The House is indebted to the House of Lords Select Committee on European Communities for its report entitled "1992: Health Controls and the Internal Market", which sets out the background to the proposals with admirable clarity. We must recognise that there is a wide variation in the pattern of animal health in different parts of the European Community and I will give three examples.
  300
  Foot and mouth disease, to which the Minister referred, is common in Italy, sporadic in Germany and non-existent in the United Kingdom, among other countries, largely thanks to the combined effects of quarantine controls and the policy of the slaughter of affected herds whenever outbreaks have occurred in the past. That policy has been supported by the farming industry and Governments of all parties. However, that policy could be at risk under these proposals.
  My second example is Aujeszky's disease in pigs. It is endemic in most other European Community countries, but it has been virtually eradicated in Britain, largely thanks to concerted action by the British pig industry. That achievement is protected at present by the application of health standards on imports. What guarantee can there be that such protection will remain in place if the proposals go through as they stand?
  My third example is rabies, to which the Minister referred. He knows that hon. Members of all parties and the British public are alarmed by the possibility that rabies could be reintroduced into the United Kingdom in future. Rabies is endemic in wild animals in most of the European mainland. It is an ever-present, potentially fatal risk to farm animals and humans. Britain has been kept free of rabies because of our natural advantage as an island, combined with quarantine regulations and great vigilance at our ports.
  I could cite many more examples of different diseases, but the fundamental point is that it would be a costly and tragic disaster if diseases such as foot and mouth, Aujeszky's disease or rabies were to return to Britain because of the ill-considered relaxation of frontier controls to meet political deadlines in 1992–93. Let us not overlook the rights of other countries to protect themselves against the problems that may arise in Britain, such as bovine spongiform encephalopathy, a disease which is new to the world as far as I know, and new to Europe, and which crops up in many parts of the United Kingdom. We must recognise the right of our European Community partners to take steps to prevent the spread of that disease on to their territories.
  The framework of national controls to isolate diseases wherever possible has worked well, especially in the islands or peninsular states of the United Kingdom, Ireland and Denmark. It would be downright reckless to relax those controls unless they were to be replaced by measures that were at least as effective—or, wherever possible, better.
  We can sum up the Commission's present proposals as follows. It proposes first to raise animal health standards throughout the European Community. It then wants to go on to rely on the authorities in the regions from which animals are being moved to certify that their health is up to the standard of the region to which they are being consigned. I am sure that we all support the objective of raising health standards and we are genuinely impressed by the efforts being taken to eradicate rabies, for example, on the European mainland.
  I am sure that the House would want to support the efforts of our European partners in that campaign, which will be costly and difficult and take a long time. There should be no question of dropping our guard until it is certain that the risk has gone. Neither rabies, foot and mouth disease, Aujeszky's disease, BSE nor any of a long list of animal diseases will be eradicated from the territory of the European Community by the end of this millennium, let alone by 1993. That cannot be done.
  Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend is making a powerful case and giving a competent exposition of the dangers. Ray MacSharry, the Agriculture Commissioner who has signed one of the European Community documents, said in May in the Assembly in Strasbourg that there would be complete freedom of movement of animals by 1992. He is determined to press ahead with these proposals, in spite of the dangers that my hon. Friend is setting out so well.
  Mr. Home Robertson: My background on the general debate about European issues is rather different from that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer). Like my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), I have consistently supported the principle of European unity. It is, however, daft to concede some points in these circumstances. The House should be united. I am astonished that responsible people such as Mr. MacSharry propose doing away with safeguards that could put an important industry in his country, the Republic of Ireland, at risk.
  We may be able to legislate to abolish frontier controls, but surely the House understands that, powerful as we may be in this great Parliament of ours, viruses and bacteria are not susceptible to legislation. We have controls that can prevent the spread of these diseases and keep them in place. Meanwhile, there can be no substitution for the protection of our veterinary surgeons and environmental health officers monitoring and controlling imports. In an ideal world, officials at a point of departure could be relied upon to act in the best interests of the point of destination, but strange things can happen in transit. Many of us remember that someone must have authorised the dispatch of at least 20 consignments of nasty meat from Ireland last year into the United Kingdom, which were detected only by a vigilant environmental health officer in Cornwall.
  Let us keep our environmental health officers and our vets in position, with the powers that they need to protect the health of our animals and our people. The House should heed what they say about these proposals. The Institution of Environmental Health Officers has said:
  "We believe that the Commission's desire to remove barriers to trade prior to 1992 is taking precedence to public health and that the Regulations are designed to protect producers and encourage trade rather than to protect the consumer."
  Surely, if the Government and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food have learnt nothing else during the past 12 months, they have learnt that it is time that the Government and the European Community understood the need to protect the interests of the consumer. The consumer is not prepared to put up with lax standards from the Government or anyone else.
  The British Veterinary Association has said:
  "Given the differing health status of the member states … the time is not ripe to dispense with existing frontier controls."
  The BVA went on to question the Community's ability to achieve uniform high standards of veterinary controls in the short term. It pointed to the fact that the proposed new system
  "will require considerably increased resources in money and veterinary manpower at the Commission and in … the UK."
  Government agencies have been threatening to cut veterinary education at Cambridge and Glasgow and the Government have been cutting expenditure on the state veterinary service, yet we are debating a new system of controls that will require the services of many more vets.
  302
  What do the Government say about that? Will they make provision for more vets to make the new system work when and if it comes into effect?
  The British Veterinary Association also referred to the animal welfare aspects of the proposal to expand trade in live animals. Occasionally we see alarming reports of sheep or calves being transported across several countries in conditions even worse than those at Heathrow or Gatwick in July. It is not a laughing matter. Many of our constituents are deeply concerned when they see television film of sheep that have been kept tightly crammed into cattle lorries with little access to food or water for long periods while they are in transit across mainland Europe. Do we really want to encourage the transport of live animals and poultry to and from every point between Crete and Donegal? I suggest that, with the exception of the specialist trade in quality breeding stock, we should concentrate our efforts on reducing the avoidable stress on live animals in transit by encouraging the alternative trade in meat on the hook.
  The documents refer to poultry and eggs. I remind the Minister that some months ago his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had to respond in rather difficult circumstances to respond to the emergence of evidence of the risk of salmonella in eggs. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food did not exactly cover itself in glory but, after much clucking and scratching around, the Ministry is now applying better controls to guard against salmonella in the British poultry industry. Grave shortcomings remain, however, in our ability to enforce similar standards in respect of imported eggs.
  I am indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) for letting me see a copy of the letter dated 10 July from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health, referring to the importation of eggs and the difficulty of enforcing the new high standards of salmonella protection that we have in this country in respect of eggs imported from the European mainland:
  "Port Health Authorities are undertaking systematic sampling of imported eggs for the presence of invasive salmonella. It is not practicable to hold up importation while the tests are carried out but any positive finding is referred to the European Commission and to the country of origin so that action can be taken to deal with the problem at source."
  I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker: tests are carried out on eggs, but if the authorities discover something wrong with those eggs, the rest of the consignment is put on the market in the United Kingdom nevertheless, and a written report sent to the European Commission and to the authorities in the country of origin. That means that our farmers, who are being asked to apply stringent and costly controls and to maintain higher standards on their poultry and egg farms, are having their position undermined by unfair competition from across the water. That is not a reassuring background against which to debate the documents.
  Finally, let me register our alarm at the categories of animal diseases outlined in the Commission's initial proposal. Three separate groups were listed—three separate categories of diseases and the different ways in which they were to be dealt with. Group I was the group of diseases that were to be subject to compulsory notification and were recognised as a serious threat to the Community economy. Group I included foot and mouth disease, classical swine fever, swine vesicular disease and Newcastle disease; so far, so good.
  Group II covered contagious diseases to be notifiable on a herd basis. That group included tuberculosis and

  303
  brucellosis, which ought surely to be subject to the tightest possible controls in the United Kingdom and elsewhere in the Community.
  Then we come to Group III, which included diseases that were to be subject to discretionary notification and voluntary eradication in individual herds. It was to include, amazingly, not only serious animal diseases such as Aujeszky's disease, but rabies. Are we really to believe that, not long ago, the Commission was proposing that rabies should be a category III disease subject to voluntary eradication? It is against the background of that lackadaisical approach that we are being asked to sanction the relaxation of frontier controls.
  Of course, as the Minister acknowledged, other important diseases, such as sheep scab, were not mentioned in those initial lists. In a written answer on 17 February, the Minister told me that those lists were to be reviewed and that rabies, in particular, would go on the agenda. We are thankful for small mercies. However, with an agenda whose background owes more to politics than to any scientific consideration of animal health—followed by those absurd initial proposals in the list—we now find ourselves moving towards negotiations that could threaten a century of achievements in animal health.
  Mr. K. W. Wilkes, a former head of the animal medicines division of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and now a consultant to the British Veterinary Association, reported on a recent session in Brussels in the 15 July edition of the Veterinary Journal. He said:
  "the determination to remove frontier controls was considerably greater than the likelihood of securing the necessarily uniformly high health standards by the end of 1992."
  That is an alarming prospect. This is a serious debate, and I hope that the entire House will be united. I hope that the Minister and his colleagues will go to Brussels and negotiate in the certain knowledge that people in Britain and the British Parliament are not prepared to tolerate the watering down of such essential and literally vital standards. The House will expect the Government to introduce a far more responsible approach to these affairs in those coming negotiations.
  9.15 pm
  Mr. Roger Gale: I have no desire to detain the House but, as the representative not only of my constituents but of the all-party group for animal welfare, I must say how we appreciate the robust line that is being taken by my hon. Friend and the Ministry within the Council of Ministers on this vital issue, and the Government's determination to ensure that our high standards are maintained.
  Having said that, on both sides of the House there is grave concern that our advantages as an island may be dissipated and that the considerable standards of animal welfare, health and care that have been established over the centuries, and especially in recent years—not only through good husbandry, but through high standards of veterinary care—may be swallowed up in a rush towards a unified European market, when others are prepared to settle for far lower standards.
  The documents before us show that the measures are but the first of some more than 20 animal health measures—whether they are animal welfare measures is a moot point—to which we are likely to be subject. I hope that my
  304
  hon. Friend will not take it amiss when I say that, as one who is considerably concerned with animal welfare generally, I see this as the potential thin end of a very dangerous wedge.
  On occasions, this Parliament and this country have been accused of being little Englanders. However, one of our certain advantages as an island is that not only do we have legislative measures—which, as the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) said, are of small value—designed to promote animal health and to protect the environment of the United Kingdom, but we have a natural boundary of which we have been able to take advantage.
  The word "rabies", which is highly emotive in the House and throughout the country, has been mentioned several times. I feel that it is incumbent on me, if no one else, to say that the measures before us, which deal mostly in the rabies context with sheep and goats, are riot likely—even were they implemented in the Commissioner's wildest dreams—greatly to increase the risk of rabies throughout the United Kingdom, because sheep and goats are regarded as end-of-the-infection-line animals. They do not infect other animals, but they could, under certain circumstances, infect humans with rabies. Nevertheless, it is potentially the thin edge of a wedge.
  If we rush towards the single market without due care for animal health and animal welfare, the advantages that we have accrued in this country and the protections that our vets and farmers have built up over the years will undoubtedly be threatened.
  Therefore, I must advise my hon. Friend the Minister that I agree entirely with the hon. Member for East Lothian and share his hope that, if the unelected Commission sees fit to pursue these matters without due regard to the high standards in this country in its move towards the single market, and if it adopts the lowest rather than the highest common denominator, we in this House will have the opportunity fully to debate these matters. I hope and believe that this is an all-party issue and one that we all take seriously. Hon. Members of all parties will, I am sure, reject any measures suggested by Europe that do not seek to promote, maintain and even improve upon the high standards that we have come to expect and enjoy in this country.
  I should like my hon. Friend and his colleagues to rake a clear message to Europe: we in the United Kingdom are not prepared to settle for second best. At the moment, we enjoy high standards and should like to achieve even higher standards, and in this context we expect the rest of Europe to follow us.
  9.20 pm
  Mr. Geraint Howells: We are united in our deliberations tonight on safeguarding the interests of the public and looking after the interests of our animals.
  I congratulate the Minister on being frank with us on his stand in Brussels on this important issue. Hon. Members may not know this, but I am aware that the Minister is well used to animals and knows about their best interests and the health risks facing them. Therefore, he is in the right position to discuss the problems of animal health tonight. I wish him well in his further negotiations on behalf of industry and the public in Brussels when the opportune time arrives.

  305
  The documents that we are debating relate to trade in bovine embryos; in eggs—poultry and otherwise—and in sheep and goats. With respect, I believe that the reason for all these moves is simply to standardise rules and procedures across the EC. However, in its determination to bring every member state into line, the Community is in danger of reducing public health standards and increasing the risk of disease. Indeed, these are not animal health regulations; they are animal ill-health regulations, unless we can improve them.
  The EC is attempting to round down to the lowest common denominator. It is refusing to recognise the traditions of individual countries and Britain's special nature as an island. I know that the Minister and everyone else involved in animal health is proud of this country's record. I hope that the Minister will be able to persuade others to change their minds and to improve the standards of animal health in the Community.
  My specific complaint is that the rules relating to certain diseases would be relaxed. Contagious agalactia—an udder infection—is currently subject to an official certification of three years' freedom from the disease, plus pre-export testing. This would now be limited to six months. It would thus require the United Kingdom to seek derogation to retain its higher standards. I hope that the Minister will be able to persuade his counterparts in Europe to accept again the certification of three years' freedom from the disease.
  Other diseases are rare in Britain but are more common on mainland Europe. I am thinking of caprine viral arthritis-cae and maedi visna. The relaxation of existing rules could prove a threat to unaffected livestock in this country.
  The sheep and goats proposals would reduce to 30 days the present six months period during which animals must be free from rabies before being allowed in. That period of 30 days would be less than the incubation time. I was surprised to read that rabies in sheep and goats represents 14 per cent. of all cases in the Community. The Minister will have to press that point forcibly at the opportune time. Other wind-borne diseases would be less well controlled. There is, therefore, the risk of a significant reduction in the United Kingdom's "animal status," as the Select Committee put it.
  Checks would be made mainly at points of origin and destination. That would be madness for an island such as Britain, for our spot checks and quarantine arrangements would be seriously undermined. Post-import quarantine would not be permitted for imports from third countries unless disease was specifically suspected. Animal health criteria would have to be certified by the exporting country.
  The EC wants an expansion of intra-Community trade in poultry and in hatching eggs. Only recently there arose the problem of cracked and dirty eggs originating in Europe. What steps do the British Government and the EC propose to take to prevent a recurrence of that state of affairs?
  In relation to the important issue of foot and mouth disease, will the Minister give an assurance that we in Britain will retain our present slaughtering policy? It would be a retrograde step if that policy were discarded.
  306
  If matters concerning animal health went wrong, it would be a sad day for our sheep industry if that meant that we could not export live lambs and carcases to Community countries. Our sheep farmers would never forgive the Government if they did not ensure that our policy of exporting was able to continue for many years to come.
  On behalf of all concerned, I wish the Minister well in his discussions. Producers and those who look after and breed animals look to him to ensure that, for many years to come, the interests of all concerned are safeguarded and that the economy of sheep farmers, dairy farmers and all producers in Britain—not forgetting the public—are safeguarded.
  9.28 pm
  Mr. William Cash: Hon. Members on both sides of the House have canvassed most of the issues with which we are concerned today. There are serious dangers in the proposals before us. The Minister has conducted the negotiations so far with the determination and skill that we expect of him. There is all-party, cross-party, parliamentary determination not to allow Britain to be taken down a route which would not serve the nation's requirements. I do not know how Ireland is facing up to these issues—it, too, is an island—but perhaps the Minister will be able to enlighten us on that.
  In view of the strong agreement in all parts of the House and the views that have been expressed about the dangers which lie ahead, I suggest, in view of the record that we have established, that it boils down to one main point. If we are satisfied that it is not simply a matter of trying to negotiate away something that cannot be negotiated away because we have reached rock bottom, only one course remains. If there is a persistent determination to continue down a route that we find unacceptable, we must say clearly, "We cannot accept it."
  The time is coming when we must face up to the fact that we cannot negotiate about the face of the Cheshire cat. If there is nothing there, there is no point in trying to negotiate about it. We must simply veto it. Exactly how we do that raises important matters of Government policy. I shall not elaborate on that now, but I make the general proposition that we should say that enough is enough. The arcane argument that somehow the Luxembourg accord has been dispensed with is not true. Those who are familiar with the nuts and bolts of the Single European Act know that when our vital interests are affected we can exercise the veto. I hope that it will not come to that, but if it does, I hope that we shall do just that.
  9.31 pm
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: On 18 May the Minister gave me a most courteous and helpful hearing at the MAFF about imports of tropical birds from rain forests. He said tonight that he was not in a position to reply to the points that I put to him and I await his letter with considerable interest. I am heartened that a Minister should request further action on a letter from an Opposition Member. That is the sign of a good Minister. When I was Parliamentary Private Secretary to Dick Crossman, he did that on several occasions so that even an Opposition Member could get a better answer. This is a difficult subject and certainly not one of party conflict.

  307
  I raise under the third measure the importation of parrots. It would be unfair to go over my interview with the Minister. Since then, the matter has been raised twice in the media. On Sunday evening, 16 July, there was a radio 4 programme by Jessica Holm in the "Nature" series specifically on that subject. Arising out of that programme, there are three important points among many for the Ministry to consider. First, the statistic was quoted on the programme that for every parrot bought at a pet shop in the United Kingdom. perhaps four die on their way here, either in dreadful truckloads travelling to market across countries such as Senegal or, from my personal observation, on rough journeys in the eastern Amazon.
  In our interview I explained to the Minister that I had been to the Altamira conference with the Amerindians of the Xingu river and seen at first hand the destruction of mile after mile of rain forest. We must acknowledge the major problem of the destruction of habitats, followed by importation.
  Can the Minister tell us, without being out of order, about the number and proportion of parrots the Government estimate die in transit, compared with the number that arrive? In the programme the trade representative disputed the figure and said that 25 per cent. was a more realistic figure than 80 per cent. Whatever it is, we are talking about some increasingly rare birds. In fact, many species are in peril. I hope that the Minister will tell the House of any thoughts that he may have on this matter.
  Secondly, the programme emphasised that anyone who thought that we could justify the taking of parrots to breed them so that they could return to the wild was stretching an ecological point a little far. Sometimes it might be a success, but breeding in captivity by no means ensures that stock can be returned to the wild.
  Thirdly, the programme demonstrated that the trade in parrots is quite unlike the ivory trade. Those who sell the parrots to the traders get only the proverbial peanuts for them. It is pathetic that they get so little for the capture of those birds. The species are endangered, and for what? It is for pence rather than for pounds. That is the great sadness. I shall not go into detail about the ivory trade, but ivory is at least valuable whereas the trade in parrots is not to needy people who catch the birds. That is an important point.
  Four days after my interview with the Minister, on 22 May, there was a striking programme in the "Wildlife on One" series, which featured the capture of parrots in Senegal. One live bird was used as a lure to entrap others. It was suggested that up to 20,000 parrots were legally imported to the United Kingdom from Senegal every year and that they were subjected to cruel treatment in captivity and during transportation to this country.
  International trade in endangered species is subject to the provisions of the convention on international trade in endangered species, which is implemented in the United Kingdom and other EC countries by EC regulation 3626/82, as amended. The convention regulates the import and export of threatened species. Those listed in appendix 1 to the convention are considered to be under immediate threat of extinction and, for the most part, are subject to a complete trade ban. Is that complete trade ban actually effective, first, in the United Kingdom and, as far as the Government can estimate, in other European Community countries?
  308
  Those species included in appendix 2, of which the African grey parrot was featured in "Wildlife on One", are not considered to be under immediate threat, but trade is limited to a level that is not detrimental to their survival. The difficulty is that, because of the destruction of habitat, which can happen very quickly, parrots that we thought safe five years ago are now, in some cases, teetering on the borders of extinction. Very close monitoring is necessary if we are serious about dealing with that problem.
  The convention requires only that traders in the country of origin should have an export licence—Senegal is a party to the convention—but the United Kingdom also insists that an import licence is issued for trade in appendix 2 species. Licences are issued by the endangered species branch of the Department of the Environment, the management authority of the convention, and our main concern is for the conservation of the threatened species. I would in no way want to embarrass this Minister, who has been so kind and helpful. If he does not have all the information available tonight, he can send it to me in writing. It is important that Parliament has the necessary information on the record so that hon. Members can refer to it. He might put his letter in the Library, whose staff have been so helpful to me.
  We Members of Parliament receive an increasing number of letters, particularly from young people asking what we are doing about this. CITES is advised by one or two scientific authorities—the Nature Conservancy Council in the case of animals and the Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew in the case of plant species. The other day, I was Ghillean Prance's guest at Kew when we discussed this, and there is a problem. He is a distinguished menage botanist and knows better than most the problems of rare species of birds. I hope that the Department will contact Kew and that its officials will play a video of the "Wildlife on One" programme of May 22 and of Jessica Holm's programme last Sunday.
  The Department of the Environment review of the EC CITES regulations of 1986 observed that there was a presumption to recommend approval for species in appendix 2, provided that the trade is monitored under licence and that the Nature Conservancy Council recommends refusal only where there is evidence that
  "there are likely to be negative conservation implications"
  That is probably the responsibility of the Department of the Environment, although I saw a Minister from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I realise that there is an interface between the two. I do not complain about that, and I do not think that there should be a different civil service departmental allocation. Where there's a will, there's a way and the system seems to work perfectly well. However, I recognise that another Department is involved.
  The African grey parrot is considered to exist in sufficient numbers in the wild not to be under immediate threat. Well, it may not yet be under threat. Powers to regulate the conditions in which birds and animals are transported are vested in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food under the Transit of Animals (General) Order 1973, which places a duty of care on the carriers of livestock. The order provides for the carriage of all animals in suitable containers of adequate dimensions, which are properly labelled and stowed to ensure no risk of injury or unnecessary suffering. Other provisions deal with the feeding and watering of animals in transit.

  309
  Jessica Holm's nature programme emphasised that sometimes aircraft passengers could be unaware that animals were dying all around and that there were few survivors among a number of dead bodies. What kind of checks are carried out at Stansted, Heathrow, Gatwick or the other airports at which these planes arrive to ensure that this does not happen?
  The assertion in the BBC programme was that massive abuse took place. I hope that a recording of the programme giving exactly what was said will be made and be taken into account. I have to confess that on Sunday I was picking blackcurrants and listening to the programme at the same time and did not take notes. I am not sure exactly what was said, but I hope that the Department will check it out.
  Carriers, including foreign carriers arriving in British jurisdiction, can be prosecuted for failing to comply with any of these provisions. However, the Ministry has no powers to deal with the means of capture or keeping of the creatures in the country of origin before their dispatch. That must be a matter of international arrangement and possibly, either in writing or in person tonight, the Minister will say what is being done, particularly with the Senegal, but also with the Brazilian and other authorities, to try to obtain a better understanding of dispatch, if we must have importation.
  The Importation of Birds, Poultry and Hatching Eggs Order 1979 contains provisions relating to the hygiene and quarantine of imported birds, and a veterinary inspector may require the slaughter of any that are found to be diseased. Over 500 species of birds from 30 countries were brought into the United Kingdom during 1988 and many birds died during quarantine. I understand that quite often birds are in quarantine and the people looking after them may have total goodwill, but not the expertise.
  I return to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) that if we are to have proper regulations, we need more vets with expertise in this matter. That means paying vets. Will the Minister say something about the provision of vets and whether he is satisfied that there is proper scrutiny of the quarantine facilities?
  As I understand it, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is conducting a survey into the mortality rate of these birds, which it hopes to publish in about three or four weeks. Is that true? The Minister probably knows about this, and if not, his officials, who have struggled through the traffic to be here today—good on them for doing so—will know about it. Such a survey would be of wide interest.
  The Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act 1976 contains further powers whereby the Secretary of State for the Environment may extend the list of species protected under the CITES regulations and restrict the sale of exotic species. Several species of parrot are scheduled by the 1976 Act, but I understand that it does not cover many more birds. The hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Carlisle) who is a Whip, has a good record on wildlife and countryside matters. We both served on the long Committee considering the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, when he was a Back Bencher. I hope that he will use his influence
  310
  on the Government if need be to ensure that these matters are taken seriously, and to back up the Minister in his best endeavours.
  You have been patient with me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I think that these points are in order. I ask for nothing tonight other than what is convenient for the Minister, but I look forward first to a reply to the letter following my interview of 18 May and secondly to a reply to the rather detailed points that I have raised tonight.
  9.46 pm
  Mr. Bob Cryer: This is an important debate, but its importance is not reflected in the level of attendance in the Chamber. The order represents a potential shift away from maintaining a long-standing policy of scrutiny of, and protection from, animal diseases. I intervened in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) and spoke about Mr. Ray MacSharry. While the debate has been going on, I have confirmed my memory from The Rainbow of the Common Market Assembly, which meets in Strasbourg. I share the reservations expressed by my hon. Friend, although he supports the Common Market and I do not. I think that it has been a burden on this country, and I continue to be a critic of it. Nothing that has happened recently has removed the point of any of my criticisms. It is interesting to see that people from both points of view are expressing concern that the Common Market seems intent on pursuing a policy that is daft to the point of lunacy, and which might conceivably allow the spread of diseases such as rabies.
  The solution often put forward by the Common Market Commission is that of a certificate of origin, which would certify that animals were free from rabies or other diseases. That would not be acceptable because we would have no guarantee about the quality of the inspection, the qualifications of the inspectors, or the diligence with which the inspections were carried out, which is vital. If the inspections are done in a slap-happy way, and the inspectors are not adequately qualified, the result will be rabies entering a hitherto rabies-free zone. It is important that that should not happen, so the Common Market solution is not a solution.
  Numerous people in the Common Market Assembly, the Commission and the Council of Ministers are obsessed with a concept of federalism which overrides the sense and sensibility of allowing member states an element of individual scrutiny at borders to ensure standards of animal hygiene. That is of major concern.
  Members of this Parliament simply do not understand the strength and ferocity of the federalist movement within the institutions of the Common Market. Those people intend to override our objections. I press the Minister to make it clear in his reply whether we shall use our veto by declaring this to be a matter of vital national interest or whether we shall simply be outvoted on a majority vote and find ourselves unwillingly acquiescing in rules imposed by the Common Market with which we go along because the Cabinet feel that it must make some sort of gesture of solidarity in the light of 1992.
  That would be a grave mistake. I am sure that many people who support the Common Market would have strong reservations about such a solution, saying that we can work within the Common Market but we do not have to accept the abolition of our right of scrutiny of animals

  311
  and birds coming into Britain. I press the Minister to tell the House that, if necessary, the Government will use their veto by declaring the matter to be one of vital national interest.
  We are debating a motion to take note of the EC documents and supporting
  "the Government's intention to negotiate satisfactory arrangements to ensure effective safeguards against the introduction of animal disease."
  I am happy to support that motion, provided that the Minister can assure us that it will be carried out with a degree of dedication that will involve using every right that this nation state has within the Common Market to prevent the institution of rules which would be inimical to the maintenance and development of good agricultural animal hygiene and consumer standards in Britain.
  During the week beginning 22 May this year, I attended my last Strasbourg Assembly. Curiously enough, the last word that I uttered as a member of that Assembly was on this very issue. I am delighted to think that many members of that Assembly were pleased to see the back of me. I was an unremitting critic and they do not like critics in their gathering.
  One question for the Commission was entitled "Control de la rage." The French language shows the power of rabies. I cannot translate the original question, which was in French, because it is too long. People often do not realise that the English version of the record of the Strasbourg Assembly takes about three or four months to produce. A verbatim report called The Rainbow is produced the following day which is not terribly helpful if one cannot read Greek, Danish, French, German or whatever language happens to have been used. However, the essence of the question in French was, "How will rabies be controlled by the Commission?"
  Mr. MacSharry, who signed one of the documents that we are considering today, said:
  "As the hon. Member is aware, rabies is the subject of a special Commission report which is accompanied by proposals to eradicate this disease. The report and proposals demonstrate that rabies has been treated as a special case and that the Commission's policy is to eradicate rabies from the Community thus obviating the necessity for quarantine."
  The questioner, Dr. Caroline Jackson of the European Democratic Group, asked:
  "I appreciate that the Commission has a programme to eradicate rabies but until rabies has in fact been 100 per cent. eradicated will the Commissioner not agree that the British Government is within its rights under Community law to apply the quarantine period?"
  Ray MacSharry answered:
  "All I would like to say is that the provisions that will operate after 1992 will totally depend on the eradication proposals that are now in place and these, hopefully, will be successful and thus obviate after 1992 the necessity for quarantine."
  The matter was pursued by Mr. Provan of the European Democrats, who asked the Commissioner:
  "Is he satisfied himself that the Commission's programme is well enough funded to actually eradicate rabies within the foreseeable future or does he feel that we must enhance that programme to make progress a little more rapidly so that we can achieve the abolition of rabies in the Community as quickly as possible?"
  Commissioner MacSharry replied:
  "I am satisfied and hopeful that the proposals that are in place and the resources that are available will lead to that situation."
  I then asked the Commissioner the following question:
  "Does that not mean, in effect, that since rabies is advancing in Europe at the rate of about 25 miles a year, as
  312
  stated in a report submitted to this Assembly, that by 1992 it will be impossible for the United Kingdom to have completely open borders if they are going to maintain their existing strict quarantine scrutiny of animals coming into the United Kingdom? Is that not an important reservation for the United Kingdom, in order to stop the spread of rabies into the United Kingdom which is rabies-free at the moment?"
  Commissioner MacSharry replied:
  "Yes, I know the situation that has been raised by the hon. Member and by Mr. Provan and Mrs. Jackson. It is, of course, a concern of both the UK and the Irish authorities. Our effort on a Community-wide basis is to eradicate this disease and, therefore, obviate the necessity for any quarantine. I have to say that it is hypothetical at the moment what situation might exist after 1992, but if there is to be any consideration for quarantine subsequent to 1992, then it can, or could be, become considered at the point of origin and not at the point of destination and thereby overcome any difficulties that may arise."
  Commissioner MacSharry clearly stated that after 1992 checks for rabies should be at the point of origin and not at the point of destination.
  Mr. Cash: As Commissioner MacSharry is an Irish Commissioner, has the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), in all his research into the situation in Ireland, established the extent to which the Irish Government are enthusiastic about importing various diseases into that country?
  Mr. Cryer: Of course the Irish Government are not enthusiastic about that prospect. The truth is that Commissioners are, by and large, politicians who have been put out to grass. They are not experts who have been appointed because of their commitment to sense and sensibility or to the development of good rules. They are the political friends of their sponsors. In Commissioner MacSharry's case, the Taoiseach wanted to find a safe place for a Finance Minister who had imposed a number of harsh economic policies in Ireland. Once appointed, a Commissioner is secure and has no accountability for the policies that he advocates, other than to the College of Commissioners.
  It is worth remembering, in respect of imports of live animals into the United Kingdom, that the only loyalty that a Commissioner owes is to the College of Commissioners. When Sir Leon Brittan left this House to become a Commissioner, he said that he would look after British interests, but the truth is that he was obliged to swear an oath of allegiance to the College of Commissioners.
  Mr. Home Robertson: My hon. Friend has said a little about rabies, presumably referring to the farm animal categories mentioned in the documents. He has echoed points raised by other hon. Members, including myself. Clearly, however, a far greater risk of rabies being introduced into this country would be posed by any relaxation of the quarantine regulations affecting cats and dogs. A separate document, not included in the group with which we are dealing, specifically recognises the right of the British authorities to maintain quarantine regulations affecting cats and dogs because we are uniquely free of the disease. My hon. Friend should be thankful for small mercies. He is, however, right to put his finger on the fact that there is still the rather remote risk of rabies being introduced by goats or sheep.
  Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend is right to raise that point. Some people in Common Market institutions, however, want to remove those restrictions. They want certificates of

  313
  origin to be provided for cats and dogs, and any other domestic animals which may be affected. That has been the subject of press releases from members of the Assembly.
  Another person who intervened in the discussion to which I have referred was a man called Dieter Rogalla, a member of the Socialist group and—if I may use such an enticing expression—a rabid pro-marketeer. On his desk is a Customs barrier which is permanently lifted, as a symbol of his devotion to the removal of all barriers. He seeks every opportunity to argue that barriers of every kind must be removed. In the report, he asked the Commissioner, in effect, to counter my comments by asking when quarantine would be abandoned by Great Britain. Mr. Rogalla, by the way, is also a member of the "kangaroo group", a powerful and influential group in the Assembly, the kangaroo symbol representing the ability to jump over barriers at each country border. I mention that merely to demonstrate that there is strong pressure to remove the barriers that we are discussing.
  In reply to Mr. Rogalla's question, Ray MacSharry replied, in effect, that he hoped that quarantine would be ended:
  "I hope in the not too distant future and definitely after 1992."
  I have the document here, and it will be quoted in Hansard tomorrow. I hope that the Minister can give us an assurance that today's motion means something, and that the Government will negotiate satisfactory arrangements to ensure
  "effective safeguards against the introduction of animal disease."
  I hope that we shall not be fobbed off and find in six or 12 months' time that a document has been produced saying, "We have discovered that quarantine is not all that valuable—inoculations have been used on a widespread basis in the Common Market and rabies is no longer important as a disease transmittable to humans and animals." I hope that the reference to effective safeguards means that the Government will ensure that we do not depend on certificates of origin from other Common Market countries or from third countries importing into the Common Market, and that we shall use our right of national interest to veto any such proposals. It is vital that the Government should take a firm stand and not capitulate as they have done on so many other Common Market issues.
  10.4 pm
  Mr. Donald Thompson: I shall answer the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) immediately by reading out again what I said earlier:
  "The Government naturally support action at a Community level for the eradication of rabies. But we would resist any suggestion that the Community should commit itself to any particular date for the elimination of quarantine. The Government's position is that the elimination of quarantine can be considered only when quarantine is no longer necessary to exclude the disease. Whilst the Government support the Commisson's revised proposal that member states should implement the eradication programmes before the end of 1989, we believe that eradication will take longer to achieve than the three years originally provided for. It is therefore likely that quarantine will remain necessary beyond 1992."
  Before I came to the debate I read with interest the exchanges to which the hon. Gentleman has just referred.
  314
  That exchange of views was vital. I place as serious an interpretation upon it as does the hon. Member for Bradford, South.
  Mr. Home Robertson: I am grateful to the Minister for repeating the Government's position about the maintenance of provisions to protect the United Kingdom against the importation of rabies. However, there were one or two weasel words in the statement that he has just read out again. He said that the Government would resist the lifting of quarantine under the circumstances that he described and that he thought it unlikely that those circumstances would arise. What does the word "resist" mean in that context? Do the Government acknowledge that this is a matter of vital national interest, which ought to warrant the use of the veto?
  Mr. Thompson: I do not intend to turn this into a drafting session on a paragraph that is perfectly plain and that can be understood by the whole House. "Resist" means resist, oppose and all the rest. The hon. Gentleman went to nearly as good a school as I did, so he can put his own interpretation on it.
  The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) put his argument at a most opportune time. On 27 July, there is to be a meeting of the international committee on these matters. I shall ensure that my officials read his words as they compose the Government's answer to him and that they bear them in mind when they attend the meeting on 27 July. It is a pity that the wife of the Minister for Roads and Traffic, who is to reply to the Adjournment debate, is not sitting next to him. My hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley) has a great deal to do with these matters in the Department of the Environment. I assure the hon. Member for Linlithgow that both the hon. Member for Surrey, South-West and I are very concerned about the importation of parrots and other animals that have to rely upon our support and protection. As he kindly suggested I do, I shall write to him further about the matter.
  Mr. Dalyell: I hope that officials will listen to the programme on Sunday by Jessica Holm and that they watched the "Wildlife on One" programme that was broadcast on 22 May.
  Mr. Thompson: I shall do that, and I shall ensure that my officials do so, too.
  It is clear from the debate that the whole House agrees that we should work as hard as possible to ensure that the United Kingdom's animal status is well protected. The hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) made that point very well. He also made the point that BSE is now unfortunately endemic in this country. Continental countries must now realise that, for the first time in many ways, there is a two-way argument.
  I do not intend to be drawn into the debate on eggs. We are talking not about eggs for breakfast but about eggs for hatching.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) was right to emphasise the fact that animal welfare goes hand in hand with animal health. He drew to our attention the serious matter of rabies. He can be assured that I and the Farm Animal Welfare Council will ensure that the twin protections of welfare and proper standards for animals are maintained and kept in mind.

  315
  I have answered most of what the hon. Member for Bradford, South said. He and my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) stressed that we should use every method and every device possible in Europe. Both hon. Gentlemen should remember that I voted against the last beef premium, and that it is unusual to vote against anything in the Council of Ministers. We shall keep that resolution in this most important matter of animal health. The hon. Gentleman on the Liberal Bench, the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells)—
  Mr. Home Robertson: Before the Minister moves on to the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells), may I bring him back to the important issue that he has just covered? He has just admitted that the best he can do in the Council of Ministers is to vote against something. That may be unusual, but he voted against the new beef premium. However, we have the new beef premium, regardless of that vote. We are discussing something of more fundamental importance than the beef premium—the possible introduction of deadly diseases into Britain—so may I press the Minister further for an undertaking that it is the Government's intention that the House should have the opportunity to debate the issue further when negotiations in Europe have been concluded?
  Mr. Thompson: The usual channels sit on each side of me. It may be that by the time that happens I shall be Leader of the House and will be able to decide that myself. However, that is unlikely and I can go no further.
  The hon. Gentleman on the Liberal Bench was kind enough to call me a round peg in a round hole. I have spent all my life with animals and I can assure the Opposition and my right hon. and hon. Friends that we take the matter extremely seriously. I am sure it is not the last we have heard on it.
  Mr. Cryer rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. The Minister is not giving way; he has finished his speech.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 4183/89, 4839/89 and 5057/89 relating to the animal health aspects of trade in certain animals and animal products; and supports the Government's intention to negotiate satisfactory arrangements to ensure effective safeguards against the introduction of animal disease.

  Airport Congestion
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lightbown.]
  10.12 pm
  Mr. Harry Greenway: For the past few months, just about everyone in the air travel industry has been warning that 1989 will see more congestion in the skies than ever before. Already the International Federation of Air Traffic Controllers believes that it will be a disastrous summer. The majority of the delays will almost certainly be at Gatwick airport, the most popular starting point for charter flights to the Mediterranean, which are most vulnerable to delays than other flights. Many of those flights will be bound for Greece and Spain, where the air traffic control systems are even more overstretched than ours. With the French air traffic controllers permitting six rather than 54 flights per hour through their air space, as they did last Saturday, an outrageous, unacceptable and miserable situation for holidaymakers and travellers is certain. Something will have to be done about it.
  Last summer and the summer before, the chaos at Gatwick made headlines for weeks on end. In 1987 the cause of the chaos was industrial action by the French, the Spanish, and at one point the British air traffic controllers. In 1988 the Spanish air traffic controllers' strike caused the initial backlog. After their weekend action, the Greeks then went on strike, the result being delays of up to five hours. The problems were worsened at Gatwick by the breakdown of the main air traffic control computer at West Drayton, repairs to the Gatwick runway, the combined police-military operation to test airport security, and fog.
  As the issue of delays comes increasingly into focus, there is a need for a major new initiative to provoke greater Government and aviation industry action to solve the growing crisis affecting airports in the south-east. In considering airport congestion, it is important to distinguish between the delays caused by air traffic controllers through industrial disputes, when they deliberately perform below their best, and those due to traffic volumes being in excess of system capacity. In the United Kingdom, delays for any reason can concertina flights into later periods when congested runways and airspace are already fully committed. That causes knock-on delays, increasing inconvenience and hardship to users and additional costs to airlines and airports.
  One solution which is often suggested for easing the problems of delays is night flights. The relaxing of restrictions is still seen by some as a viable method of overcoming delays. It has been anticipated that over the next five years there will be a 20 per cent. increase in the night flight quota at Gatwick. It has been argued that the increase will be brought about by the use of new super-quiet aircraft of the NNA category, which will be phased in at the expense of noisier aircraft.
  The use of night flights however, is an intolerable, unacceptable and unnecessary method of relieving congestion at airports. The bottom line of the argument is that any aircraft is noisy and will seriously affect the quality of life of residents in the location of airports. I am pleased to see my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) in his place agreeing with me. Night flights are a significant part of the environmental

  317
  distress that will be suffered by residents. Once night flights are established, the authorities may be reluctant to withdraw them, especially at times when delays are excessive. That point is highlighted when we consider that passenger demand is estimated to rise by up to 10 per cent. per annum.
  Many of the problems can be anticipated and therefore overcome when we consider that for any increase in charter flights in the summer the traffic schedules are drawn up about nine months in advance. The ensuing chaos could thus have been foreseen. Furthermore, any increase in activity will add to the problem of air safety, especially near-misses. Yet decisions are frequently made without consultation with interested bodies and without safeguards.
  Heathrow is unique in that it is located in the suburbs of a capital city, near my constituency, with its runways pointed towards the heart of the city. As a result, Heathrow has the world's worst airport environmental problems.
  The issue of congestion in controlled airspace above London and in other parts of Europe comes sharply into view during the summer months. In 1983, the Civil Aviation Authority pointed out that while the then current capacity of the London terminal manoeuvring area had about 130 air movements per hour, the potential traffic-generating capacity at Heathrow was 71, Gatwick 40 and Luton 16, which was 127 aircraft movements per hour. Moreover, other movements, essentially from other airfields, amounted to seven movements per hour, giving a peak demand of 134 movements per hour even before Stansted was taken into account. My source for that is CAA paper 84006. That problem has worsened significantly over the intervening years since those figures were originally published.
  The National Air Traffic Service is gradually introducing new equipment with major radar replacements and electronic data displays, for example, and wholly reorganising the use of controlled airspace within the London terminal manoeuvring area. A new system of air traffic control for the south-east, known as the central control function, will enable the NATS to handle at least 30 per cent. more traffic by the mid-1990s. In the short term, by specifying the number of aircraft that can be received, the NATS is imposing limits on airport capacity during peak periods. That not only delays visitors to the United Kingdom—it delays British holidaymakers at airports in this country when it is employed by other European air traffic control centres.
  The total reorganisation of the LTMA is programmed to take place in seven stages until 1995. The basis upon which the NATS is undertaking this exercise is unclear, but if it is assumed that Stansted should be developed to the maximum potential of a single runway, it would be necessary to plan for a peak demand of 185 to 200 aircraft movements per hour in the LTMA. Those figures are based upon the following hourly aircraft movements: Heathrow, 72; Stansted, 40; Luton, 20; and minor airfields and overflyers, 13 to 28. There is some uncertainty about the point at which the growth of aircraft movements at Stansted will adversely affect such movements at Luton. If,
  318
  however, that assumption is invalid, there would be a need to extend the capacity of controlled airspace in the LTMA by between 42 and 54 per cent.
  There could also be an impact in the long term at the world's major airports, as congestion would limit the number of aircraft handled by the end of the century, constraining the development of air transport. For example, in 1987 in the United States delays caused airlines to lose the equivalent of almost 100 days in aircraft operating time every day. That figure was based on a typical 10 hours per day use of each aircraft in their fleets to compensate for delays. Those difficulties at airports cost United States airlines some $2 billion in 1987, or 4 per cent. of revenue last year. That exceeded total airline profits in any single year. It is worth noting that United States flights suffer an average delay of 15 minutes.
  Problems for airline manufacturers would include cash flow considerations and low profit margins, which would limit new civil aircraft programmes on both sides of the Atlantic to about one new project every seven to 10 years. Europe launched new principal aircraft types over the past 20 years as European manufacturers caught up the ground lost to United States airline manufacturers. Boeing launched three new programmes in the past 20 years. Consequently, the development in the design of new airliners will be evolutionary rather than revolutionary.
  A review of the past 15 years shows that to solve the problem British aviation interests must take a major part of the blame for the chaos in the air over Europe and the consequent congestion on the ground in the United Kingdom. All the aviation experts have consistently claimed that aircraft would get larger so that fewer, quicker aircraft would be required. At the last major aircraft industry inquiry, the British Airports Authority stated that Heathrow would handle 53 million passengers per annum, with 300,000 aircraft movements—about 177 passengers per plane. Currently, Heathrow is managing about 38·2 MPPA, with 332,000 aircraft movements—about 115 passengers per plane.
  The result of this inaccurate forecasting is that 50 per cent. more aircraft than expected are needed to handle passenger demand. Heathrow and Gatwick are running out of aircraft capacity during the day and the air traffic control system must cope with 50 per cent. more flights than expected. As Heathrow and Gatwick are the two biggest international airports in the world, they dominate the European system, so if Britain gets it wrong the whole of Europe suffers. European air traffic controllers therefore cannot plan efficiently if the United Kingdom's forecasting is inaccurate.
  It is true also that, if the Government relax the restrictions on night flights, the rest of Europe will be under pressure, so this must not happen. It has been argued that larger aircraft will solve the problem, but few airlines are planning to fly any because passengers see greater choice in frequency and destination rather than in simply consolidating existing services. Continental airports close at night, and so should ours.
  Europe's aviation authorities have been urged to co-operate in urgent and efficient plans to ease airspace congestion and provide capacity to meet demand through the 1990s. Last November, Lord Brabazon, president of Eurocontrol, requested an investigation into the short-term ways in which congestion could be relieved. He called for a greater pooling of information on national plans for handling air traffic, for the removal of incompatibilities in

  319
  national air traffic control systems in Europe and for the immediate identification of remedial measures for implementation. The Minister called for a new common strategy for improving the efficiency of the air traffic control system throughout Eurocontrol's member states. Lord Brabazon also called for controls in the financing of Eurocontrol and urged member states to make readily available the resources needed to undertake the necessary work, fully recovering the costs from air transport users.
  There is also a need to upgrade Eurocontrol's central data bank to improve the future operation of flow control in Europe. Only time will tell whether the changes will result in any movement in the existing system. I warmly welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) and my hon Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle), who is also in his place.
  A more far-sighted approach to the problem of congestion would be to switch traffic from the south-east airports—[Interruption] I invite my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South-East (Mr. Lightbown), who is the Whip, to listen—and actively to encourage increased activity in the regional airports. That would benefit operators and users alike, while spreading the effects of aircraft activity.
  For instance, Gatwick at present handles some 21 million passengers per year and is designed to take 25 million. Rather than planning for increased capacity at Gatwick better solution would be to direct growth to the regions and to Stansted. The first stage of Stansted's development will be ready by 1991, when it will be able to handle about 8 million passengers per year and when there will be a fast rail link to Liverpool street station.
  Already about 50 per cent. of Gatwick's passengers come from north of the Thames. If more services were available nearer to passengers' homes, it would reduce the need to travel through London and thus reduce travelling time and costs to the consumer. It would also have the beneficial effect of alleviating road congestion in my constituency and those of other hon. Members in west London.
  One measure that could be employed in promoting regional development would be to provide incentives to airline operators to use regional airports. The British Airports Authority is in a strong market position, given that it has monopoly control of London's airports, and can offer attractive landing charges to operators to encourage the use of Heathrow and Gatwick. An unlikely solution would be to ask the BAA to increase its landing charges to allow regional airports to compete more readily. A more likely solution may be provided by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. The BAA price control formula is reviewed every five years by the commission and the first review is due to be carried out in 1991. That may provide an initial foothold for changing the pricing structure for aircraft use and could be employed in providing the incentive for operations to shift from the south-east to the regions.
  10.29 pm
  The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Peter Bottomley): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) on his erudite speech. He seems to have answered some of the questions implicit in his remarks. It would be proper for me to acknowledge the interest shown in the matter by the hon. Member for
  320
  Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) and to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South-East (Mr. Lightbown), who shows care and concern for those of us who are worried about airport noise, as well as the need for mobility and for transport issues generally. He also shows kindness in helping us with our own transport arrangements. He is one of the silent servants of the House and the Government.
  The reason for air traffic control is air safety, as all those who have served in military or civil aviation will know. The first consideration in the handling of air traffic is safety.
  United Kingdom civil aviation is, happily, among the safest in the world. That has not come about by chance, but because of work, consultation, debate—sometimes robust debate—attention to detail, and because, as Her Royal Highness the Princess of Wales said when she visited the Civil Aviation Authority,
  "It takes a special kind of person to work in air traffic control."
  In the Civil Aviation Authority report which came out today, Mr. Tugendhat, the chairman, said:
  "This has been another exceptionally busy year for the Authority in all its main areas of activity. The National Air Traffic Services, both at airports and centres, again dealt with more record-breaking traffic levels. There was an overall 11 per cent. increase in air traffic handled by civil controllers in the year up to the end of March, on top of the 9 per cent. growth experienced in the previous year. In addition, several milestones were passed in connection with the Authority's ambitious £600 million investment programme in new air traffic control equipment and facilities."
  I leave the rest of the report to be read by those who want to pursue an interest in it. I believe that it shows that many good things are being achieved.
  There is no reason and no need for complacency. On a slightly lighter note, to acknowledge the interest of my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby), I must recall the Flanders and Swann song about how much safer air travel was than going on the roads—and their claim that perhaps the airline coaches had instructions to ensure that the statistics were kept favourable.
  Mr. Michael Shersby: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Bottomley: Before I give way to my hon. Friend, can I just acknowledge that I followed him all the way to his constituency last week, and he drove impeccably? That is probably one reason why the road statistics are improving in the same way as the aviation statistics. I give way to my hon. Friend, who is acknowledged to be the policeman's friend.
  Mr. Shersby: After that wonderful tribute, I am loth to intervene in my hon. Friend's speech. He may, however, have heard Mr. Tugendhat on the radio this morning say that it was the CAA's intention to step up recruitment of air traffic controllers very considerably and to recruit at the rate, I believe, of more than 160 a year for the next few years. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that that will make a great contribution towards improving air traffic control.
  Mr. Bottomley: That is right. As hon. Members say, if it is needed, it is right.
  It is appropriate to acknowledge that the Civil Aviation Authority has responsibility in these matters. It is one area in which we do not have split responsibility. The CAA has the responsibility, and it is important that Ministers do not

  321
  interfere when matters of safety are involved. In the same way as I assume responsibility for road safety and help to organise the alliance that drives casualty rates down, the CAA has that responsibility for air safety, which it should be allowed to carry out without the Minister going in for the cheap political gesture. I pay tribute to my noble Friend the Minister for Aviation and Shipping, Lord Brabazon, whom my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North mentioned.
  I have talked about air safety, but I also want to talk about the need to remove any unnecessary obstacles to increased traffic at regional airports. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North was right—I think that he had the whole-hearted support of my hon. Friends the Members for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) and for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle)—in trying to ensure that people can fly from the areas that are most convenient to them. That would mean that fewer people would drive through the areas that are less convenient to those of us who represent London constituencies. I acknowledge the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes in keeping unnecessary traffic out of London. I only wish that more London papers could recognise that that is my policy as well, rather than continually repeating the misguided—sometimes the deliberately misguided—reports from others.
  The Government believe in the importance of the role of regional airports in meeting demand. Consistent policy has been to encourage the use and development of the regional airports to meet as much as they can of the demand that arises locally. That encouragement has tangible form. Since 1981–82, the Government have approved capital allocations totalling more than £240 million towards the development and expansion of local authority airports. I am delighted to report that traffic at many regional airports is growing healthily. For example, Manchester airport handled 9·5 million passengers in 1988, which is an increase of 87 per cent. in the past five years. The Government have approved investment for a second major passenger terminal there.
  It would be a mistake to suppose that expansion at Manchester, Birmingham, Glasgow or Northern Ireland would make possible a radical shift in the pattern of demand for air services. It is a fact that about three out of four passengers at London airports start or finish their journeys in the south-east. In time we shall see more of a regional balance, as people begin to realise the attractions of living and working in the north-east, the north-west, the south-west, Wales and Scotland.
  Under this Government, we have seen greater recognition of regional opportunities, rather than relying on a few civil servants sitting in a London office block and trying to direct others away from London. We have been trying to build up the proper attractions of other regions in terms of community, education and quality of life because that will lead to a greater movement away from London and the south-east, and will remove some of the terrible development pressures which have been suffered on the outskirts of London.
  I therefore welcome this opportunity to stress the importance of this topical subject of air traffic control and capacity. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North referred to the dispute in France. We should acknowledge
  322
  what some of our disputes have done to other people. Let us imagine, for example, a person who is trying to tour England, but who finds that some mode of transport cannot be used. I hope that, both in this country and in Europe, we can work towards recognising our responsibilities towards others and that we should not—whether we are French or English, British or European in a more general sense—wantonly destroy the holiday of a lifetime for people who may have been saving up for their first chance to visit the "Costa Lot".
  Naturally, I hope that many people will follow my habit of taking my main summer holiday in the United Kingdom, whether it be to the loughs of Northern Ireland, the lakes of Wales, the lochs of Scotland or the coast of the Isle of Wight. I am sure that many people want to appreciate what we have in Britain. However, those who want to go the "Costa Lot" should have the chance of flying without unnecessary delay.
  I pay tribute to many people involved in the travel business, not only to the operators, but also to the agents who have made it possible for many more people from this nation to see places abroad, whether they are in the rest of Europe, across the Atlantic or in other parts of the world.
  We should remember that the difficulties that we are now facing, leaving aside the additional issue of disputes, are the result of successes in both the industry and the economy. Those successes have led to levels of activity and volumes of traffic which no one could have predicted. The challenge now is to ensure that there is sufficient capacity in the system to accommodate the traffic and to realise the fruit that it can yield.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North referred to the CAA's advice. The 1985 White Paper set out strategy to take us through to the mid-1990s. There is now a need to carry forward White Paper strategy. Last summer, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State commissioned the CAA to provide advice covering both airport and airspace capacity. The authority has consulted widely, and today has published advice on the traffic distribution policy for the London airports. This is an important piece of work, and we shall now study it carefully. In doing so, we will also be keeping in mind views expressed on the subject by the Select Committee on Transport in its report published in March, and the report published last week by the independent committee chaired by Lord Rawlinson.
  The CAA now proposes to do further technical work to provide us next summer with advice on airport capacity in the longer term, including on the key question of runway capacity. It would be wrong to anticipate the authority's advice on those longer term issues tonight.
  One reason for tonight's Adjournment debate is to put more of these issues on the public agenda, rather than to go in for quick snap answers and responses to the CAA's initial views and to the later views, yet to come forward.
  I turn now to the major causes of aircraft delays. We must remember that aircrafts do not have feelings, except for that jumbo jet that we keep reading about. It is people—passengers—who have feelings and who are affected by aircraft delays. The major cause of delays to aircraft is airspace congestion, which affects all airports in the United Kingdom, and is not confined to airports in the south-east.
  There is a shortage of airspace capacity throughout Europe. It is not a problem confined to the popular

  323
  holiday destinations like Greece and Spain. Countries like the Federal Republic of Germany, France and the United Kingdom all face a serious shortfall in capacity.
  At busy times, flow management restrictions have to be introduced. Aircraft are either re-routed round the congested bottlenecks, or are held on the ground until the system can accommodate them. Without flow management, the system would become overloaded at busy times with too many aircraft entering the airspace for the controllers to handle safely.
  Even if everything was working smoothly, flow management is needed nowadays at busy times to keep the system safe. As has been said, it is worth remembering that the take-off slot times which the aircraft would be given would not usually delay them for very long—say, for 15 to 20 minutes.
  One reason why my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes has lent his presence to the debate—he has been heard giving his support to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North—is the issue of night flights. Our policy on this is clear. The Government are committed to improving the night noise climate around Gatwick and Heathrow without imposing unnecessary restrictions on the airline industry. Those two points together are the points that matter most.
  Mr. Harry Greenway: Why can we not move to the total closure of airports in this country, as they do on the continent?
  Mr. Bottomley: I am not an expert on continental airports. I am aware that aeroplanes are at times delayed. One occasionally hears even of Concorde coming across a little late. There are times when one hears a plane in the middle of the night, but that is rare in London and it normally occurs because there has been a delay elsewhere or because of some other problem. To take an absolutist view may not be possible, but if my noble Friend the Minister for Aviation and Shipping has points to add to my response, I will pass them on to my hon. Friend.
  324
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North said that London Heathrow, if not the closest in, affected the population most. A larger population here may be affected, but I remember coming in to land at Kai Tak airport in Hong Kong. At least, when coming into Heathrow, one does not find oneself flying beneath buildings, with people looking down from their bathroom windows as one's jumbo jet comes into land.
  Mr. David Lightbown (Lords Commissioner to the Treasury): The same applies to Detroit.
  Mr. Bottomley: My hon. Friend is right to remind me of Detroit. There may be other city airports where the same state of affairs exists.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North was making the point that there was potential in London for a large number of people to be disturbed. As my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes reminded us, all the planes seem to change gear as they pass over his constituency.
  Traffic forecasting is not an exact science. It is difficult to do. We are learning all the time and we hope to move forward so that, at London airports and throughout the country, we can meet people's needs. In all forms of transport, we are dedicated to do the best we can to make life better, not worse, and to extend opportunity, while maintaining, if possible improving, the environmental impact which is part of the airline industry.
  To that extent, we are getting better and quieter planes and a safer air traffic control system. All those involved, whether in the Government, in the CAA or in the lobby groups, have much of which to be proud. I hope that we shall continue to make further improvements.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

DEFENCE

  Armilla Patrol
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he proposes to make any changes in the Armilla patrol in the light of the continuing ceasefire in the Gulf.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Armilla patrol will remain in the Gulf area for as long as there is a task to perform. Although there has been little progress towards a permanent peace settlement, there has been a considerable reduction in tension in the area over a period of some months. So long as this continues, we would in future expect normally to deploy only two frigates or destroyers to the region, although a third ship will continue to be suitably equipped and trained so that it can be deployed if there is any increase in threat. This will produce a welcome improvement in the availability of ships for other tasks.

ENERGY

  Uranium
  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy at what facilities the uranium imported from Namibia since 1979 for commercial purposes is currently located.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I understand that uranium imported from Namibia since 1979 for use in the British civil nuclear programme is currently located either at BNFL's processing facilities, or at the generating boards' power stations. All this uranium is subject to Euratom safeguards.

  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what estimates are available to him of the volume of radioactive tailings created and volume of radon gas released for the mining of each tonne of uranium used in the United Kingdom civil nuclear programme.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I have no such information. I am advised by the British civil uranium procurement directorate that all the countries from which we import uranium for civil use in the United Kingdom meet the internationally agreed guidelines established by the International Commission on Radiological Protection.

  Magnox Reactors
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will provide published data in the Official Report, giving (a) the total in kilogrammes of that amount of plutonium in all wastes on the Sellafield site resulting from the reprocessing of all Central Electricity Generating Board and South of Scotland electricity board Magnox spent fuel from 1979, (b) whether that figure is an actual or
  80
  estimated one and (c) how much of the figure in (a) is included in the table giving the allocation of plutonium produced in Central Electricity Generating Board and South of Scotland electricity board Magnox reactors on 31 March 1987, Official Report, 24 July 1987, columns 517–18.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to him on 20 June 1989 at columns 92–93. None of this plutonium is included in the table which refers to plutonium in irradiated fuel and separated plutonium.

WALES

  Anthrax
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will meet the tenant of Singrett farm, Llay, to discuss with him the impact of the outbreak of anthrax upon his farm operations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  As officials of my Department and the state veterinary service are in constant touch with events at the farm, such a meeting would serve no useful purpose.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much money(a) has been made available and (b) has been given to the local authority to date to deal with the problem of anthrax in Clwyd; whether cash limits are imposed on money made available to the local authority for this purpose; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Government support to local authorities is provided principally through rate support grants, which are unhypothecated and are intended to support local authorities in providing services in general. The Anthrax Order 1938 places a clear duty on local authorities to dispose of potentially infected slurry at their expense. Prudent authorities will make provision for such contingencies within their budgets and should therefore be in a position to meet the costs of the anthrax outbreak to which the hon. Gentleman refers.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Sunday Trading
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance he has issued to local authorities in connection with the enforcement of the law relating to Sunday trading.

  Mr. Renton
  My right hon. Friend has not issued guidance to local authorities on this matter as there is no reason to suppose that they are not aware of their responsibilities under section 71 of the Shops Act 1950.

  As my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General made clear in answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) on 17 April at column 26, the fact that some cases have been referred to the European Court under article 177 of the treaty of Rome does not affect the duty of the local authorities to enforce the law. The court has yet to give its judgement on the first of these cases, but the Advocate General published his opinion on 29 June. This opinion, which is not binding on the court, indicated that the provisions of the Shops Act 1950 were not in breach of the treaty of Rome.

  Cycling Offences
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions took place in 1988 of people found cycling on footpaths.

  Mr. John Patten
  Information for 1988 is not yet available. In 1987 there were 540 persons prosecuted in England and Wales for cycling on a footpath.

  Prisoners (Food Allowance)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the present weekly food allowance per inmate in prisons in England and Wales; and how the allowance is made up.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The weekly food allowance is determined by a range of dietary scales, which vary according to age and sex and also take into account religious and other beliefs. The weekly scales can be summarised as follows:

  Food group

  Weekly allowance

  Milk

  2,610–3,050 ml

  Cheese

  110 g

  Margarine

  350–450 g

  Vegetable oils

  150–250 g

  Eggs

  3 no

  Meat and meat products

  11,420 g

  Fish

  1185 g

  Fresh potatoes

  3,150–3,920 g

  Fresh green vegetables

  680 g

  Other fresh vegetables

  540–830 g

  Processed vegetables

  210–270 g

  Fresh fruit

  1200 g

  Processed fruit

  100 g

  Sugars and preserves

  540–590 g

  Bread

  1,425–2,300 g

  Flour and other cereals

  840–1,155 g

  Beverages:

  Tea

  60 g

  Instant coffee

  5 g

  1 Weekly cash allowances are provided for purchase of fresh meat, fish and fruit, to be spent at the discretion of the establishment; the weights quoted are therefore average figures. There is also a weekly cash allowance of 23p to 29p per inmate used at local discretion to extend the variety and palatability of meals.

  Bail (Foreigners)
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to introduce the withholding of passports of foreigners who are the subject of police bail pending further inquiries; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend has no such plans at present. Only the courts can impose conditions on the grant of bail.

  Bradford (Riots)
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief constable of West Yorkshire as to the estimated cost of the police operations during the Muslim riots in Bradford over the weekend of 8–9 July; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand from the chief constable of West Yorkshire that the estimated additional 82
  cost of policing the disturbances in Bradford on 9 July is £6,870. This covers police overtime, subsistence and transport.

  Satellite Television
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he intends to make with regard to the ability of local authorities or bodies of a primarily political or religious nature to own a dominant holding in satellite television channels uplinked from the United Kingdom, primarily directed at the United Kingdom or intended for carriage on United Kingdom cable systems.

  Mr. Renton
  Paragraph 6.49 of the broadcasting White Paper (Cm. 517) proposed that local authorities and bodies whose objects are wholly or mainly of a religious or political nature should be disqualified from holding any ITC licence: this would include United Kingdom-based satellite channels licensable by the ITC.

  Construction Industry
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has had any meetings with the Building Employers Confederation to discuss the possible impact upon the construction industry of proposed changes to British summer time arrangements.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  No, but responses are invited by 29 September to the Green Paper Cm. 722 published on 27 June.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the economic impact upon the construction industry of the proposed changes to British summer time arrangements.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I refer the hon. Member to paragraphs 78 to 80 of the Green Paper "Summer Time—A Consultation Document" Cm. 722.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has received any representations from the construction industry concerning proposed changes to British summer time arrangements; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Written observations were received from a number of organisations concerned with the construction industry as part of the consultation, through Departments, on summer time and we have subsequently received a further representation from the president of the Building Employers' Confederation. The views submitted have been taken into account in the Green Paper "Summer Time—A Consultation Document" Cm. 722.

  Prisons (Physical Education)
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he accepts the recommendations of the Central Council of Physical Recreation in their review of physical education in Her Majesty's prison service; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  In September 1988 the CCPR undertook to examine the provision of physical education in five prison service establishments. It visited prisons at
  83
  Featherstone, Birmingham and Stafford and young offender institutions at Swinfen Hall and Hewell Grange. Its terms of reference were:
  "To determine the extent to which physical education programmes in the five selected establishments meet the perceived needs of their inmate population by taking into consideration:

  1.1 The scale of physical education programmes currently provided for young and adult offenders in the five establishments in the agreed pilot scheme.

  1.2 The problems encountered in programme delivery.

  1.3 The integration of physical education programmes with other elements of each establishment's regime.

  1.4 The quality of these physical education programmes compared with those in educational establishments, other institutions and in society at large.

  1.5 To make recommendations."

  The CCPR uses the experience gained from these five establishments as background to a very wide-ranging report with recommendations which affect not only the prison service but many other bodies and organisations with an interest in physical education and sporting and leisure activities. I am sure that the report will provide a stimulating basis for discussion between the many interests involved.

  I share the CCPR's view that the physical education branch of the prison service makes an under-recognised contribution to sport and recreation in this country as well as providing a very valuable service to inmates. I welcome the specific proposals the CCPR has for improving this service and its recommendations will be taken into account as part of the ongoing commitment to improve the general standard of prison regimes.

  Carlisle Report
  Mr. Stanbrook
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will propose immediately an amendment to the existing law whereby persons convicted of crimes of violence who are released from imprisonment after serving a full sentence with remission are made subject to supervision as recommended in the Carlisle report.

  Mr. John Patten
  [holding answer 10 July 1989]: We are actively considering the far-reaching changes in the arrangements for parole and remission in England and Wales recommended by the Carlisle committee, The committee's proposals include supervising on their release all prisoners with sentences of more than a year.

  We are sympathetic to this part of the proposals which accord with Government policies, and, as part of our work on the Carlisle committee's report, we are thoroughly reviewing the way in which prisoners released on licence would be supervised. High and consistent standards of supervision would be essential but supervision cannot give an absolute guarantee that an offender will be prevented from committing further crime.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what basis Customs and Excise assess liability for value added tax on the whole of an advertisement placed by a commercial company on behalf 84
  of a charitable organisation rather than on the value of that part of it that might be deemed to be promoting the company.

  Mr. Lilley
  Liability for VAT is based on the nature of the agreement between the person making the supply and the person receiving it. If the person receiving the supply of advertising services is not a charity then there is no entitlement to VAT relief under the existing law.

  Earnings
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer why the Isle of Wight is omitted from "Regional Trends", No. 24 1989 edition in table 2.6 (i) average gross weekly earnings, male and female and (ii) gross domestic product 1984.

  Mr. Major
  Regional figures for both average earnings and gross domestic product are based on estimates from sample surveys. For the Isle of Wight and for some other areas in the United Kingdom the sample size is too small for the publication of reliable estimates.

  Northern Region (GDP)
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the gross domestic product per head for the northern region of the United Kingdom; and in which EEC regions the gross domestic product per head is lower than this figure.

  Mr. Major
  Gross domestic product per head at factor cost in the north is provisionally estimated to have been £5,389 in 1987. International comparisons of regional GDP per head by the statistical office of the European Communities are published on page 156 of "Regional Trends 24"; 1989 Edition. This shows the following regions to have had lower GDP per head than the north in 1986 (in descending order):

  Region

  Country

  Wales

  United Kingdom

  Noreste

  Spain

  Oost-Nederland

  Netherlands

  Region wallonne/Waals gewest

  Belgium

  Abruzzi-Molise

  Italy

  Madrid

  Spain

  Northern Ireland

  United Kingdom

  Este

  Spain

  Sardegna

  Italy

  Campania

  Italy

  Sicilia

  Italy

  Sud

  Italy

  Noroeste

  Spain

  Canarias

  Spain

  Ireland

  Ireland

  Centro

  Spain

  Kentriki Ellada

  Greece

  Sur

  Spain

  Voreia Ellada

  Greece

  Portugal

  Portugal

  Anatolika Kai notia nisia

  Greece

  Capital Goods Industries
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish in the Official Report the return on capital employed and on trading assets of the

  85
  capital goods industries less building materials, contracting and construction in 1959, 1968, 1973, 1978 1980 and his estimate for 1988 together with his forecast for 1989 and 1990.

  Mr. Major
  No official statistics exist in the form required. Neither is a forecast made of these numbers. The Bank of England has published data taken from large companies' accounts which shows the historic cost rate of return for a number of different industrial classifications. The latest data can be found on pages 548–49 of the "Bank of England Quarterly Bulletin" November 1988, volume 28 No. 4. A copy is available in the Library.

  Private Currencies
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he has any plans to discuss with the chairmen of the clearing banks the introduction of private currencies in the United Kingdom;
  86
  (2) if he will issue a consultation paper asking for comments on the introduction of private currencies in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Lilley
  My right hon. Friend has no such plans.

  Abbey National Shares
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate how many widows have been disqualified from the right to the allocation of free Abbey National shares as a consequence of the terms of section 116 of the Building Societies Act 1962; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 17 July 1989]The building societies legislation does not lay down those to whom shares will be allocated or sold on a change to plc status. These are commercial decisions properly taken by the board of the organisation and the information sought is not currently available.

TRANSPORT

  Dock Labour Scheme
  Mr. Summerson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many dockers have applied for redundancy following the abolition of the dock labour scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  At 14 July, 1,678 former registered dock workers had been made redundant following the abolition of the dock labour scheme. That is about 18·5 per cent. of the number on the register when the scheme ended. Almost all of these redundancies were either voluntary or in respect of companies which had gone into liquidation or otherwise ceased trading.

  Authorities

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  Street lighting £'000

  Per cent. of road spend that is street lighting

  Street lighting £'000

  Per cent. of road spend that is street lighting

  Street lighting £'000

  Per cent. of road spend that is street lighting

  Street lighting £'000

  Per cent. of road spend that is street lighting

  Street lighting £'000

  Per cent. of road spend that is street lighting

  Greater London

  5,098

  13

  5,124

  11

  5,581

  14

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Barking

  381

  25

  413

  22

  475

  26

  691

  21

  566

  —

  Barnet

  503

  13

  655

  11

  523

  14

  647

  10

  701

  —

  Bexley

  424

  15

  420

  14

  430

  14

  622

  12

  584

  —

  Brent

  448

  14

  482

  16

  494

  16

  629

  15

  393

  —

  Bromley

  522

  11

  537

  11

  657

  13

  905

  11

  712

  —

  Camden

  652

  21

  890

  17

  538

  17

  705

  16

  746

  —

  City of London

  424

  16

  409

  13

  418

  13

  360

  11

  381

  —

  Croydon

  616

  17

  668

  15

  658

  12

  895

  11

  889

  —

  Ealing

  519

  14

  468

  12

  670

  14

  792

  13

  559

  —

  Enfield

  513

  21

  525

  23

  448

  19

  686

  16

  616

  —

  Greenwich

  795

  21

  830

  21

  729

  18

  955

  16

  1,010

  —

  Hackney

  512

  20

  981

  24

  827

  18

  958

  13

  705

  —

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  437

  12

  716

  12

  443

  13

  599

  12

  529

  —

  Haringey

  347

  18

  391

  15

  404

  16

  488

  15

  517

  —

  Harrow

  521

  15

  510

  20

  591

  19

  474

  22

  673

  —

  Havering

  466

  15

  481

  15

  472

  14

  566

  12

  513

  —

  Hillingdon

  415

  18

  432

  17

  471

  19

  637

  11

  674

  —

  Hounslow

  311

  16

  338

  17

  379

  18

  493

  17

  521

  —

  Islington

  357

  23

  374

  24

  338

  9

  449

  9

  544

  —

  Kensington

  441

  21

  494

  22

  494

  18

  800

  19

  1,091

  —

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  316

  20

  250

  14

  301

  17

  412

  15

  393

  —

  Lambeth

  630

  25

  504

  17

  660

  23

  882

  22

  934

  —

  Lewisham

  552

  12

  604

  16

  652

  15

  803

  16

  762

  —

  Merton

  349

  19

  449

  20

  167

  14

  61S

  22

  660

  —

  Newham

  559

  17

  604

  17

  603

  17

  981

  20

  1,038

  —

  Redbridge

  572

  17

  569

  16

  649

  16

  785

  17

  831

  —

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  400

  16

  412

  16

  425

  18

  543

  14

  574

  —

  South wark

  562

  17

  563

  15

  591

  13

  807

  11

  726

  —

  Sutton

  346

  16

  359

  14

  371

  13

  444

  11

  344

  —

  Tower Hamlets

  392

  10

  433

  7

  466

  14

  639

  13

  474

  —

  Waltham Forest

  433

  14

  446

  14

  442

  15

  632

  15

  571

  —

  Wandsworth

  611

  15

  371

  13

  370

  12

  502

  11

  515

  —

  Westminster

  706

  16

  832

  18

  747

  17

  760

  12

  886

  —

  London total

  21,134

  16

  22,534

  14

  22,486

  15

  22,160

  14

  21,631

  —

  Metropolitan counties

  Greater Manchester

  9,147

  23

  9,522

  27

  7,970

  21

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Merseyside

  6,494

  24

  6,866

  24

  4,181

  23

  —

  —

  —

  —

  South Yorkshire

  4,742

  16

  4,889

  17

  5,323

  18

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Tyne and Wear

  5,442

  26

  5,701

  24

  5,542

  19

  —

  —

  —

  —

  West Midlands

  7,998

  17

  8,304

  18

  8,143

  17

  —

  —

  —

  —

  West Yorkshire

  6,499

  18

  6,770

  18

  7,136

  17

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total metropolitan counties

  40,322

  20

  42,051

  21

  38,295

  19

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Shire counties

  Avon

  2,765

  18

  2,759

  18

  2,770

  17

  2,944

  17

  3,125

  —

  Bedfordshire

  990

  12

  1,047

  10

  1,043

  10

  1,204

  12

  1,273

  —

  Street Lighting
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give, for the last five years for which figures are available, the amount of money spent by each county highways authority and highways authority on street lighting; and if he will state the percentage that money is of the total amount spent on roads, authority by authority.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Figures for capital spending by individual local authorities on street lighting could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Figures for current spending on street lighting by highways authorities in England (including the Department of Transport) are as follows:
  89

  Authorities

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  Street lighting £'000

  Per cent. of road spend that is street lighting

  Street lighting £'000

  Per cent. of road spend that is street lighting

  Street lighting £'000

  Per cent. of road spend that is street lighting

  Street lighting £'000

  Per cent. of road spend that is street lighting

  Street lighting £'000

  Per cent. of road spend that is street lighting

  Berkshire

  1,532

  18

  1,429

  12

  1,474

  12

  1,647

  11

  1,622

  —

  Buckinghamshire

  1,153

  11

  1,278

  11

  1,427

  12

  1,564

  12

  1,731

  —

  Cambridgeshire

  1,170

  10

  1,128

  10

  1,226

  10

  1,372

  10

  1,484

  —

  Cheshire

  2,538

  16

  2,695

  17

  2,837

  17

  2,903

  17

  3,138

  —

  Cleveland

  1,618

  16

  1,935

  18

  1,950

  16

  1,996

  16

  2,399

  —

  Cornwall

  978

  8

  999

  8

  1,152

  8

  997

  7

  1,054

  —

  Cumbria

  1,015

  8

  1,108

  9

  764

  7

  1,286

  8

  1,258

  —

  Derbyshire

  2,512

  15

  2,749

  16

  2,706

  15

  2,761

  15

  2,822

  —

  Devon

  2,550

  11

  2,553

  10

  2,726

  9

  2,878

  10

  3,220

  —

  Dorset

  2,131

  18

  2,131

  18

  1,893

  14

  1,937

  14

  2,189

  —

  Durham

  2,081

  16

  2,196

  17

  2,420

  18

  2,512

  18

  2,658

  —

  East Sussex

  1,416

  14

  1,562

  14

  1,530

  12

  1,542

  12

  1,492

  —

  Essex

  3,155

  13

  3,391

  14

  3,576

  13

  3,791

  13

  4,003

  —

  Gloucestershire

  716

  8

  797

  8

  1,274

  11

  1,280

  9

  1,054

  —

  Hampshire

  2,925

  13

  3,299

  15

  3,287

  13

  2,967

  12

  3,166

  —

  Hereford and Worcestershire

  1,095

  10

  1,175

  10

  1,280

  10

  1,354

  10

  1,462

  —

  Hertfordshire

  2,390

  15

  893

  17

  2,474

  15

  2,638

  14

  2,536

  —

  Humberside

  2,345

  13

  2,367

  12

  2,676

  14

  2,812

  13

  2,753

  —

  Isle of Wight

  332

  11

  334

  11

  347

  12

  355

  12

  355

  —

  Kent

  3,019

  12

  3,083

  11

  3,268

  11

  3,287

  10

  3,478

  —

  Lancashire

  5,674

  20

  5,689

  20

  5,928

  20

  6,099

  18

  6,353

  —

  Leicestershire

  2,061

  13

  2,074

  12

  2,200

  13

  2,185

  12

  2,312

  —

  Lincolnshire

  1,001

  6

  1,194

  8

  1,186

  7

  1,233

  7

  1,255

  —

  Norfolk

  1,227

  9

  1,344

  10

  1,311

  9

  1,342

  9

  1,563

  —

  North Yorkshire

  1,262

  6

  1,315

  7

  1,328

  6

  1,319

  6

  1,355

  —

  Northamptonshire

  1,174

  14

  1,228

  14

  1,272

  15

  1,504

  15

  1,474

  —

  Northumberland

  969

  11

  1,047

  11

  994

  11

  1,017

  11

  1,141

  —

  Nottinghamshire

  3,220

  20

  3,325

  20

  3,384

  19

  3,431

  19

  3,630

  —

  Oxfordshire

  1,053

  12

  1,061

  12

  1,110

  12

  1,039

  11

  1,100

  —

  Shropshire

  561

  6

  591

  7

  520

  6

  681

  7

  721

  —

  Somerset

  748

  7

  721

  6

  758

  6

  830

  6

  883

  —

  Staffordshire

  2,503

  16

  2,574

  16

  2,370

  14

  2,500

  13

  2,696

  —

  Suffolk

  1,017

  8

  1,017

  8

  1,115

  8

  1,260

  9

  1,333

  —

  Surrey

  2,311

  14

  2,424

  13

  2,528

  13

  2,746

  15

  2,984

  —

  Warwickshire

  1,115

  11

  1,078

  11

  1,152

  11

  1,334

  12

  1,412

  —

  West Sussex

  1,549

  13

  1,409

  11

  1,797

  13

  1,802

  13

  1,906

  —

  Wiltshire

  962

  10

  1,028

  10

  1,028

  9

  1,095

  8

  1,158

  —

  Total Shires

  68,832

  13

  70,026

  13

  74,083

  12

  77,444

  12

  81,548

  —

  Total England

  130,288

  15

  134,611

  15

  134,865

  14

  145,178

  14

  150,582

  —

  Department of Transport spending on national roads

  9,749

  5

  10,815

  5

  11,135

  5

  13,273

  4

  14,076

  4

  Notes: Local authority current expenditure on roads includes both structural and routine maintenance. Structural maintenance on national roads is classed as capital expenditure but for comparative purposes has been included in the figures for roads spending from which the above percentages have been calculated.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list each authority which has submitted a bid for an allocation for improved street lighting in residential areas.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Of the 108 local highway authorities in England, 71 included bids for street lighting expenditure in their transport policies and programme submission for 1989–90. Although some of the planned work is likely to have been for the benefit of residential areas, very few authorities specified this.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a further statement on the measures which are being taken to ensure that the essential infrastructure 90
  needed for the United Kingdom to take advantage of the commercial benefits arising from the Channel tunnel is in place when the tunnel opens in 1993.

  Mr. Portillo
  Plans for the necessary road and rail infrastructure are well advanced. The Government have given approval in principle for expenditure of over £600 million by British Rail. There are a number of major schemes in the road programme to provide good access to the tunnel and Channel ports.

  Polymer Modified Bitumens
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list those county councils which specify polymer modified bitumens.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The information requested is not collected by the Department.
  91
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the inability of United Kingdom contractors to compete after 1992 with the EEC through lack of expertise in polymer modified bitumens.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Major road building contractors in the United Kingdom have experience of working with modified bitumens of various types, including polymer modified bitumens similar to those used in other EEC countries. We have no reason to believe that these contractors will be unable to compete after 1992 through lack of expertise in the roadbuilding application of these materials.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what studies he has carried out on polymer modified bitumens for United Kingdom roadbuilding.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Since 1973 a considerable number of studies have been carried out by the transport and road research laboratory into various types and aspects of the use of polymer modified bitumens for roadbuilding. The main results have been published in the following reports:

  Laboratory Report 963 describes the use of sulphurs.

  Laboratory Report 989, and Research Reports 92 and 122 describe the use of ethylene/vinyl acetate.

  Laboratory Report 989 also describes the use of styrena/butadiene/styrene.

  Laboratory Report 1101 describes the use of polyethylene. Research Report 54 describes the use of a manganese modifier.

  Research Report 57 describes the use of estylene/vinyl acetate, styrene/butadiene/styrene, and a number of proprietary materials.

  Road Schemes
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his replies to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill of 10 July, how much money has been allocated to Liverpool city council for road schemes in each of the last five years; and what information he has on how that money has been spent.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Liverpool city council became a highway authority in 1986. Transport supplementary grant paid in support of its accepted programme of highway improvements in the four years since then has been as follows:

  £ million

  1986–87

  2·702

  1987–88

  2·267

  1988–89

  1·235

  1989–90

  1·762

  Expenditure details from Liverpool's 1988 transport policies and programme document are as follows:

  £ thousand

  Scheme

  1986–87 actual outturn

  1987–88 estimated outturn

  1988–89 budgeted outturn

  A59 Hunter Street improvement

  3,230

  2,443

  1,634

  A580 Everton Valley improvement

  738

  434

  628

  Liverpool inner ring road

  523

  9

  167

  A561 Garston bypass

  122

  0

  416

  Access to Lime Street Station

  27

  33

  124

  A561 Park Road relief road

  0

  0

  300

  Minor works

  156

  366

  870

  Eastleigh Railway Workshop
  Mr. Bidwell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will direct the BR board to end unfair discrimination against Eastleigh railway workshop in the matter of bidding for contract work with British Rail;

  (2) if he will direct the BR board to ensure that Eastleigh works is given the opportunity of bidding for contracts in order to maintain its work force, its range of skills and capital equipment;

  (3) if, in the light of prices for white metal bearings work carried out by private companies, he will direct the BR board to transfer such work and other related work to the Eastleigh railway workshop.

  Mr. Portillo
  These are commercial and managerial matters for the Railways Board and British Rail Maintenance Limited, and it would not be appropriate for me to intervene.

  Mr. Bidwell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the savings that could be made for British Rail as the final customer if t he Eastleigh works was allowed to bid on the open market for work.

  Mr. Portillo
  None. This is a commercial matter for the railways board.

  Mr. Bidwell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received from the work force at British Rail Eastleigh railway workshop concerning bidding for certain lines of railway engineering and maintenance work which it carried out before the privatisation of BREL.

  Mr. Portillo
  I have received no such representations.

  Rail Passengers (Accidents)
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many accidents were caused to rail passengers leaning out of carriage windows, in the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Portillo
  In 1988, for which provisional figures are available, there were 18 such accidents, 14 of which involved only minor injuries, two serious injuries and two fatalities.

  Drink-driving
  Mr. Bright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many road accident deaths in(a) England and (b) Bedfordshire have been associated with excess alcohol consumption since 1 January 1985.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The table shows the total number of fatalities in Bedfordshire and in England from 1 January 1985 to 31 December 1987 and for each of those years in accidents where at least one driver or rider failed a breath test. This is the most common measure of drink-related accidents. It is not possible to produce precise statistics of drink-related accidents because some drivers will have been too severely injured to be breath tested. The blood alcohol level of drivers who die within 12 hours of an accident are provided from coroner's reports. These are not always complete. They exclude those drivers who die after this period but within the 30-day rule for a road accident fatality. Such fatalities are not included in this table.
  93

  Road fatalities in accidents where a driver or rider failed a breath test: 1985–87

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Total

  Bedfordshire

  6

  4

  3

  13

  England

  290

  261

  262

  813

  Railways (Subsidy)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list in rank order information available to him for each country within the European Economic Community on the percentage of Government subsidy to their national railway system.

  Mr. Portillo
  The most recent information available to the Department is given in the table, which is derived from the ninth Commission report on the transposed annual accounts of railway undertakings for 1985 [COM (88)739 final], a copy of which is in the Library of the House. There are substantial variations between countries in financial arrangements, including the writing off of debt and the systems for financial support.

  Subsidy1

  United Kingdom

  29

  West Germany

  31

  France

  32

  Irish Republic

  33

  Denmark

  36

  Netherlands

  46

  Belgium

  52

  Italy

  57

  Greece

  66

  Luxembourg

  73

  1 As percentage of operating costs.

  Note: Figures for the United Kingdom are an amalgamation of subsidy paid to the British Railways Board and Northern Ireland Railways.

  Railways (Wages)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list in rank order information available to him for each country within the European Economic Community on(a) the basic wage, (b) working hours and (c) overtime rates for workers employed on the national railway system.

  Mr. Portillo
  No firm figures for other EC countries are available to the Department.

  Railways (Investment)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has made an assessment of the commercial consequences for the German, French, Italian, and Spanish economies, relative to Britain's in 1992, due to the present investment in rail transport in those countries.

  Mr. Portillo
  No.

  Nuclear Fuel Transport
  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what volumes of spent nuclear fuel have been transported through cities with populations greater than 300,000 in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Department does not collect data of the kind requested. The movement of spent fuel is 94
  made in compliance with national and international regulations which require safety for both normal and accident conditions to be built into the container used for transport. Safety does not depend on the choice of route used, which is a matter for British Rail.

  Air Traffic
  Mr. Franks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if, when he next meets the chairman of BAA, he will discuss the delays caused to domestic travellers at Heathrow terminal one (departures) resulting from unmanned security clearance points.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  No. How many such channels are provided, and how many of them are staffed at any given time, are entirely matters for the airport management.

  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has received advice from the Civil Aviation Authority in response to the commissions that he gave it last summer on airport capacity and air traffic distribution.

  Mr. Channon
  I have now received the authority's advice on air traffic distribution policy for airports serving the London area, and this has been published today as CAP 559. Copies have been placed in the Library. I shall now consider the authority's advice, and will make a statement in due course. The authority proposes to undertake further work before offering advice on long-term strategic issues.

  Tachograph Calibration Fees
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether the fees chargeable by tachograph calibration centres will change in the current year.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  From 24 July 1989 the maximum fees for calibration will decrease from £32·21 to £28·11 (plus VAT). The fee for two-yearly inspections will increase from £13·82 to £17·93 (plus VAT). The changes follow a joint review of the time needed to calibrate a tachograph or carry out a two-yearly inspection.

  Street Works
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make available further financial assistance to Bradford council to enable private street works to be carried out where the procedure was not properly undertaken by the West Yorkshire metropolitan county council and where as a consequence works are outstanding; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  No. The cost of private street works is usually apportioned between the owner of properties fronting the street involved.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the progress that has been made with the new legislation to replace the Public Street Works Act 1950, including the various codes of practice he is considering introducing under regulations; and what is the timetable for legislation.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Good progress has been made with proposals for primary legislation. Responses to our recent consultation paper were overwhelmingly in support
  95
  of the majority of proposals. Good progress is also being made with the various codes of practice required to support new legislation through the hard work and co-operation of the highway authority associations and the utilities. A paper giving a fuller report on progress has been placed in the Library. A Bill will be introduced as soon as a suitable opportunity can be found.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will estimate how many cattle infected with bovine spongiform encephalopathy have been slaughtered for human consumption during the past year.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  None.

  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, further to his answer of 12 July, what assessment his Department has made of a statement by H. C. Grant, MD, FRCP, a neuropathologist writing in a recent London Food Commission magazine, a copy of which has been sent to him, stating that bovine spongiform encephalopathy can be transmitted to chimpanzees.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The reference probably relates to the transmission of other spongiform encephalopathies to chimpanzees, since bovine spongiform encephalopathy has not been transmitted to them.

  Forestry
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give the most recent figures available for new forestry planting in the private and public sectors in England and Wales.

  Mr. Ryder
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland gave to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) on 22 June 1989 at columns 205–6.

  Agricultural Land and Investment
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, what was(a) the total agricultural investment and (b) the total amount of agricultural land in the south-eastern and northern-regions, in the last year for which figures were available.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The information for 1987 is as follows:

  Total agricultural investment £ million

  Total agricultural area1 '000 hectares

  South Eastern region

  95

  1,727

  Northern region

  63

  1,050

  1 At June

  Irradiated Food
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what methods other than irradiation of improving food hygiene his Department has investigated; and if he will make a statement.
  96
  Mr. Ryder
  My Department has considered every stage in the food production chain from the farm to the table and has introduced a comprehensive range of measures to protect all aspects of the safety of food. The bulk of these were listed by my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Mr. Thompson) in a reply to the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) on 3 March 1989 at columns 373–74.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has received any representations from the British Poultry Federation concerning the irradiation of foodstuffs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  The British Poultry Federation has put forward a number of points about irradiation in the poultry sector, but these do not relate to the effectiveness of the process in killing salmonella, campylobacter and listeria in poultry products.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what consultations he has had with representatives of the poultry industry concerning the irradiation of foodstuffs.

  Mr. Ryder
  Consultations are not appropriate with representatives of any particular product sector at this stage, but will take place when detailed proposals are being considered.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list all those sectors of the food industry which have made recent representations to him opposing the irradiation of foodstuffs.

  Mr. Ryder
  The only sector of the food industry from which I have recently received representations opposing the irradiation of foodstuffs are the interests covered by the British Poultry Federation. Other organisations have commented on aspects of this matter at an earlier stage.

  Nuvan
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for South Shields of 28 November,Official Report, column 99, if he is now in a position to publish information on the human and environmental effects of Nuvan.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) on 11 July at column 455.

  Co-responsibility Levy
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will state(a) the total amount paid by each member state of the EEC in cereals co-responsibility levy for each year since the co-responsibility levy has been operative and (b) the total tonnage of cereals produced in each member state of the EEC, showing in each case how much per tonne the co-responsibility levy represents.

  Mr. Ryder
  Information provided by the Commission. of the European Communities on cereals co-responsibility
  97
  levy payments and cereals production by member states is set out in the table. This information covers the first two years of the levy's operation. Details of payments for 1988–89 are not yet available. The following points should be noted:

  1. The Commission's figures for levy payments in 1987–88 cover 13 months from 1 July 1987 to 31 July 1988 whereas those for 1986–87 cover 12 months. Both sets of production figures are for 12 months.

  2. Small cereals farmers in Spain and Italy were exempt from paying the co-responsibility levy during the period to which the figures relate.

  3. Levy collection in all member states in 1986–87 and all, except Italy and France, in 1987–88 was at the point of processing, sale into intervention or export from the Community. This meant that the levy was not necessarily collected in the country of origin of the grain.

  4. In the 1987–88 season collection of the levy in Italy and France was changed to the point of first sale. This affected the amount of levy collected in a number of member states.

  5. In a number of cases levy collected in 1986–87 does not appear in the Commission figures until 1987–88. Changes in the green rates further increase the levy payments recorded for 1987–88 in relation to 1986–87.

  6. Under its accession arrangements Portugal does not yet collect cereals co-responsibility levy.

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  Amount of co-responsibility levy collected in member states' national currency (million)

  Production (million tonnes)

  Levy in national currency per tonne (a) ÷ (b)

  1986–87

  Belgium

  816·6 BF

  2·3

  355·0

  Denmark

  77·3 KR

  8·0

  9·7

  Germany

  148·2 DM

  25·6

  5·8

  Greece

  580·7 DRA

  5·3

  109·6

  France

  565·0 FF

  50·1

  11·3

  Ireland

  3·7 I£

  1·8

  2·1

  Italy

  52,467·3 LIT

  17·8

  2,947·6

  Luxembourg

  14·3 LF

  0·05

  286·0

  Netherlands

  38·9 FL

  1·3

  29·9

  Spain

  3,548·8 PTA

  16·0

  221·8

  United Kingdom

  39·4 £

  24·5

  1·6

  1987–88

  Belgium

  791 ·0 BF

  1·9

  —

  Denmark

  117·8 KR

  7·3

  —

  Germany

  171·0 DM

  23·8

  —

  Greece

  1,705·9 DRA

  5·1

  —

  France

  1,791·9 FF

  52·2

  —

  Ireland

  5·1 I£

  2·0

  —

  Italy

  65,784·1 LIT

  17·4

  —

  Luxembourg

  16·3 LF

  0·06

  —

  Netherlands

  54·5 FL

  1·1

  —

  Spain

  5,620·1 PTA

  19·8

  —

  United Kingdom

  56·2 £

  21·7

  —

  Grain Stores
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give such details as are available to him of the stocks of grain in store at 30 June(a) in Britain, (b) in the European Community and (c) in the world, expressed in tonnes and days' supply.
  98
  Mr. Ryder
  Current estimates of cereals in store in the United Kingdom and the European Community as a whole at the end of the 1988–89 marketing year on 30 June 1989 are as follows:

  Million tonnes

  Days' supply

  United Kingdom

  3–5

  65

  EC

  26–7

  66

  These figures are based on the Commission of the European Communities' balance sheet for cereals.

  The International Wheat Council's estimate of world stocks of grain is an aggregate of national figures based on different definitions of marketing years and therefore dose not relate to a particular date. However, the Council's latest estimate for world stocks for the end of the 1988–89 crop year is 248 million tonnes or around 71 days' supply.

  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many days' supply of grain are currently in store in the United Kingdom(a) in intervention storage and (b) in all storage.

  Mr. Ryder
  United Kingdom intervention stocks of wheat and barley at 30 June represented about 15 days' supply of grain. The end season stock of grain in all storage is estimated to represent about 65 days' supply which, with the 1989 harvest in progress, is likely to be more than sufficient to meet industry's short-term requirements.

  Intervention Stocks
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by how much intervention stocks of butter, skimmed milk powder, beef, olive oil and cereals, have fallen in recent years(a) in the United Kingdom and (b) in the European Community.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The tables show current and peak levels of intervention stocks of butter, skimmed milk powder, beef, olive oil, and cereals,(a) in the United Kingdom, (b) in the European Community, and the percentage by which those stocks have fallen.

  Commodity

  Peak level

  Current level

  Per cent. reduction

  (a) United Kingdom Stocks (thousand tonnes)

  Butter

  269

  12

  96

  August 1986

  May 1989

  SMP

  220

  0

  100

  October 1983

  May 1989

  Beef

  86

  18

  79

  December 1985

  May 1989

  Olive oil

  0

  0

  —

  Total cereals

  6,013

  639

  89

  November 1985

  June 1989

  Durum

  0

  0

  —

  Wheat

  3,926

  25

  99

  November 1985

  June 1989

  Barley

  2,087

  614

  71

  November 1985

  June 1989

  Rye

  0

  0

  —

  (b) EC Stocks (thousand tonnes)

  Butter

  1,398

  45

  97

  August 1986

  May 1989

  99

  Commodity

  Peak level

  Current level

  Per cent. reduction

  SMP

  1,063

  7

  99

  September 1986

  May 1989

  Beef

  711

  331

  53

  September 1985

  April 1989

  Olive oil

  417

  241

  42

  September 1988

  June 1989

  Total cereals

  18,193

  7,330

  60

  October 1985

  June 1989

  Durum

  2,348

  1,161

  51

  July/August 1988

  June 1989

  Wheat

  11,843

  2,253

  81

  October 1985

  June 1989

  Barley

  5,226

  2,857

  45

  July 1986

  June 1989

  Rye

  1,164

  1,059

  9

  June/July 1987

  June 1989

  Anthrax
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what controls he has over the importation of anthrax vaccine; whether he has prevented anthrax vaccine being imported into the United Kingdom during the current year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  In order to maintain the safety, quality and efficacy of veterinary medicines, including vaccines, imports are subject to a product licence under the Medicines Act. No product licences have been sought or issued for imported anthrax vaccine.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he proposes to amend the Anthrax Order 1938 to permit compensation on slaughtering; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) on 14 July 1989 at column 667.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the monitoring procedures for animals on farms when an outbreak of anthrax occurs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Anthrax is an acute disease typified by sudden death. Monitoring of live animals present on a premises where anthrax has occurred and where restrictions are in force is generally carried out by the owner, who is advised by his private veterinary surgeon. The Anthrax Order of 1938 makes provision for non-suspect animals to be sent direct to a slaughterhouse provided the movement is made with the written permission of the local authority.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will give the quantities of anthrax vaccine he has had available for use in each of the last 12 months;

  (2) if he will list the circumstances in which he will use anthrax vaccine; what controls he will impose on its production and use; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) on what date his Department started to produce anthrax vaccine; when it will be ready for use; and if he will make a statement;
  100
  (4) what stocks of anthrax vaccine other than the stock produced by the Ministry are available; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Anthrax vaccine is generally used by farmers to protect cattle that graze land contaminated in the past with anthrax spores. In rare circumstances it can be used to control an outbreak. The Government do not hold and have not held stocks of vaccine. Commercial production was discontinued in 1986, and commercial supplies of anthrax vaccine for animals have been unavailable since October 1988 when existing stocks became exhausted. We are investigating the possibility of alternative sources.

  To deal with the outbreak of anthrax in Wales we are, as an extraordinary measure, making arrangements for an emergency supply of vaccine to be produced at my Department's veterinary laboratory. Production began on 10 July 1989 and it should be ready for use before the end of August, provided that no unexpected problems are encountered.

  The production and supply of any medicinal product must satisfy the requirements of the Medicines Act 1968.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many(a) cows, (b) pigs and (c) sheep died in each year since 1982; and how many he expects will die in 1989.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The information requested in respect of anthrax is as follows:

  (a) Cattle

  (b) Pigs

  (c) Sheep

  1982

  17

  1

  —

  1983

  13

  1

  —

  1984

  9

  —

  —

  1985

  6

  —

  —

  1986

  12

  —

  2

  1987

  6

  —

  —

  1988

  3

  —

  —

  19891

  1

  14

  —

  1 To date.

  It is not possible to predict how many more animals will die of anthrax during the rest of 1989.

  Seals
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what instructions he has given to the state veterinary service about monitoring the death of seals in the North sea; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  None. The Department of the Environment has primary responsibility for matters concerning the recent epidemic of disease in seals.

  Pollution
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he is taking to reduce the flow of nitrates and phosphates into the Thames, Humber, Tyne and Forth estuaries; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  As part of the Ministry's promotion of the code of good agricultural practice, ADAS advises farmers to follow practices designed to reduce the leaching of fertilisers, including nitrates and phosphates, into rivers and water sources.

  Post Mortems
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many(a) cows, (b) pigs and (c) sheep received post mortem inspections for each year since 1982; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Because of the risk of spreading disease, suspected cases of anthrax are not subject to full post-mortem examination. Initial diagnosis is carried out by microscopic examination of stained smears of blood or other tissue fluids. The numbers of animals investigated as suspect cases are set out in the table. These cannot be separately identified by species but the majority will have been for cattle.

  Number

  1982

  10,656

  1983

  13,215

  1984

  12,149

  1985

  15,101

  1986

  12,435

  1987

  12,122

  1988

  11,150

  1989 (to date)

  3,813

  Sheep Variable Premium
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the highest amount payable under the sheep variable premiums scheme for an individual lamb, of maximum eligible weight, in the week of highest subsidy, during the marketing year 1988.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  A sum of £32·25154 would have been payable on a carcase of maximum eligible weight in the week commencing 22 February, which was the week of highest subsidy in 1988.

ENVIRONMENT

  Council House Sales
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how many(a) admission and (b) denial response notices were issued on the right to buy by local authorities by each region in England and England as a whole during (a) 1980–81, (b) 1981–82, (c) 1982–83, (d) 1983–84, (e) 1984–85, (f) 1985–86, (g) 1986–87, (h) 1987–88 and (j) 1988–89, for (i) full ownership and (ii) shared ownership;

  (2) how many right-to-buy claims were received for full ownership of (a) houses and (b) flats by each region in England and England as a whole during (i) 1980–81, (ii) 1981–82, (iii) 1982–83, (iv) 1983–84, (v) 1984–85, (vi) 1985–86, (vii) 1986–87, (viii) 1987–88 and (ix) 1988–89;

  (3) what was the number of completed disposals for refurbishment and resale, including those to be demolished, of local authority dwellings to private developers and housing associations by each region in England and for England as a whole during (a) 1980–81, (b) 1981–82, (c) 1982–83, (d) 1983–84, (e) 1984–85, (f) 1985–86, (g) 1986–87, (h) 1987–88 and (i) 1988–89;

  (4) what was the number of completed disposals of council dwellings for shared ownership (a) built for sale, (b) improved for sale, (c) sold unimproved for improvement by purchaser, (d) to sitting tenants and (e)
  102
  other sales, in each region in England and for England as a whole during (i) 1980–81, (ii) 1981–82, (iii) 1982–83, (iv) 1983–84, (v) 1984–85, (vi) 1985–86, (vii) 1986–87, (viii) 1987–88 and (ix) 1988–89;

  (5) what was the number of completed disposals of council dwellings for full ownership (a) built for sale, (b) improved for sale, (c) sold unimproved for improvement by purchaser, (d) to sitting tenants and (e) other sales, in each region in England and for England as a whole during (i) 1980–81, (ii) 1981–82, (iii) 1982–83, (iv) 1983–84, (v) 1984–85, (vi) 1985–86, (vii) 1986–87, (viii) 1987–88 and (ix) 1988–89;

  (6) what was the number of completed right-to-buy sales where the authority does not own the freehold of (a) houses and (b) flats by each region in England and for England as a whole during (i) 1980–81, (ii) 1981–82, (iii) 1982–83, (iv) 1983–84, (v) 1984–85, (vi) 1985–86, (vii) 1986–87, (viii) 1987–88 and (ix) 1988–89;

  (7) what was the number of local authority mortgages on completed disposals of (a) full ownership and (b) shared ownership by each region in England and for England as a whole during (i) 1980–81, (ii) 1981–82, (iii) 1982–83, (iv) 1983–84, (v) 1984–85, (vi) 1985–86, (vii) 1986–87, (viii) 1987–88 and (ix) 1988–89;

  (8) what was the selling price net of discounts of completed disposals (a) built for sale, (b) improved for sale, (c) sold unimproved for improvement by purchaser, (d) to sitting tenants and (e) other sales, for each region in England and for England as a whole during (i) 1980–81, (ii) 1981–82, (iii) 1982–83, (iv) 1983–84, (v) 1984–85, (vi) 1985–86, (vii) 1986–87, (viii) 1987–88 and (ix) 1988–89, for full ownership and shared ownership;

  (9) what was the selling price of disposals net of discounts completed for each region in England and for England as a whole, during (a) 1980–81, (b) 1981–82, (c) 1982–83, (d) 1983–84, (e) 1984–85, (f) 1985–86, (g) 1986–87, (h) 1987–88 and (i) 1988–89;

  (10) what was the total number of completed disposals for full ownership of (a) council houses and (b) flats by each region in England and for England as a whole during (i) 1980–81, (ii) 1981–82, (iii) 1982–83, (iv) 1983–84, (v) 1984–85, (vi) 1985–86, (vii) 1986–87, (viii) 1987–88 and (ix) 1988–89;

  (11) what was the total value of discounts allowed on completed disposals by each region in England and for England as a whole during (a) 1980–81, (b) 1981–82, (c) 1982–83, (d) 1983–84, (e) 1984–85, (f) 1985–86, (g) 1986–87, (h) 1987–88 and (i) 1988–89;

  (12) what was the value of mortgages for each region in England and for England as a whole during (a) 1980–81, (b) 1981–82, (c) 1982–83, (d) 1983–84, (e) 1984–85, (f) 1985–86, (g) 1986–87, (h) 1987–88 and (i) 1988–89.

  Mr. Trippier
  The available information has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what was the number of admitted claims withdrawn under(a) right to full ownership and (b) right to shared ownership by each region in England and in England as a whole during each year from 1980–81 to 1988–89;

  (2) what was the number of completed disposals of local authority dwellings built and financed by private developers on local authority land by each region in

  103
  England and for England as a whole during each year from 1980–81 to 1988–89, for (i) full ownership and (ii) shared ownership;

  (3) what was the value of the capital receipts from (a) the sale or lease of land, (b) other assets except dwellings, (c) initial payments from sale of dwellings, (d) repayment of discount and (e) repayment of sums left outstanding, by each region in England and for England as a whole during each year from 1980–81 to 1988–89;

  (4) what were the gross payments by local authorities on (a) the aquisition and (b) improvement of dwellings for sale entering the improvement for sale scheme by each region in England and for England as a whole during each year from 1980–81 to 1988–89;

  (5) what were the gross payments by local authorities on (a) the aquisition of dwellings for sale and improvement by the purchaser, (b) other aquisitions and (c) improvement/conversion of other dwellings for sale, for each region in England and for England as a whole during each year from 1980–81 to 1988–89.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 10 July 1989]: The available information has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the number of completions of(a) house and (b) flat sales by local authorities, by each region in England and in England as a whole during each year from 1980–81 to 1988–89, for (1) full ownership and (2) shared ownership.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 10 July 1989]: The information requested has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Dredgings Dump Sites
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consultation procedure is carried out for the licensing of dredgings dump sites in intertidal areas; which statutory and non-statutory authorities are consulted; whether licences are registered with the relevant local authorities; and at which stage landowners are likely to be affected by spoil disposal and are consulted.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The disposal of dredgings at sea, including sites in intertidal areas, is regulated by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food under part II of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985.

  In considering whether to establish a new marine disposal site the Ministry consults bodies understood to have an interest. These would include landowners, local authorities, the Crown Estates Commission, conservation bodies, including where relevant the Nature Conservancy Council, fisheries organisations, the Department of Transport, recreational and other local interests.

  Where an application is made to use an existing disposal site in an area designated as a site of special scientific Interest, the Ministry also consults the Nature Conservancy Council.

  Licences under part II of the Act are not registered with local authorities, but are available for inspection on a public register kept by the Ministry.

  New House Building
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what were the gross payments on new house building construction by each region in England and for England as a whole during(a) 1980–81, (b) 1981–82, (c) 1982–83, (d) 1983–84, (e) 1984–85, (f) 1985–86, (g) 1986–87, (h) 1987–88 and (i) 1988–89, for (i) housing revenue accounts rent and (ii) sales.

  Mr. Trippier
  The England figures are given in the table. Regional figures on a consistent basis with final adjusted England are not available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Gross payments on new housebuilding England £ million

  For HRA rent

  For sale

  1980–81

  1965·2

  1981–82

  1719·8

  1982–83

  685·2

  14·6

  1983–84

  682·4

  15·7

  1984–85

  729·5

  22·4

  1985–86

  578·8

  14·7

  1986–87

  257·5

  24·0

  1987–88

  2456·8

  23·2

  31988–89

  505·0

  23·0

  1 Separate figures of build for sale not available for 1980–81 and 1981–82.

  2 Include LA demolition of dwellings.

  Provisional

  Council Properties, Northamptonshire
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list in the Official Report the number of council-owned properties in unlicensed occupation for each local authority in Northamptonshire at the latest convenient date.

  Mr. Trippier
  According to local authorities' housing investment programme returns (HIP1) there were no council dwellings in unlicensed occupation in Northamptonshire at April 1988. Returns for April 1989 are not yet available.

  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list in the Official Report the number of local authority-owned properties vacant at the most recent date for each local authority in Northamptonshire together with the number, by local authority vacant for (a) six months or more, (b) 12 months or more, (c) 24 months and (d) 36 months.

  Mr. Trippier
  Information for April 1988 was reported by local authorities in their annual housing investment programme returns (HIP1) and appears in columns A108, A118 and Al28 of "HIP1 Items Print (1988)". A copy of this document is in the Library.

  Environmental Protection
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received arising from the meeting of African Environment Ministers, held in Nairobi between 11 and 13 May in the current year,
  105
  concerning (a) United Kingdom developed environmental protection technologies and (b) proposals to dispose of United Kingdom toxic waste in Africa; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  No representations have been received by the Department of the Environment arising from this meeting of African Environment Ministers. Aid for the provision of environmental protection technologies is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Overseas Development. Any export of United Kingdom hazardous waste to Africa would be subject to the prior approval of the Secretary of State for the Environment under the Transfrontier Shipment of Hazardous Waste Regulations 1988. No such approvals have been granted.

  Building Research Establishment
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last visited the Building Research Establishment; and what was discussed.

  Mr. Trippier
  My right hon. Friend last visited the Building Research Establishment on 5 August 1987. On that occasion, he saw several of the establishment's research projects, and discussed progress in implementing the recommendations of the report by Lord Chilver and Sir Peter Harrop on the future role and operations of the BRE. Since then, he has announced that it is a candidate for executive agency status within his Department.

  Building Research Establishment
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to visit the Building Research Establishment in the near future to discuss research on low-energy housing and advanced insulation techniques; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  My right hon. Friend has no plans at present to visit the Building Research Establishment. The Building Research Establishment's research into the thermal performance of buildings and other aspects of thermal insulation contributed substantially to the proposed changes in building regulations which were announced on 11 July. The Building Research Establishment will be publishing guidance to assist designers and builders to meet the new regulations.

  Uranium
  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what volumes of depleted uranium and uranium scrap have been monitored and licensed by(a) Her Majesty's pollution inspectorate and (b) the nuclear installations inspectorate at the British Nuclear Fuels sites at (i) Springfields, (ii) Capenhurst, (iii) Sellafield and (iv) Chapel Cross.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy on 27 June 1989 to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn),Official Report, column 387, which refers to civil depleted uranium and civil uranium to be recycled within the production process.

  Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution is responsible jointly with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and
  106
  Food for the authorisation of radioactive waste disposals, including uranium waste products, from nuclear sites under the Radioactive Substances Act 1960. Responsibility for the licensing of nuclear sites lies with the nuclear installations inspectorate under the Nuclear Installations Act 1965.

  Cowboy Builders
  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what progress has been made on overcoming problems associated with cowboy builders following the publication of the Department's special working party report in 1987;

  (2) whether he is considering legislation to deal with cowboy builders.

  Mr. Trippier
  There are no plans for legislation. The Government made clear in their response to the report of the "Beat the Cowboys" working party that the industry must take the lead in setting up an assessment and approval scheme for insurance-backed guarantees which will increase customer recognition of the reputable builder. The industry has not yet decided which body should undertake this task. Criteria for the assessment of guarantee schemes and a model "fair deal" contract for use in small building works are being developed by the Office of Fair Trading.

  Housing Action Trust (Southwark)
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how the tenancies of tenants of Southwark council in Gloucester grove and north Peckham estates will change in the event of a housing action trust being created in Southwark;

  (2) whether the terms of the new tenancy agreements in any housing action trust established in Southwark will be subject to change by the housing action trust.

  Mr. Trippier
  If secure tenants of Southwark council transferred to a housing action trust, their existing tenancy agreements with the council would also be transferred without change to the trust and their status as secure tenants under the Housing Act 1985 would be unaffected. A trust, like the council, could vary only any non-statutory terms included in tenancy agreements. To do this, the trust would be required to follow the procedures in sections 102 and 103 of the Housing Act 1985.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if the options of postal and personal voting will be available to all tenants in any ballot on the proposed creation of a housing action trust in Southwark.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Electoral Reform Society has agreed to conduct housing action trust ballots. Under the terms of section 61(3)(a) of the Housing Act 1988 the society will be responsible for making the detailed ballot arrangements "in such manner as seems best to them".

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment in the event of a housing action trust being established in Southwark, what proportion of current rent arrears will be left(a) to Southwark council to recover and (b) made the responsibility of the housing action trust.

  Mr. Trippier
  We shall decide in due course how to treat outstanding rent arrears on property transferred to
  107
  housing action trusts. In the meantime, the local authorities concerned remain responsible for the proper and efficient collection of rents that are due, for the benefit of all their tenants and rate or community charge payers. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government announced proposals on 26 June, Official Report, column 345, for the financial management by local authorities of their rent arrears from 1 April 1990.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what is the minimum interval he will set between any votes to establish a housing action trust in Southwark in the event of a negative vote;

  (2) what will be the outcome of conflicting results in any ballot on the establishment of a housing action trust in (a) the North Peckham estate and (b) the Gloucester Grove estate.

  Mr. Trippier
  It is premature to speculate on the outcome of any housing action trust ballots.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what powers any housing action trust created in Southwark will have to evict tenants.

  Mr. Trippier
  Any housing action trust set up in Southwark would have exactly the same powers as Southwark council to secure possession of dwellings occupied by tenants. The grounds for possession of dwellings let under secure tenancies are in schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1985.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps will he taken to ensure that the register of tenants eligible to vote in any ballot on the proposed creation of a housing action trust in Southwark has been compiled correctly.

  Mr. Trippier
  Section 61(2) of the Housing Act 1988 requires the Secretary of State to use his best endeavours to secure that notice of any proposal he is considering to designate an area as a housing action trust area is given to all tenants of houses in the area who are secure tenants or who are tenants of such description as may be prescribed by regulations. We shall seek the assistance of the local authority, using the powers available under section 90 as necessary, in carrying out our duty under section 61. I am sure that local authorities will want to co-operate in providing the necessary information so that all eligible tenants have a proper opportunity to express their views in a ballot.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what will be the relationship between any housing action trust and those tenants who had exercised their right to buy in the event of a housing action trust being created in Southwark.

  Mr. Trippier
  If a housing action trust were set up in Southwark the ownership of the freehold of properties whose owners had bought a long lease from the council would pass to the trust. The position of any owners who have bought the freehold of their homes would not change.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether rent levels will be set beneath the level of maximum housing benefit in any housing action trust established in Southwark.

  Mr. Trippier
  Housing benefit will meet in full the housing costs of qualifying tenants; and local authorities 108
  will receive subsidy on housing benefit paid up to the level of market rents. Rents charged by housing action trusts will be linked, after improvements have been carried out, to council rents for similar properties in the area. Since we are not proposing that council rents should be set at market levels, the rents charged by any trust set up in Southwark should not be above the level at which housing benefit would be paid.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether the tenancies of residents of Gloucester grove and north Peckham estates will he statutorily secure(a) during the duration of any housing action trust and (b) after the winding-up of any housing action trust.

  Mr. Trippier
  Secure tenants of Southwark council who transferred to a trust would become secure tenants of the trust. Once the trust had carried out improvements tenants might transfer back to the council and become secure tenants again. Alternatively they might opt to become assured tenants of a landlord, such as a housing association or co-operative, that is approved by the Housing Corporation and, therefore, subscribes to the principles in the tenants' guarantee.

  Travellers' Sites
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will use powers under the Caravan Sites Act 1968 to require Calderdale local authority to provide travellers' sites; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  I have no plans at present to direct the metropolitan borough of Calderdale to provide travellers' sites. I am aware of the need for gipsy accommodation in the area and my Department is encouraging the local authority to define the level of need and to implement an appropriate programme of provision.

  Ministerial Drivers (Earnings)
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list in the Official Report the annual average earnings of ministerial drivers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ridley
  The average earnings of Government car service ministerial drivers in the year to 31 March 1989 was £15,500 inclusive of London weighting and overtime. The highest earnings were £25,000.

  Redundant Churches
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he is now in a position to announce details of the proposed review of the arrangements for preserving redundant Church of England churches.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The redundant churches fund has now been in existence for 20 years. During that time it has done an excellent job in preserving and caring for some 250 historic churches no longer in pastoral use. The fund is jointly financed by the Church Commissioners and the Department of the Environment. Over the years the costs, to Church and state, have increased steadily, with the state meeting an increasing proportion (now standing at 70 per cent.) of those costs.

  In moving the consideration in Standing Committee on 8 February last of the draft Grants to the Redundant

  109
  Churches Fund Order 1988, I announced that we had decided, in consultation with the Church Commissioners, to review the fund's current arrangements and to consider whether they were still appropriate for present and likely future needs.

  I am pleased to announce that Mr. Richard Wilding, former head of the Office of Arts and Libraries, has agreed to carry out a review of the current arrangements for the operation and financing of the redundant churches fund.

  The review will be carried out for the Department and the Church Commissioners. Mr. Wilding will start work in September this year and aims to report to the Secretary of State and to the Church Commissioners by April 1990. He would welcome views and comments, which should be sent to him at the offices of the Church Commissioners, 1 Millbank, London SW1.

  Improvement for Sale Scheme
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how much was loaned to housing associations by local authorities for new house building(a) for shared ownership and (b) for others in each region in England and for England as a whole during each year from 1980–81 to 1988–89;

  (2) what was the value of the loans to housing associations by local authorities for the purchase of existing dwellings (a) under the improvement for sale scheme and (b) other sales schemes, by each region in England and for England as a whole during each year from 1980–81 to 1988–89.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 10 July 1989]The available information has been placed in the Library.

  Dwellings (Transfers)
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what was the number of dwellings transferred from existing stock under the improvement for sale scheme by each region in England and for England as a whole during each year from 1980–81 to 1988–89;

  (2) what was the value of the outstanding loan debt on local authority dwellings transferred from existing stock by each region in England and for England as a whole during each year from 1980–81 to 1988–89.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 10 July 1989]: The available information is listed in the table. Regional and national estimates of outstanding loan debt on dwellings transferred under improvement for sale schemes are not available.

  Transfers under the improvement sale scheme: Dwellings transferred from existing stock

  Department of the Environment region

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Northern

  43

  44

  149

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  12

  —

  39

  East Midlands

  777

  85

  50

  Eastern

  15

  —

  25

  London

  —

  —

  —

  South East

  —

  —

  —

  South West

  30

  —

  886

  West Midlands

  74

  —

  —

  North West1

  4

  7

  39

  ENGLAND

  955

  136

  1,188

  1 Includes Cumbria.

  Water Quality
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he has replied to the European Commission's request for clarification on the compatibility of the Government's plans for the privatisation of the water authorities and European Community directive on water quality, with particular regard to bodies responsible for monitoring compliance of drinking water;

  (2) if he has replied to the European Commission's request for clarification on the compatibility of the Government's plans for the privatisation of the water authorities and European Community directive on water quality, with particular regard as to whether there will be an independent body monitoring the disposal of sewage sludge to agricultural land in accordance with directive 86/278/EEC;

  (3) if he has replied to the European Commission's request for clarification on the compatibility of the Government's plans for the privatisation of the water authorities and European Community directive on water quality, with particular regard to those circumstances in which water undertakings may be permitted to continue to supply drinking water which does not conform with the parameters laid down in directive 80/778/EEC;

  (4) if he has replied to the European Commission's request for clarification on the compatibility of the Government's plans for privatisation of the water authorities and European Community directive on water quality, with particular regard as to which pollution control functions of the National Rivers Authority are considered by the Government to be suitable for contracting out;

  (5) if he has replied to the European Commission's request for clarification on the compatibility of the Government's plans for the privatisation of the water authorities and European Community directives on water quality with particular regard to whether the Government's relaxation of sewage works discharge consents prior to privatisation is consistent with article 2 of directive 76/464/EEC on dangerous substances.

  Mr. Ridley
  [holding answer 13 July 1989]Discussions have taken place with the European Commission on the drinking water quality provisions which are now incorporated in the Water Act 1989. I am not aware of any outstanding points on these provisions to be clarified with the Commission. A reply was sent to the Commission on 11 January 1989 clarifying the other points raised.

  Discharge Consents
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list all those sewage works for which a relaxation of discharge consent has been granted at the latest available date for each water authority region.

  Mr. Ridley
  [holding answer 13 July 1989]: A list of the sewage treatment works for which applications have been made by water authorities for time-limited discharge consents has been placed in the Library. These applications are being advertised. Representations received by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution in response to these advertisements will be fully considered in determining the applications. No time-limited consents have so far been issued.

  European Regional Development Fund
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment under what criteria the privatised water undertakers will be eligible for grants from the European regional development fund.

  Mr. Ridley
  [holding answer 13 July 1989]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply which my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Water and Planning gave to the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) on 2 May, Official Report, column 57. The European Commission has agreed to continue to consider applications for aid from the European regional development fund in respect of investments in infrastructure by privatised water undertakers. We are in discussion with the Commission over its detailed requirements.

  Recycling
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will detail all the Government initiatives aimed at encouraging the recycling of glass and paper since 1981.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 17 July 1989]: I have been asked to reply.

  Since 1981 the Government have been involved in a number of initiatives aimed at encouraging the recycling of glass and paper, from both the collection and processing aspects.

  In July 1986 a commitment conference was held at DTI on glass recycling at which central and local government, retailers and the glass industry made a commitment to double the number of bottle banks in the five years up to 1991. Good progress is being made towards reaching this target. Following the conference, the Department of Environment held a series of seminars in each region at which local authorities discussed the benefits of glass recycling. Ministers and officials from both DTI and DOE have attended several events to promote glass recycling, including the launch of bottle bank schemes.

  In January 1987, my Department organised a waste paper recycling commitment conference (printings and writings) which led to the creation of a working group to consider the formulation of specifications which would lead to increased use of recycled fibre in the printings and writings sector, particularly continuous stationery, educational wove and photocopying paper. Specifications have been formulated in these first two areas; work is continuing in the latter.

  Between May and August 1989, my Department is organising a series of seminars, "Wastepaper Into Newsprint—The Case for a National Wastepaper Collection Drive", aimed at averting a perceived future shortfall in the supply of waste newspapers used as a raw material in the production of newsprint in the United Kingdom.

  The DTI is taking a lead in Government in trying to encourage other Departments to use recycled paper and has recently introduced a recycled letterhead for Ministers. The DTI is also encouraging the recycling of materials including glass and paper through the educational literature it has produced for schools. These actions are part of an integrated Government approach to encourage the recycling of all materials wherever it is economically viable to do so.

SCOTLAND

  Employment Training
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he collects as a result of participation on employment training schemes; and if he will give a breakdown for Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  The latest available information for Scotland collected in respect of employment training is shown in the tables.

  Table 1

  Employment training—Scotland Programme statistics

  Category

  Latest information

  Numbers

  Filled places at training managers

  30 June

  23,200

  Starts at training managers

  30 June

  41,600

  Referrals from Employment Service to training agents

  30 June

  127,200

  Action plans completed at training agents

  30 June

  59,800

  Contracted places as at

  May

  34,900

  Estimated project placements as at

  30 June

  14,500

  Estimated employer placements as at

  30 June

  4,800

  Child care allowances during April

  28 April

  349

  Table 2

  Employment training—Scotland Trainee characteristics

  Category

  Latest information

  Percentage

  Sex

  30 April

  Male

  72·0

  Female

  28·0

  Duration of unemployment

  30 April

  0–5 months

  13·0

  6–12 months

  35·0

  13·23 months

  15·0

  24 months

  37·0

  Ethnic origin1

  30 April

  1

  95·0

  2

  <0·5

  3

  <0·5

  4

  <0·5

  5

  3·0

  People with disabilities2

  31 March

  11·0

  1 Ethnic origin:

  1 White.

  2 Black/African/Caribbean.

  3 Indian/Pakistan/Bangladeshi/Sri Lankan.

  4 None of these.

  5 I prefer not to say.

  2 Those trainees answering whether they had a long-term health problem or disability which affected the type of work they could do.

  Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Dr. Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the progress his Department is making for the development of TECs in Scotland.

  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to ensure that existing training schemes in Scotland will not be prejudiced by the proposed training and enterprise councils system.
  113
  Mr. Lang
  Our proposals for Scotland were set out in the Scottish enterprise White Paper. We will announce our final decisions shortly.

  Less Favoured Areas
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to the reply of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland) on 21 June,Official Report, column 129, about proposed extensions to the less favoured areas in the United Kingdom, when he expects to place the relevant maps for Scotland in the Library.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The maps showing the areas in Scotland proposed for inclusion in the less-favoured areas are now in the Library.

  Medical and Dental Practitioners
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will introduce measures to name general medical and dental practitioners who have been found to be in breach of their terms of service.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  We are examining the extent to which current practice in relation to publicising the outcome of service committee proceedings might be changed.

  Trees
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will instruct the Forestry Commission to ensure that the current reviews of pinewoods and broadleaves' policies are fully compatible; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  We shall continue to ensure that all aspects of our forestry policy, including those relating to broadleaves and pinewoods, are fully compatible.

  AIDS
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met representatives of the Prison Officers' Association to discuss the incidence of AIDS amongst the Scottish prison population; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. and learned Friend last met the trade union side of the Scottish prison service, including representatives of the Scottish Prison Officers' Association, in December 1988. The incidence of AIDS amongst the Scottish prison population was not discussed. AIDS-related issues have been discussed regularly by officials with the trade union side, most recently at the annual meeting of the Whitley Council in May.

  As regards figures for the incidence of AIDS amongst the Scottish prison population I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 5 July at column 206.

  Speech Therapy
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take steps to obtain and record centrally the schools in Scotland which are provided with speech therapy services.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Speech therapy may be provided in any school where there is need of it.

  Community Charge
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he intends to issue a guidance note to Scottish local authorities on the matter of joint and several liability as it relates to the poll tax in Scotland; and whether he has any plans to seek to amend the legislation to bring it into line with the situation in England and Wales as set out in practice note No. 16.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The statutory provisions which are relevant to joint and several liability in Scotland, contained in the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987, as amended, have broadly the same effect as those which will apply in England and Wales under the Local Government Finance Act 1988. My right hon. and learned Friend has no plans to issue a guidance note on this subject.

  Mr. Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he intends to grant to local authorities in Scotland the discretion allowed to local authorities in England and Wales of setting different levels of multiplier on different classes of properties where the standard community charge applies.

  Mr. Rifkind
  I am currently considering a number of aspects of the standard community charge arrangements.

  Lay Observer for Scotland
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has any proposals to increase the resources available to the Lay Observer for Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The resources available to the Lay Observer for Scotland fall within my right hon. and learned Friend's current consideration of the responses he has received to the proposals in his consultation paper "The Legal Profession in Scotland", published on 13 March 1989, that the office of the Lay Observer for Scotland might be enhanced.

  Food Poisoning
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what research projects on botulism, salmonella enteriditis, typhimurium and other food poisoning are at present carried out in Scotland; and where.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 3 July 1989]: Research projects, of which I am aware, include the following:
  115

  Location

  Nature

  MAFF, Torry Research Station, Aberdeen

  Investigate the incidence and survival of clostridium bolulinum, listeria monocytogenes and other types of food bacteria and the survival of microbial toxins during cooking.

  To develop assays for the micro-biological examination of fish and shellfish products including clostridium botulinum, salmonella and listeria and to develop safety parameters.

  To identify the most effective ways of eliminating salmonella and other contamination from fish meal products.

  To detect and quantify toxins including scrombotoxin and devise means of increasing safety of processed fish products.

  Communicable Diseases Unit, Ruchill Hospital, Glasgow

  Case control study to test whether the consumption or handling of certain foods are risk factors in acquiring listeriosis.

  Scottish Food Research Consortium, Hannah Research Institute, Ayr

  Research into listeria monocytogenes and bacillus cereus in powdered milk.

  Aberdeen University

  Establish tests for listeria monocytogenes.

  Glasgow Veterinary School

  Development of salmonella typhimurium and salmonella enteritidis vaccines for hens and their unborn chickens. Also development of a test for identifying the presence of these infections in eggs.

  Investigation into the penetration of salmonella enteritidis through egg shells and its effect on egg quality.

  Glasgow University

  Investigation of the pathogenic mechanism, toxin production and serology of campylobacter species.

  North of Scotland College of Agriculture, Aberdeen

  Investigate sources of listeria in clamp and bale silage as a source of infection in the food chain.

  Improve detection of causative agent and for vaccine development identify, isolate and characterise antigens of listeria monocytogenes and to assess their effect on the virulence of the organism for sheep and mice.

  West of Scotland College of

  Investigate factors affecting the bacteriological quality of milk.

  Agriculture, Ayr

  Devise rapid method of detection of contamination in milk from major organisms causing mastitis.

  Investigate the microbiological contamination of poultry meat.

  Investigate lactic fermentation for preparation of sausage type products with poultry meat including the effect on salmonella species and other bacteria.

  Study experimental infection of birds with salmonella enteritidis phage type 4 with particular reference to egg infection.

  Investigate the factors affecting bacterial contamination of egg surfaces and bacterial penetration of the egg.

  Undertake pilot studies into novel methods of bacterial investigation of salmonella in eggs and improved methods of detecting antibodies in eggs.

  Moredun Research Institute, Edinburgh

  Undertake immunochemical analysis of listerial species cell surface antigens for detection purposes.

  Investigate the means by which listeria gains entry to the host and causes disease in sheep.

  Crofting
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to complete his review into the crofter housing grant and loans scheme; and in what form his findings will be made public.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 11 July 1989]: My right hon. and learned Friend hopes to complete the review of the size and nature of grants and loans for new croft houses and existing croft houses under the current scheme in time for revised rates to be introduced in 1990–91 and announced when the new rates come into force. A wider review of assistance to crofter housing within the context of the Government's overall
  116
  housing policy is in hand. Work on this is, however, at an early stage and has not as yet progressed sufficiently to enable a view to be taken on the nature and timing of any announcement of the outcome of the review.

  Electoral Registers
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the numbers of electors on the electoral register for each constituency in Scotland for the latest three years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Rifkind
  I refer the hon. Member to table 1.4 in the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys "Series EL No
  117
  16" for the numbers in 1989 and to table 1.4 in "Series EL No. 15" for those in 1988 and 1987. Copies of these publications are in the Library.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Liquor Sales
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on his proposals to extend the permitted hours for off-licences and reduce the permitted hours for off sales at other licensed premises and hotels.

  Mr. Needham
  The Government have no proposals to extend the permitted hours for off-licences, but have published proposals to ban all off-sales from any type of licensed premises after 9 pm. These proposals are aimed at putting all off-licences on a more even trading basis, as well as reducing the problems of late night drinking in public which have been the cause of widespread concern.

  Police National Computer
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how many accesses were made to each category of the stolen and suspect vehicle index of the police national computer over the last year; and what has been the percentage growth in use of these categories over the year;

  (2) how many accesses were made to each category of the wanted and missing persons index of the police national computer over the last year; and what has been the percentage growth in use of these categories over the year;

  (3) how many accesses were made to each index of the police national computer over the last year; and whether he will include in these statistics an indication of the number of access requests that could search more than one index.

  Mr. Cope
  The Royal Ulster Constabulary does not have direct access to the police national computer but can indirectly obtain information from the computer by arrangement with police forces in Great Britain. Statistics are not maintained by the RUC on the numbers of enquiries made each year, but I understand from the Chief Constable that usage of this facility is infrequent.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Members' Allowances
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will announce the proposed increase in hon. Members' office cost allowance for 1989–90 to enable hon. Members to award their staff their annual increase in pay.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Negotiations over London weighting, which affect the pay of a senior personal secretary in the home Civil Service (to which the office cost allowance is linked) have recently been concluded. I hope that I shall shortly be in a position to promulgate the new rate of office cost allowance.

CIVIL SERVICE

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what recent progress has been made in the Civil Service to achieve further equality of opportunity for women staff.

  Mr. Luce
  The proportion of women at middle and senior management levels in the Civil Service is increasing. At the beginning of 1988, women represented 5 per cent. of staff in the top three grades of the service compared with 4 per cent. at the beginning of 1987, 9 per cent. of staff at grade five level compared with 8 per cent. in 1987 and 37 per cent. at executive officer level compared with 34 per cent. in 1987. The Civil Service has also increased opportunities for part-time working and job sharing at all grade levels; is increasing the availability of childcare facilities; and improving career break provision. A report detailing progress during 1987–88 on the implementation of equal opportunity policies for women in the Civil Service is being published today. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of Parliament.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Immigration
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many husbands are awaiting interview for entry clearance in Islamabad; and what is the longest waiting time of those presently in the queue.

  Mr. Eggar
  As at 31 May, 1,400 husbands were awaiting interview in Islamabad either as first-time applicants or re-applicants. On present estimates, first-time applicants who applied in May can expect to wait 10 months for interview, re-applicants 22 months.

  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the average waiting time for interview in Islamabad, for entry clearance to the United Kingdom as(a) a husband, (b) a fiancé, (c) a wife and (d) a fiancée.

  Mr. Eggar
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) on 17 July.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will state for each immigration post abroad(a) the current average time and (b) the current longest outstanding case time, for an appeal against refusal to enter and stay in the United Kingdom from (i) the appeal being submitted and (ii) the date of the hearing being notified to the appellant, to the appeal hearing taking place.

  Mr. Eggar
  Neither the immigration appellate authorities nor the Foreign and Commonwealth Office records information of this nature for each immigration post overseas. The length of time taken for an appeal to be listed for hearing varies, depending on a number of factors including the time taken by the parties to indicate their readiness to proceed. Once parties have so indicated, cases are set down for hearing between six to eight weeks in advance, unless either party requests an adjournment. The great majority of appeals received overseas are forwarded
  119
  to the appellate authorities, with the accompanying explanatory statement, well within 90 days which we regard as an acceptable time scale for the preparation and despatch of explanatory statements. Individual cases may, however, take longer to process depending on what further inquiries the entry clearance officer needs to make in the light of the grounds for appeal.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Local Management of Schools
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what financial support he proposes for local education authorities for Government training for local management of schools in the 1989–90 and 1990–91 years; by what date he expects training for chairman and deputy chairman of training bodies in schools for local management of schools to be completed; when such training for governors should be completed; whether he plans to issue further advice to local education authorities as to the form such training should take; and what advice he proposes to issue in those cases where local education authorities fail either to produce adequate training for governors or at a sensible timetable for achieving this.

  Mr. Butcher
  In 1989–90 the Government are supporting under the education support grant programme expenditure of £4·9 million on governor training and £3 million on training support staff in schools, and, through the local education authority training grants programme, £10 million to provide management training for heads and senior staff in schools. For the year 1990–91 the expenditure supported is £5·1 million for governor training, £2 million for support staff training, and £8 million for headteacher training. Further support will be available in 1991–92. Local education authorities have a statutory duty to provide governors with such training as the local education authority considers necessary. It is for local education authorities to determine the nature and timetable of their training programmes. Local education authorities are required to state in their schemes for the local management of schools what arrangements they have made for support and training; the Department will be monitoring the use of education support grant funds and the level and quality of training provided.

  Graduates
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will state the number of graduates living in(a) Tyne and Wear, (b) County Durham, (c) Essex, (d) Greater London and (e) Berkshire as (i) a percentage of that county's population and (ii) a percentage of the total number of United Kingdom graduates.

  Mr. Jackson
  The information is shown in the table. The figures for graduates are based on a 10 per cent. sample and could therefore be subject to sampling errors.

  Graduates: 1981

  County

  Graduates

  Per cent.1

  Per cent.2

  Tyne and Wear

  31,320

  2·8

  1·5

  County Durham

  16,080

  2·7

  0·8

  Essex

  50,330

  8·0

  2·4

  120

  County

  Graduates

  Per cent.1

  Per cent.2

  Greater London

  361,220

  5·5

  17·1

  Berkshire

  36,430

  5·4

  1·7

  1 As a percentage of county populations.

  2 As a percentage of total number of United Kingdom graduates.

  Source: 1981 Census.

  Hair Preparations (Fire Hazard)
  Mr. Roger King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will issue guidance on the fire hazard in school science laboratories to pupils who use flammable hair preparations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Butcher
  Advice on this question has been issued in the Department's booklet "Safety in Science Laboratories" since 1973; this includes a recommendation that long hair should be restrained, especially when lacquered, because of the risk of its catching fire.

  Teacher Recruitment
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is his estimate of how many qualified teachers the state education system presently has vacancies for.

  Mr. Butcher
  The Department collects data for vacant posts each January. Data for January 1989 showed vacancies in England for 5,540 teachers out of 363,200 posts: a little over 1·5 per cent.

  Physical Education
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what initiatives his Department has taken to increase the level of participation in school sports; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Education and Science and for the Environment commissioned jointly a report by the Sports Council to examine the provision of sport for young people, including school sport. This was published in August 1988 and the Government's response to the report's recommendations will be issued shortly. In addition, PE, which includes sport, is a foundation subject in the national curriculum. It will therefore form part of the curriculum for every pupil aged five to 16 in a maintained school.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the number of unfilled physical education posts in schools as a percentage of the total number of physical education posts.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  In January 1989 the number of vacancies for full-time permanent teachers of physical education in maintained secondary schools in England represented 1·2 per cent. of physical education teachers in post. Many of these vacancies will have been filled on a temporary basis pending a permanent appointment.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to establish a physical education working party for the national curriculum; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend announced in January 1989 that arrangements for considering the
  121
  content of guidelines for physical education in the national curriculum would be set up in June 1990. It is hoped to bring the guidelines into effect from the autumn term 1992.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether his Department is now able to provide figures for those taking a GCSE in physical education.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  In the summer session of 1988, there were 19,000 candidates in England for the GCSE examination in physical education.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Joblink 1000
  Mrs. Maureen Hicks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many Joblink 1000 programmes have been established by his Department.

  Mr. Forth
  One Joblink 1000 project has been established in the Wolverhampton task force area, but there are similar pilot projects in other task force areas, including Spitalfields and Middlesbrough. Task forces tailor projects to meet local needs; these pilot projects can be incorporated into main Government programmes, but are not programmes themselves.

  Single Market
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what steps the Government are taking to help employers prepare for the single market; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  My Department's "Europe Open for Business" campaign provides a comprehensive range of information to help employers prepare for the single market, including detailed factsheets on the single market programme, a series of booklets on standards, a guide to influencing decisions in Brussels, and an action checklist for business. This information is regularly updated and extended. For example, on 20 June, my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry launched "an action guide for smaller firms" which has been distributed to over 200,000 smaller businesses. Further copies (as for all our material) can be obtained free of charge through our 24 hour telephone hotline 01–200 1992. In addition, practical help and advice for employers preparing for the single market is available through our enterprise initiative and the small firms service operated by the Employment Department's Training Agency, which also provides a range of help for employers on their training needs.

  Restrictive Trade Practices
  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he anticipates announcing his conclusions of the review into restrictive trade practices policy.

  Mr. Maude
  The Government's conclusions on the review of restrictive trade practices (RTP) policy are being published today in a White Paper "Opening Markets: New Policy on Restrictive Trade Practices" (Cm. 727).

  The Government strongly believe that open markets are the best guarantee of efficiency in the economy. By
  122
  reducing interference in markets and strengthening competition between businesses, we have unlocked enterprise and effort, so clearing the way towards increased economic growth.

  We are keen to ensure that competition is maintained and enhanced, and have therefore confirmed proposals to introduce significant new legislation to replace the RTP Act 1976. The planned legislation is also expected to incorporate the provisions of the Resale Prices Act 1976. It will focus on the economic effects of an agreement rather than the form which it takes and will also ensure that a substantial number of agreements, which are caught by the present law but which have no effect on competition in the relevant market, will no longer need to be scrutinised by the authorities.

  These proposals, which were first put forward in a Green Paper in March 1988 ("Review of Restrictive Trade Practices Policy"; Cm. 331) have received strong support from a substantial majority of those who responded. They agree that the current Act is too formalistic and does too little to deter the formation of illegal cartels. The proposals will be incorporated into new legislation as soon as the parliamentary timetable permits.

  The proposed legislation will incorporate a prohibition on agreements which prevent, restrict or distort competition. It will, however, be possible for businesses to gain exemption from the prohibition for agreements with economic or technical benefits which are shared with consumers. Guidance will be issued on the type of restriction which would not by itself bring an agreement within the prohibition. Some categories which would qualify individually for exemption will be exempted by means of a statutory instrument known as a block exemption to reduce both the costs of administering the law and its regulatory impact on firms. In this and other ways, the legislation will be closely aligned with the competition regime which operates under article 85 of the EEC treaty, with which many large and medium-sized businesses will already be familiar.

  The Government consider that very few sectors of the economy should escape the new legislation. We believe firmly in the benefits of professional self-regulation and recognise the key role professional bodies have played and will continue to play in maintaining professional standards. This does not, however, mean that the professions should not need to comply with competition legislation. We have, therefore, decided that those rules of the professions which are not required by statute, or subject to the approval of a Minister, will be subject to the new RTP legislation in the normal way. The professional bodies will be free to determine their own rules, but will have to justify any anti-competitive effects of these under the new legislation. The relationship between professional rules in the legal profession in England and Wales, possible legislation in that area and the proposed RTP legislation will be clarified further in an announcement on legal services to be made by the Lord Chancellor shortly.

  Applications for exemption from the prohibition will be considered by the Director General of Fair Trading (DGFT) whose conclusions will, if uncontested, become binding decisions. Where an objection is raised, the Government have decided that a final decision on the case should be made by an independent RTP tribunal to be established within the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. There will be rights of appeal beyond the tribunal to the High Court (Court of Session in Scotland).
  123
  The DGFT will have increased powers to investigate suspected agreements, similar to those which are currently exercised in the United Kingdom by the European Commission's competition staff with the assistance of the DGFT. Restrictive agreements that infringe the prohibition and have not received exemption will he void, and the parties to the agreement would be liable to civil penalties of up to 10 per cent. of their annual turnover or £250,000, whichever is the greater. These penalties would be imposed by the tribunal, or by the High Court if the proposed penalty exceeded £1 million. The court would also be able to impose penalties of up to £100,000 on directors and managers of companies who negotiate or operate prohibited agreements. In deciding to separate the powers in investigation and the imposition of fines in this way, the Government have taken account of concerns expressed by a number of those who responded to the RTP Green Paper.

  Agreements between small firms will be covered by the legislation and could be investigated and found to be anti-competitive. But if the parties have a combined turnover of less than £5 million, they will not be subject to penalties. even though they have not applied for an exemption. This concession will not apply in the case of price-fixing agreements, including those involving resale price maintenance.

  In addition to publishing the White Paper giving full details of the proposals, my Department has produced a simplified guide which is being distributed widely to the business community. Further copies of this will be available on request.

  The Government believe that these proposals will ensure that blatant cartels. which in the past have gone undetected and unpunished, will be substantially eradicated. The resulting increase in competition will benefit the economy as a whole and consumers in particular.

  Film Industry
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the total extent of Government support for the film industry in Britain, in the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Atkins
  During 1988–89 direct Government support for the United Kingdom film industry amounted to £3·6 million, of which £2 million went to British Screen Finance Ltd. and £1·6 million to the National Film and Television school. In addition the Government provided more general support for training and for the British Film Institute and the Scottish Film Council.

  Media Ownership
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has received on the concentration of media ownership.

  Mr. Maude
  We receive many representations on the concentration of media ownership both where it concerns ownership of a single medium and where cross-media ownership is the issue.

  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what discussions his Department has had at a European Community level regarding media ownership in the Community becoming concentrated in the hands of
  124
  few individuals; and if he will take an initiative to establish a framework to control cross-media ownership on a European level.

  Mr. Newton
  Cross-media ownership at a European level is currently being considered in discussions on the proposed EC merger control regulation and by the Council of Europe.

  Estate Agents
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he has any plans to introduce a requirement for estate agencies to maintain at least one partner or employee who has obtained relevant professional qualifications.

  Mr. Forth
  I have no plans to introduce such a requirement. The concern of the public with respect to estate agency is overwhelmingly about standards of ethics rather than competence. In my view the proposals for a code of practice with statutory support which I announced to the House on 21 June are the best way to raise standards.

  Eastbourne Water Company
  Mr. Gow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether following information given to the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment by the hon. Member for Eastbourne in the House on 26 May,Official Report, columns 1291 and 1292, and to the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs in a letter dated 6 July, there will be an investigation into the affairs of the Eastbourne Water Company under the provisions of the Financial Services Act 1986.

  Mr. Forth
  The information, which related to the Eastbourne water employees' share club, has been considered, but it is not sufficient to establish that the powers of investigation in section 105 of the Financial Services Act 1986 would be available in this case, or that adequate grounds exist for mounting an investigation.

  Beer
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he has any plans for introducing a technical definition for low alcohol and non-alcohol beers.

  Mr. Ryder
  I have been asked to reply.

  Proposals to amend the Food Labelling Regulations 1984 by restricting the use of the term "low alcohol" to alcoholic drinks not exceeding 1·2 per cent. alcohol by volume (abv) were circulated to interested organisations for comment on 19 April 1989. Schedule 7 of the Food Labelling Regulations 1984 already restricts the use of the terms "alcohol free", "non-alcoholic" and "dealcoholised". The term "alcohol-free" is restricted to drinks with an alcoholic strength of not more than 0·05 per cent. abv; the term "non alcoholic" to non-alcoholic wine intended for communion or sacramental purposes and the term "dealcoholised" is restricted to drinks from which the alcohol has been extracted and which have an alcoholic strength of not more than 0·5 per cent. abv.

  Road Building (EEC)
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he will be making on behalf of United Kingdom contractors as a result of
  125
  United Kingdom county surveyors' refusal to take up polymer modified bitumens in marked contrast to other European Economic Community member states.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Department will continue to liaise with both county surveyors and contractors on developments in the roadbuilding applications of polymer modified bitumens. We are keen to introduce into the Department's specification for highway works any relevant new material as quickly as it can be demonstrated that it gives both value for money and adequate long term performance. For example, we have undertaken to introduce manganes modified bitumens in rolled asphalt surfacing in mid-1990, subject to continuing satisfactory trials.

  Many counties are already using some polymer modified bitumens. The degree of acceptance and use of these materials depends upon the ability of the supplier to assure the customer of their technical and cost effectiveness.

  Computers
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what steps he is taking to ensure open system standards allowing communication and common software between makes of computer.

  Mr. Newton
  The United Kingdom Government have long promoted the benefits of adopting international open systems standards. The Department currently has a three-year £17 million programme of support for development of open systems standards and to assist development of conformance test facilities in this country. A certification regime to facilitate implementation of those standards is also being pursued.

  On 11 May, I launched a further three-year, £12 million programme for open systems technology transfer. This will increase awarenes of the benefits of using products which conform to open systems standards and stimulate the introduction of new products. Demonstrator projects will show the benefits of such products in real applications.

  Textiles
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will take action to ensure that the Textile Products (Indication of Fibre Content) Regulations are drawn to the attention of all carpet manufacturers in the United Kingdom to encourage conformity and avoidance of false labelling of carpets; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  In the light of the information currently available to me I do not consider any new initiative needs to be taken with United Kingdom manufacturers of carpets. The current principal regulations—the Textile Products (Indications of Fibre Content) Regulations 1986—were introduced in March 1986 and became legally binding on 29 May 1987. Wide publicity was given to these regulations, and to the explanatory guidelines "Fibre Content Labelling of Textiles", during 1986 by the British Carpet Manufacturers Association and by my Department. In enforcing these regulations, which apply to textile products generally, local authority trading standards departments undertake routine inspections and advisory visits at the point of manufacture. I have noted a recent report of the West Yorkshire trading standards 126
  service stating that none of the United Kingdom-manufactured carpet samples tested were found to have their wool content labelled incorrectly.

  Inspections
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list(a) all those agencies with powers delegated to them to carry out inspections and (b) the number of inspections carried out under those delegated powers for the years 1 April 1986 to 31 March 1987 and 1 April 1988 to 31 March 1989.

  Mr. Maude
  The only agency with powers delegated to it to carry out statutory investigations under legislation for which my Department is responsible is the Securities and Investments Board, which has powers to carry out investigations under sections 94 and 105 of the Financial Services Act. Both powers are exercisable concurrently with my Department. Delegation of the section 105 power came into effect on 19 May 1987 and delegation of section 94 power came into effect on 6 May 1988. The board's annual report for 1988–89, laid before Parliament on 6 June, records that 25 section 105 investigations were commenced in the period 1 April 1988 to 31 March 1989.

  Shipbuilding
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will place in the Library the documents relating to the understanding between his Department and the European Economic Community concerning the future of shipbuilding in Sunderland.

  Mr. Newton
  My Department has remained in touch with the European Commission since the notification of aid to British Shipbuilders was made last December. A paper covering those exchanges relevant to NESL is being prepared and will be placed in the Library as soon as possible.

  "British Business"
  Mr. Burt
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he has any plans for the future of his Department's weekly magazine,British Business.

  Mr. Newton
  My right hon. and noble Friend has decided that British Business magazine should cease publication in the autumn. Alternative arrangements are being made for the publication of essential regulatory information and similar announcements from the Department. Responsibility for all the economic statistical series for which the Department is at present responsible will shortly transfer to the Central Statistical Office, and I understand that the CSO is considering how to deal with the series which currently appear in British Business.

  Invest in Britain Bureau
  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he expects to publish the annual report of the Invest in Britain bureau; and whether he has any plans further to improve the arrangements for attracting inward investment to the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Newton
  The Department's Invest in Britain bureau records in its annual report, published today, that foreign owned companies announced 330 direct investment projects into the United Kingdom during 1988.
  127
  Based on information provided by the companies themselves, it is estimated that these projects will create or safeguard over 44,000 jobs—a 21 per cent. increase over 1987. This was the fourth successive year in which the bureau recorded over 300 investment decisions. Once again the United Kingdom received over one third of all United States of America and Japanese investment into the EC. I am arranging for a copy of the report to be placed in the House of Commons Library.

  This excellent performance reflects the strength of the United Kingdom economy and our success in creating a climate that encourages enterprise and initiative. But we must build on our success, and in particular take full advantage of the inward investment potential arising from the creation of the single European market.

  The Invest in Britain bureau is the Government's principal inward investment agency and represents the United Kingdom as a whole. The bureau undertakes publicity abroad and responds to enquiries from potential inward investors in collaboration with the three territorial agencies representing Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and the various regional organisations and local representative bodies in England. The territorial agencies and English regional organisations also undertake publicity abroad for their own areas and these arrangements will continue.

  We have, however, decided to improve the promotion of England as a location for inward investment by setting up within my Department a new unit to co-ordinate publicity for England and to encourage greater co-operation between English regional organisations, in particular by organising collaborative market research and marketing initiatives. We have also decided to increase the resources of the Invest in Britain bureau to enable it to respond to increasing demand. The costs will be met in the current financial year from within existing provision.

  Palatine Graphic Arts Co. Ltd.
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) if he will publish in the Official Report the date, grant or assistance, and purpose of each application for financial assistance made by Palatine Graphic Arts Company Limited, Liverpool in each year from 1980 to date;

  (2) pursuant to his reply of 4 July, Official Report,
  columns 110–12, concerning Palatine Graphic Arts Company Limited, Liverpool, on which dates the six jobs created under the grant approved on 15 December 1986 became vacant.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 17 July 1989]: The financial assistance made by the DTI to Palatine Graphic Arts Co. Ltd., Liverpool in each year from 1980 to date was as follows:

  Regional Development Grant I For the provision of approved plant, machinery and building works

  £

  1980

  Nil

  1981

  Nil

  1982

  1,030

  1983

  636

  1984

  10,664

  1985

  21,146

  1986

  55,419

  1987–89

  Nil

  128

  Regional Development Grant II For the provision of assets and creation of jobs within approved projects

  £

  1980–86

  Nil

  1987

  26,840

  1988

  6,471

  1989

  75,000

  Regional Selective Assistance For the purchase of new equipment and the creation or safeguarding of jobs

  £

  1986

  6,461

  Six of the jobs which comprised part of an approved project under the regional development grant II scheme became vacant, five of these became vacant on 5 May 1988 and one on 5 June 1989. It should be noted that however the period of conditions relating to these six jobs expired on 27 June 1988.

  Unsolicited Telephone Calls
  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will have discussions with the British Direct Marketing Association concerning the establishment of a register of consumers not wishing to receive unsolicited telephone calls.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 17 July 1989]: No, this is a matter for the Director General of Telecommunications, who has, indeed, held discussions with the British Direct Marketing Association and other interested parties about the establishment of such a register.

  Chlorofluorocarbons
  Sir Hugh Rossi
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what discussions he is having with the manufacturers of refrigeration equipment for the clear labelling of the chlorofluorocarbon contents of their products in order to assist the public to make a choice in their purchases in furtherance of Government policy for the protection of the ozone layer.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 13 July 1989]: As my hon. Friend will be aware, this Government's policy is to encourage all industries using chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and halons to reduce their use to the maximium extent. In addition it is open to manufacturers of their own volition to label their products with such details as my hon. Friend suggests subject to the provisions of the Trade Descriptions Act.

HEALTH

  Cancer Screening
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the Royal Marsden hospital consulted with his Department about mobile breast cancer-screening unit leaflet advertisement campaigns to women in New Malden in April and offering screening at a cost of £50; if his Department gave guidance to the Royal Marsden hospital about conducting such schemes; how many
  129
  similar schemes are operating throughout England and Wales; and if he will make a statement on the operation of such schemes.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  My Department was made aware of the Royal Marsden hospital special health authority's private cancer screening service earlier this year. In May, the authority was advised that the principle of offering private cancer screening as a means of income generation was being considered by my Department and that a formal view on the scheme could not be given at that time. We shall shortly be informing health authorities of the types of screening procedures which should be excluded in future from income-generation schemes.

  We are aware of a handful of other similar income-generation schemes in England. Any similar programmes in Wales are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Detained Patients
  Mr. Hayward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health who is responsible for providing clothing to persons transferred from the prison system to the care of the National Health Service under the provisions of the Mental Health Act 1983, as a detained patient.

  Mr. Freeman
  Prisoners transferred to the care of the National Health Service under the provisions of the Mental Health Act 1983 become patients. Such patients bring their private clothing with them from prison but health authorities are expected to provide clothing for those patients who are unable to provide it from their own resources and who are not obtaining it from any other source.

  Self-Governing Hospitals
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what salary and other remunerated pay Sheila Masters, the director of finance for the self-governing hospital units, receives; and on what kind of contract she is engaged.

  Mr. Mellor
  Sheila Masters is on a contractual appointment to the National Health Service management executive. The contract is with her employers, Peat Marwick McLintock, who pay her salary etc.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what salary and performance-related pay Peter Griffiths, the head of the self-governing hospitals unit, receives; and on what kind of contract he is engaged.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Mr. Peter Griffiths is presently employed as general manager by South East Thames RHA on the normal terms and conditions of service for such appointments. He is made available to the NHS management executive by the RHA on a part-time basis. This arrangement will become full-time in September; the details are still under discussion.

  Benzodiazepines
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what adverse reports have been received by the Committee on Safety of Medicines about the effect of benzodiazepines on patients.

  Mr. Mellor
  To date the Committee on Safety of Medicines has received over 750 reports of adverse 130
  reactions which may be associated with benzodiazepines. These reports describe over 300 different kinds of reactions. A report of a suspected adverse drug reaction does not necessarily mean a causal relationship. The committee carefully monitors all issues of drug safety and where necessary issues advice by means of its bulletin "Current Problems" to doctors, dentists and pharmacists. In the case of benzodiazepines, "Current Problems" has drawn attention to various adverse reactions in February 1978 (No. 3), February 1981 (No. 5) and January 1988 (No. 21). Copies are in the Library.

  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information his Department has as to the most widely accepted medical assessment of the average withdrawal period from benzodiazepines.

  Mr. Freeman
  The hon. Member may wish to refer to the Departmental publication "Guidelines of Good Clinical Practice in the Treatment of Drug misuse" which includes advice on withdrawal from benzodiazepines. A copy of this publication is in the Library.

  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his estimate of how many children under the age of 16 years are addicted to benzodiazepines.

  Mr. Mellor
  We do not have this information.

  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will discuss with the leaders of the pharmaceutical industry the setting up of a compensation scheme for those people whose lives have been ruined or damaged by benzodiazepine addiction.

  Mr. Mellor
  We have no plans to do so.

  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will take steps to reduce benzodiazepine prescriptions in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Mellor
  The Government have made every effort to ensure that doctors are aware of the problems which can arise from prolonged treatment with benzodiazepines and to encourage good prescribing habits. We have no plans to introduce restrictions.

  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether his Department has sought to encourage the development of guidelines for the maximum recommended period for children under the age of 16 years to be prescribed benzodiazepines; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  No. It is up to doctors to prescribe the drugs properly in accordance with the guidance available to them.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of the price of benzodiazepines is the on cost by pharmacists.

  Mr. Mellor
  When pharmacists dispense a medicine, they are paid, in addition to the appropriate dispensing fee and container allowance, the basic price of the medicine, less a discount deduction, averaging 8·3 per cent. of the basic price, plus on cost of 5 per cent. of the basic price.

  Social Charter
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the Government support all the health provisions contained within the social charter.
  131
  Mr. Freeman
  The preliminary draft Community charter of fundamental social rights refers to:—the enjoyment by every worker of satisfactory health … conditions, more especially in his working environment;
  —the provision for the elderly of medical assistance specifically suited to their needs and as wide an access as possible to that assistance;
  Health and safety in the workplace is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment; in other respects, these requirements are met within the National Health Service.

  Patient Throughput, Mersey Region
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the patient throughput per available bed in the Mersey region in the latest available year.

  Mr. Freeman
  During 1987–88, the number of in-patient cases treated per available bed in Mersey regional health authority was 20·8.

  EC Social Security Regulations
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has any plans to make medical treatment in the European Community more widely available to British nationals after 1992 under the European Community social security regulations.

  Mr. Mellor
  No.

  NHS Staffing
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give for each special health authority, district health authority and regional health authority for England the numbers of(a) medical and dental staff, (b) nursing and midwifery staff, (c) administration and clerical staff, (d) ancillary staff, (e) others and (f) total employees, expressed (i) as total numbers and (ii) as whole-time equivalents for 30 December 1988.

  Mr. Mellor
  We do not at present have information to this level of detail.

  When September 1988 information becomes available a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Student Nurses
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many health authorities have not been able, or will not be able, to offer their student registered general nurses full-time jobs at the end of their training contracts in 1989.

  Mr. Mellor
  We do not hold such information centrally.

  Supply Nurses
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many supply nurses are currently being used by Gateshead health authority;

  (2) how many jobs are currently available in Gateshead health authority for qualified registered general nurses.

  Mr. Mellor
  We do not hold this information centrally. The hon. Member may wish to write to the chairman of Gateshead health authority for the information.

  Drug Dependency
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much was spent in 1988, or the latest year for which figures are available to assist(a) hard drug addicts and (b) people dependent on benzodiazepines.

  Mr. Freeman
  In 1988–89, the Government allocated nearly £5·5 million to regional health authorities specifically for the development of drug misuse services, including services for those dependent on benzodiazepines. A further £4 million was to be used to help prevent the spread of HIV among drug users and from them to the wider population. The total sum allocated to regional health authorities for all drug services has been increased to almost £15 million in 1989–90.

  The following grants were made in 1988–89 under the central drugs initiative to services specifically for those dependent on benzodiazepines:

  £

  North East Council on Addictions

  21,144

  West Cumbria Mind (Copeland)

  14,117

  In addition, over £2·5 million was allocated to 63 other projects some of which also provided a service for those dependent on benzodiazepines.

  The Department also made a grant of £25,000 to the National Association of Mental Health (MIND) to produce a national directory of services for this group as well as public information material on benzodiazepines and a grant of £10,000 to Tranx(UK) Ltd.

  Opticians
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Southport of 4 July,Official Report, column 150, why ophthalmic opticians receive a larger fee than ophthalmic medical practitioners for a National Health Service sight test; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  The fee for ophthalmic opticians includes an allowance towards the overhead costs of running their practices. Ophthalmic medical practitioners on the other hand, usually work on a peripatetic basis. The overheads they incur are therefore that much lower and this is reflected in their fee.

  Eye Tests
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he has any plans to reduce the incentive for general practitioners to refer patients to National Health Service hospitals for eye tests; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  We do not accept that general practitioners will seek to refer their patients to hospital for routine sight tests when a normal sight test by an ophthalmic optician would meet the patient's needs. It is also unlikely that the hospital eye service would accept such patients.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he yet has sufficient statistical information available to assess how eye test charges have contributed to preventive health care.
  133
  Mr. Mellor
  No. Information on the number of people receiving sight tests since 1 April is not yet available. We intend to carry out a survey into numbers when the market has had time to become more stable.

  Mr. Graham Gaskin
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what changes to social work practice, in particular a client's right to access to a file, he intends to make following the successful appeal of Mr. Graham Gaskin to the European Court of Human Rights.

  Mr. Mellor
  In the light of the court's judgment in this case, we are taking a careful look at the present general arrangements for social arrangements for social services clients to have access to their files to see whether any changes are needed.

  Infection Control
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many district control of infection officers have been employed in the National Health Service for the most recent year for which figures are available;

  (2) what has been the cost to the National Health Service of employing district infection control officers for 1989;

  (3) when the role of district control of infection officers was established within the National Health Service; and on what authority.

  Mr. Mellor
  We announced last July that we accepted the principle of a greater commitment to the public health advanced by the Chief Medical Officer's report on "Public Health in England" and that we would be taking a number of steps to carry forward its recommendations. These include issuing in December 1988 a circular to health authorities based on the report's conclusions about their responsibilities to improve the health of the population, including the prevention, surveillance and control of communicable disease. Health authorities have been asked to report by 31 December 1989 on the action that they have taken to implement the circular and to move towards management arrangements which assign executive responsibility for surveillance, prevention and control of communicable disease and infection, in their districts to a named medical practitioner of consultant status.

  These consultants will be known as consultants in communicable disease control and will exercise comparable functions to those recommended for district control of infection officers whose appointment was recommended in "Public Health in England".

  Further guidance was issued to health authorities in February 1988 on the role of consultants in communicable disease control and in June on procedures for their appointment.

  It will not be possible to provide detailed figures on the number of such consultants appointed until health authority reports are received at the end of the year. The redeployment of consultant manpower resulting from their appointment is not expected to increase costs to the National Health Service.

  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people acquired infection, other than through food poisoning, in National Health Service hospitals during 1988; how many died as result of those infections; and if he will make a statement.
  134
  Mr. Freeman
  The latest available data held centrally is for 1985, when the estimated number of cases of post-operative infection was 15,540. The number of deaths with underlying cause of post operative infection in 1988 was 15.

  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list any independent organisations, other than the National Health Service, charged with monitoring and reporting infectious disease levels within the National Health Service; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  The organisation charged with monitoring infectious disease levels throughout England and Wales is the Communicable Disease Surveillance centre of the Public Health Laboratory service which is part of the National Health Service. The centre produces a weekly communicable disease report and an annual report on infectious disease levels. The annual report is produced jointly with the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys.

  Also within the National Health Service, registered medical practitioners are statutorily required to notify cases of certain infectious disease to local authority proper officers who are required statutorily to pass data on to other bodies including district health authorities and the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. Serious outbreaks of disease and individual cases of particular diseases must also be reported to the chief medical officer.

  Abortion
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give the conceptions in 1987 which(a) led to maternities and (b) were terminated under the terms of the Abortion Act 1967, among residents of England and Wales aged under 16 years, 16 to 19 years, 20 to 24 years, 25 to 29 years, 30 to 34 years, 35 to 39 years and 40 years and over.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested is given in the table. All pregnancies of women usually resident in England and Wales which led to a maternity or termination by abortion under the 1967 Act are included (and those which led to a spontaneous abortion are excluded). The figures are provisional.

  England and Wales

  Number of conceptions in 1987

  Age of woman at conception

  Total conceptions

  Conceptions leading to maternities

  Conceptions terminated by abortion

  Total

  850,400

  689,452

  160,948

  Under 16

  9,135

  4,185

  4,950

  16–19

  114,017

  76,355

  37,662

  20–24

  261,876

  211,444

  50,432

  25–29

  264,646

  233,178

  31,468

  30–34

  139,041

  120,131

  18,910

  35–39

  50,787

  38,186

  12,601

  40 and over

  10,898

  5,973

  4,925

  Note: Data are provisional.

  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give the numbers of conceptions in 1987 which(a) led to maternities and (b) were terminated under the terms of the Abortion Act 1967, among residents of England and Wales aged under 14 years, 14 years, 15 years, 16 years, 17 years, 18 years and 19 years, giving in each case the rate per 1,000 population in each age group.
  135
  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested is given in the table. All pregnancies of women usually resident in England and Wales which led to a maternity or

  Numbers and rates conceptions leading to maternities and abortions 1987.

  Age of woman at conception

  Number of conceptions in 1987

  Conception rate per 1,000 woman in age group

  Total conceptions

  Conceptions leading to maternities

  Conceptions terminated by abortion

  Total conceptions

  Conceptions leading to maternities

  Conceptions terminated by abortion

  Under 141

  346

  145

  201

  1·1

  0·5

  0·7

  14

  1,899

  736

  1,163

  5·8

  2·2

  3·5

  15

  6,890

  3,304

  3,586

  19·7

  9·4

  10·2

  16

  16,512

  9,415

  7,097

  44·1

  25·1

  19·0

  17

  24,809

  15,915

  8,894

  67·1

  43·0

  24·1

  18

  33,648

  23,114

  10,534

  87·7

  60·3

  27·5

  19

  39,048

  27,911

  11,137

  101·1

  72·2

  28·8

  Note: Data are provisional.

  1 Rate per 1,000 women aged 13.

  Abortion
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many abortions were performed in 1988 on residents and non-residents at each of the following gestational ages; les than nine weeks, nine to 12 weeks, 13

  Abortions performed on residents and non-residents of England and Wales, 19881 by gestation period and statutory grounds

  Gestation period (weeks)

  Statutory grounds

  Less than 9

  9–12

  13–16

  17–20

  21–24

  252

  NS2

  1 (with any other)

  99

  314

  41

  20

  8

  3

  1

  2 (alone)

  55,892

  82,024

  14,879

  8,000

  2,819

  1

  9

  3 (with or without 2)

  5,138

  10,609

  1,560

  500

  94

  —

  1

  4 (alone)

  83

  191

  210

  566

  147

  18

  —

  4 (with an other except 1)

  158

  270

  55

  56

  21

  —

  —

  5 or 6

  1

  5

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1Provisional date.

  2Not stated.

  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many abortions were performed in 1988 on residents and non-residents at each of the following gestational ages: less than nine weeks, nine to 12 weeks, 13 to 16 weeks, 17 to 20 weeks, 21 to 24 weeks and 25 weeks

  Abortions performed on residents and non-residents of England and Wales, 19881 by gestation period and age of mother.

  Age

  Gestation period (weeks)

  less than 9

  9–12

  13–16

  17–20

  21–24

  25 +

  NS2

  Less than 15

  205

  403

  146

  98

  69

  —

  —

  15

  624

  1,477

  425

  266

  90

  —

  1

  16–19

  10,398

  21,637

  4,837

  2,901

  1,021

  4

  6

  20–24

  19,458

  30,097

  5,665

  3,065

  963

  7

  2

  25–29

  14,148

  18,968

  2,854

  1,423

  490

  5

  3

  30–34

  8,751

  10,852

  1,461

  704

  235

  5

  —

  35–39

  5,490

  6,964

  883

  453

  130

  2

  —

  40–44

  2,116

  2,804

  396

  199

  83

  —

  —

  45 +

  178

  204

  41

  33

  9

  —

  —

  Not stated

  3

  7

  2

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1 Provisional data.

  2 Not stated.

  Births
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give for each year for which the information is available the total numbers of live and still births in England and Wales which were jointly registered by parents who were not married to each other but lived at the same address.
  136
  termination by abortion under the 1967 Act are included (and those which led to a spontaneous abortion are excluded). The figures are provisional.

  to 16 weeks, 17 to 20 weeks, 21 to 24 weeks and 25 weeks and over on each of the following grounds: one with other, two alone, three with or without two, four alone, four with any other except one and five and six.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information is shown in the table:

  and over, on women in each of the following age groups: under 15 years, 15 years, 16 to 19 years, 20 to 24 years, 25 to 29 years, 30 to 34 years, 35 to 39 years, 40 to 44 years and 45 years and over.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested is shown in the table:

  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested is shown in the table.
  137

  Live and stillbirths, England and Wales, 1986 to 1988 jointly registered by parents who were not married but lived at the same address

  1986

  1987

  1988

  Live births

  65,844

  75,572

  87,601

  Stillbirths

  331

  387

  393

  TOTAL

  66,175

  75,959

  87,994

  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give the total numbers of live births and stillbirths in England and Wales in 1988, giving the numbers of each that were(a) legitimate, (b) jointly registered illegitimate and (c) solely registered illegitimate.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested in shown in the table.

  Legitimate

  Jointly registered illegitimate

  Solely registered illegitimate

  Live births

  516,225

  123,408

  53,944

  Stillbirths

  2,318

  574

  482

  TOTAL

  518,543

  123,982

  54,426

  Food Safety
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many outbreaks of food poisoning occurred following the consumption of food prepared in National Health Service hospitals during 1988; how many people were infected; of that total, how many fatalities occurred; which hospitals were involved; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  According to the Public Health Laboratory service, in 1988, 21 outbreaks of food poisoning or salmonellosis were reported in hospitals in England and Wales. Information is not available about how many of these outbreaks occurred following the consumption of food prepared or brought into NHS hospitals. Information on which hospitals were involved is not available centrally. At least 281 people are known to have been affected in these outbreaks. Four deaths were recorded, of which one was attributed to the infection associated with the outbreak.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what action he is proposing to take to ensure the wholesomeness of imported paté;

  (2) whether he will now review all existing procedures relating to the quality control of imported foods.

  Mr. Mellor
  All imported foods are subject to the Imported Food Regulations 1984, which prohibit the importation of unfit food. Whenever food is found to be unfit, either on importation or subsequently in this country, action is taken to prevent its sale for human consumption, to advise the exporting country so that action may be taken to deal with contamination at source.

  We are reviewing food legislation generally but we have no plans at present to change the procedures.

  Privatisation
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has any plans to privatise(a) the public health laboratory service and (b) the communicable disease surveillance centre; and if he will make a statement.
  138
  Mr. Mellor
  There are no such current plans.

  HIV Infection
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what evidence is required in order to satisfy his Department that on the balance of probabilities an HIV infection was acquired at work.

  Mr. Mellor
  Under the National Health Service (Injury Benefits) Regulations, cover is available to all National Health Service employees who contract a disease which is attributable to their employment. Each claim is considered on its merits and cases of HIV infection would be treated no differently.

  The Department would look carefully at the circumstances surrounding each claim, taking note of the duties undertaken in the employment and the claimant's description of how he or she thought the disease was contracted. The Department's medical advisers would then consider this information against the ways in which the disease may be contracted. Where title was in doubt, expert medical opinion would be sought from a consultant specialising in the particular field of medicine as to whether it was more likely than not that the infection had been acquired in the course of National Health Service employment.

  Smoking
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice his Department gives to pregnant women about the adverse affects of smoking on the health of their unborn child; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave him on Monday 17 July.

  NHS Finance
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the health authorities that are running at a deficit after the first two months of the 1989–90 financial year.

  Mr. Freeman
  Cash limits are issued to health authorities on an annual basis and it is for each authority to plan its spending for the year within the sums available. Health authority cash limit spending is monitored by the Department on a regional basis and there is no evidence that any region will exceed its cash limit for the year.

  Bonus Schemes
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he has received any representations about a possible conflict of interest as a result of performance-related bonus schemes.

  Mr. Mellor
  No.

  Infant Mortality
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to publish the Government's response to the Social Services Select Committee report on perinatal, neonatal and infant mortality; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  The Government's response was published today. It sets out details of a major new initiative on infant
  139
  mortality. The infant mortality rate for England and Wales is at a new low and clinical advances and improved services mean more babies survive than ever before. There is no room for complacency however. Every effort must be made to secure further improvements and address issues such as geographical variations and the phenomenon of sudden infant death.

  Service improvements will continue and the Government do not accept that these call for central earmarking of resources or attempts at central direction on the way services are provided locally. What is needed now is to find out more precisely why particular babies die and how as many as possible of these deaths can in future be prevented. This is the focus of the initiatives set out in the response. A central feature is the application of the principles of clinical audit set out in the White Paper "Working for Patients" through the development by the professions concerned of a confidential inquiry into at least a sample of stillbirths and infant deaths.

  This central initiative is supplemented by measures designed to increase the National Health Services' capacity to undertake specialist paediatric pathological examinations and to establish, on a comprehensive basis, regional epidemiological surveys of stillbirths and neonatal deaths. In addition the Medical Research Council has agreed to carry out a major review of the present literature relating to sudden infant death syndrome and to advise on what further research is needed.

  The Government believe that these initiatives will achieve the objectives, which it shares with the Select Committee—namely, continued improvement in the maternity services and health services for the newborn in the decades to come in order to reduce infant mortality to the lowest possible levels.

  Mental Institutions
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list by health authority(a) the number of long-stay discharges from mental institutions in the past two years, (b) the number of re-settlements and (c) the decades in which these people were admitted and the age at discharge.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 12 July 1989]: The information in the form requested is not available centrally. We have placed in the Library tables showing discharges, excluding transfers and deaths, from National Health Service mental handicap and mental illness hospitals and units in England, during 1985 and 1986, after a stay of one year or more. The discharges are shown by district health authority, decade of admission and age on discharge.

  NHS Policy Board
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals he has to include a nursing representative on the National Health Service Policy board.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 17 July 1989]: The members of the NHS Policy board have been appointed as individuals, not as representatives of sectional interests. We therefore have no plans to include a representative of any professional group, including nurses, on the policy board.

  Measles Vaccination
  Mr. Holt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many perfectly fit babies have been brain-damaged as a result of measles vaccination in each of the past 10 years.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information requested is not available. That which is available is in the table.

  Vaccine Damage Payments Scheme: Awards made where measles vaccine or a vaccine containing a measles element was the claimed cause of severe disablement: 1979–89

  Year

  Number of awards

  11979–80

  34

  1981

  2

  1982

  3

  1983

  4

  1984

  1

  1985

  —

  1986

  —

  1987

  —

  1988

  —

  21989

  1

  1 Separate figures not available.

  2 To 30 June.

PRIME MINISTER

  Scotland
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has received recent representations regarding the constitutional position of Scotland.

  The Prime Minister
  Since January, I have received a number of letters about the constitutional arrangements in Scotland. Under this Government's policies, Scotland, within the union, has enjoyed a record standard of living and record social services.

  British Broadcasting Corporation
  Mr. Marland
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has received recent representations regarding the role of the British Broadcasting Corporation.

  The Prime Minister
  The Government have received a number of comments about the role of the British Broadcasting Corporation, in response to the White Paper on broadcasting.

  Dogs
  Mr. Cyril D. Townsend
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has received recent representations regarding the control of dogs.

  The Prime Minister
  I have received a number of representations. I welcome the stricter proposed powers of enforcement in the Dangerous Dogs Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Dame J. Fookes).

  Aerospace Industry
  Mr. Fishburn
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has received recent representations regarding the aerospace industry.
  141
  The Prime Minister
  I often receive representations about various aspects of the aerospace industry. It is one of Britain's major industries and the country can be proud of its success.

  Twechar, Monklands
  Mr. Tony Clarke
  To ask the Prime Minister when she next expects to visit Twechar, in the Monklands, West constituency.

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

  Somerset
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Prime Minister whether she is planning to pay an official visit to Somerset.

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

  Social Charter
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister if the EEC Commission is now empowered to issue the social charter directives to the various Councils of Ministers in light of the majority vote at the recent meeting of the European Council at Madrid; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  The Commission of the European Communities has the right to put forward proposals to the Councils of Ministers in areas within its competence at any time. No decision was taken on the Commission's preliminary draft proposal for a Community charter of fundamental social rights at the Madrid meeting of the European Council. The conclusions of that meeting are a reflection of the views of all the heads of Government present, who noted that at the Social Affairs Council on 12 June, 11 delegations had accepted draft conclusions on a preliminary draft Community charter submitted by the Commission. The United Kingdom made clear that it was not prepared to accept those draft conclusions.

  OECD
  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has received representations regarding the role of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Northern Ireland (Terrorism)
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has received recent representations regarding terrorism in Northern Ireland.

  The Prime Minister
  Since April this year the only representations I have received concerned the possible effects on the level of terrorist activity in south Fermanagh following the removal of a vehicle checkpoint.

  Water Privatisation
  Mr. Kirkhope
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations she has received over water privatisation.

  The Prime Minister
  I receive many representations about water privatisation, which represents the quickest and most cost-effective way of achieving even higher standards of water quality.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has received recent representations regarding energy efficiency.

  The Prime Minister
  I have received a number of recent representations on energy efficiency on which there is an excellent record; 26 per cent. more goods are produced now than in 1973 for a lower consumption of energy.

  Northern Ireland
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has any plans to pay an official visit to Northern Ireland.

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

  United Nations
  Sir Hugh Rossi
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has received recent representations regarding the role of the United Nations.

  The Prime Minister
  I have received and continue to receive a number of representations from hon. Members and members of the public regarding the role of the United Nations. The United Nations performs many valuable tasks not least in overseeing Namibia's transfer to independence and in the United Nations Environment Programme to which the United Kingdom is now the world's second largest contributor.

  Motor Industry
  Mr. John Browne
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has received recent representations regarding the British motor industry.

  The Prime Minister
  I have not received any recent representations. The industry has recovered strongly during the past decade. United Kingdom car production last year was at its highest since 1977 and Britain is increasingly seen as an attractive place for inward investment or joint venture in the motor industry.

  Mid Kent
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Prime Minister when she next expects to make an official visit to mid Kent.

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

  Demographic Trends
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Prime Minister what recent representations she has received concerning demographic trends in the United Kingdom.

  The Prime Minister
  Representations have been received from time to time on a variety of subjects related to demographic trends in the United Kingdom; generally these related to specific topics, groups, or areas—for example, mortality, projections, the elderly—and are dealt with accordingly. The most recent comprehensive review by the Registrar General was the "Demographic Review—a report on population in Great Britain" published in 1987. In addition in OPCS quarterly journal "Population Trends" there is an annual review of the most recent trends; as well as the articles in each issue on particular topics.

  Oakenshaw
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Prime Minister when she next expects to pay an official visit to Oakenshaw.

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

  GATT
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has received recent representations regarding negotiations in the general agreement on tariffs and trade.

  The Prime Minister
  I have received a number of representations on the GATT Uruguay round negotiations from foreign Governments and United Kingdom interests. The Government will continue to act against protectionism and to sustain the world open trading system.

  Debt
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Prime Minister what action she proposes to take to reduce the debt burden on the poorest countries.

  The Prime Minister
  After the initiatives of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, agreement was reached at the Toronto economic summit last year and subsequently implemented in the Paris club for concessional rescheduling of the debt of the poorest countries which are following approved adjustment programmes. The United Kingdom and other official creditors have reduced interest rates to prevent debt compounding. In addition, the United Kingdom has written off £1 billion of old aid loans, of which nearly £300 million were for sub-Saharan Africa, and all the United Kingdom's new aid to the poorest countries is now in grant form. The United Kingdom has also agreed to subsidise loans of up to about £750 million through a special IMF facility, the enhanced structural adjustment facility, of £4·5 billion to the poorest nations. That makes the United Kingdom the largest single contributor to the interest subsidy account. These are all substantial measures which the United Kingdom is taking to alleviate the debt burden on the poorest countries.

  WEU
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has received recent representations regarding the role of the Western European Union.

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Council of Europe
  Sir Anthony Grant
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has received recent representations regarding the role of the Council of Europe.

  The Prime Minister
  I am not aware of any such representations.

  Chlorofluorocarbons
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will seek a meeting with the director of the Property Services Agency to establish the cost of replacing all refrigerators in Government departments and at Nos. 10 and 11 Downing street with refrigerators with reduced levels of chlorofluorocarbons.
  144
  The Prime Minister
  No. Refrigerators do not release chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in normal use, but do when they are scrapped. To scrap them before the end of their useful life would therefore increase emissions of CFCs, not reduce them.

  Madrid Summit
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Prime Minister what matters with regard to environmental protection in the European Community countries were discussed at the recent European Community summit in Madrid.

  The Prime Minister
  The European Council welcomed the recent achievements of the Environment Council. Discussion also covered the problems of desertification, erosion and deforestation within the Community, the Community's responsibility in the face of global threats and the need to preserve tropical forests. A recent Commission proposal to establish a European environment agency was noted and referred to the Environment Council. For further details I refer the hon. Member to the full conclusions of the Council which have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Greenhouse Effect
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has had any recent meeting with the Chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board to discuss the greenhouse effect.

  The Prime Minister
  I met the chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board on 26 April 1989.

  Engagements
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 18 July.

  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 18 July.

  Mr. French
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 18 July.

  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 18 July.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 18 July.

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. I also attended the ceremony to mark the arrival of His Highness the President of the United Arab Emirates. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I shall be attending a state banquet and Buckingham palace.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Land Registry
  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the prospects of compulsory registration by Her Majesty's Land Registry by March 1990.

  The Attorney-General
  The Lord Chancellor has recently approved an order, the effect of which will be to
  145
  extend the system of compulsory registration of title on sale of land to the whole of England and Wales by 1 December 1990.

  Petty Officer John Black
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Attorney-General whether, pursuant to his letter to the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton dated 4 May, he will make a statement on the progress of his proposed application to the High Court under section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988 that the inquest into the death of the late Petty Officer John Black should be re-opened.

  The Attorney-General
  The Treasury Solicitor has prepared a draft application and accompanying affidavit in support. When approved by me the application will be entered in the Crown Office.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Unemployment Benefits
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much money has been paid in unemployment benefit to claimants in the Liverpool travel-to-work area during the past 10 years.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information requested is as follows:

  Estimated amount of unemployment benefit paid to claimants in the Liverpool travel-to-work area

  £ million

  1979–80

  20·5

  1980–81

  41·4

  1981–82

  55·7

  1982–83

  49·3

  1983–84

  48·7

  1984–85

  51·3

  1985–86

  51·4

  1986–87

  55·8

  1987–88

  47·0

  1988–89

  36·3

  Vaccine Damage (Compensation)
  Mr. Holt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many victims of vaccine damage have been paid compensation in each of the past 10 years.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information requested is not available. The numbers of awards made under the vaccine damage payments scheme are as follows.

  Year

  Awards made

  1980

  255

  1981

  74

  1982

  43

  1983

  42

  1984

  29

  1985

  26

  1986

  15

  1987

  10

  1988

  4

  l1989

  1

  l To 30 June.

  Mr. Holt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he has any plans to amend the vaccine damage payments scheme in the light of the decision on vaccine and causation by Mr. Justice Loveday.
  146
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to the right hon. Member for Stoke on Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) on 23 March at column 773.

  Family Credit
  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what number and proportion of family credit recipients pay income tax.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The latest information relates to the end of March 1989, when income tax was being deducted from earnings in 199,000 cases, being about 71 per cent. of all family credit cases.

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the net saving per annum of abolishing child benefit.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Precise savings would depend on assumptions made about the effects on other benefits and numbers claiming income-related benefits. In broad terms it is estimated the net savings would be somewhat over £3 billion at 1989–90 values.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will explain the reasons for the delay in publishing year end data for the social fund for the financial year 1988–89; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The year end social fund data were subject to a number of accuracy checks. Data were published as soon as possible after completion of this action.

  Pensioners
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what is his estimate of the number of pensioners in(a) Scotland and (b) the United Kingdom who have paid insufficient contributions and who therefore do not receive the full basic national insurance retirement pension;

  (2) what is his estimate of the number of pensioners in (a) Scotland and (b) the United Kingdom who have their basic national insurance retirement pension enhanced by increments from (i) deferring the date of their retirement, (ii) contributing to the graduated pension scheme, and (iii) contributing to SERPS.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 26 June 1989]: As at 30 September 1988, 1,577,470 pensioners were in receipt of a basic national insurance retirement pension enhanced by increments earned by deferring the date of their retirement. 4,457,360 pensioners were in receipt of the basic state pension and graduated pension; 163,720 were in receipt of Graduated Pension only; 2,382,350 pensioners were in receipt of the basic state pension and SERPS; 9,130 were in receipt of SERPS only.

  As at 30 September 1988, 810,050 pensioners were in receipt of less than the full basic national insurance retirement pension because of insufficient contributions.

  Note: Information is available for Great Britain only.

EMPLOYMENT

  Employment Training
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information he has about the number of ET placements in the north-west region.

  Mr. Nicholls
  We estimate that over 21,200 people on employment training in the north-west region are on placements with employers or projects on any one day.

  Mr. Jack Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information he has about the number of ET placements in the northern region.

  Mr. Nicholls
  We estimate that over 17,700 people on employment training in the northern region are on placements with employers or projects on any one day.

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has any plans to review payments to trainees on Employment Training.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) on 20 June 1989 at column 113.

  Mr. Allen McKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information he collects as a result of participation on ET schemes; and if he will give a breakdown for the Yorkshire and Humberside region.

  Mr. Nicholls
  A range of information is collected to enable the Training Agency to manage employment training effectively. The main information about ET entrants and trainees in the Yorkshire and Humberside region is given in the tables.

  Employment Training—Northern region Programme information

  Category

  Latest information

  Numbers

  Filled places at training managers

  30 June

  23,000

  Starts at training managers

  30 June

  36,600

  Referrals from Employment Service to training agents

  30 June

  77,300

  Action plans completed at training agents

  30 June

  47,200

  Contracted places as at

  May

  28,500

  Estimated project placements as at

  30 June

  12,200

  Estimated employer placements as at

  30 June

  5,500

  Child care allowances during April

  28 April

  253

  Table 2

  Employment Training—Yorkshire and Humberside region Trainee characteristics April 1989

  Category

  Latest information

  Percentage

  Sex

  April

  Male

  71

  Female

  29

  Duration of Unemployment

  April

  0–5 months

  25

  6–12 months

  33

  13–23 months

  11

  24 months+

  30

  Ethnic Origin1

  April

  1

  89

  148

  Category

  Latest information

  Percentage

  2

  2

  3

  4

  4

  1

  5

  3

  PWD2 cumulative 5 September to 31 March

  10

  1 Ethnic origin.

  1 - White.

  2 - Black/African/Caribbean.

  3 - Indian/Pakistan/Bangladeshi/Sri Lankan.

  4 - None of these.

  5 - I prefer not to say.

  2 PWD - People with disabilities. Those trainees answering whether they had a long-term health problem or disability which affected the type of work they could do.

  .. =less than 0·5 per cent.

  Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding.

  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the progress of employment training.

  Mr. Nicholls
  There are 194,000 people currently in training throughout the country which is a tremendous achievement after only 10 months of operation.

  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information he collects as a result of participation on ET schemes; and if he will give a breakdown for the northern region.

  Mr. Nicholls
  A range of information is collected to enable the Training Agency to manage employment training effectively. The main information about ET entrants and trainees in the northern region is given in the tables.

  Table 1

  Employment training—Northern region Programme information

  Category

  Latest information

  Numbers

  Filled places at training managers

  30 June

  23,000

  Starts at training managers

  30 June

  36,600

  Referrals from Employment Service to training agents

  30 June

  77,300

  Action Plans completed at training agents

  30 June

  47,200

  Contracted places as at

  May

  28,500

  Estimated project placements as at

  30 June

  12,200

  Estimated employer placements as at

  30 June

  5,500

  Child Care Allowances during April

  28 April

  253

  Employment training—Yorks and Humberside region Trainee characteristics April 1989

  Category

  Latest Information

  Percentage age

  Sex

  April

  Males

  71

  Females

  29

  Duration of Unemployment

  April

  0–5 months

  25

  6–12 months

  33

  13–23 months

  11

  24 months+

  30

  Ethnic Origin1

  April

  89

  1

  2

  149

  Category

  Latest Information

  Percentage age

  2

  4

  3

  4

  4

  1

  5

  3

  PWD2 cumulative 5 September to 31 March

  10

  Notes:

  1 Ethnic origin

  1—White

  2—Black/African/Caribbean

  3—Indian/Pakistan/Bangladeshi/Sri Lankan

  4—None of these

  5—I prefer not to say

  2 PWD—People with disabilities. Those trainees answering whether they had a long-term health problem or disability which affected the type of work they could do.

  =.. less than 0·5 per cent.

  Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the latest figures on the percentage of workers on employment training who have received the £200 bonus.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Information is not available about the number of people on Employment Training who have received a training bonus of £200.

  Employment Legislation
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment he has made of public opinion regarding the Government's reform of trade union legislation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  At each stage of the step-by-step reform of industrial relations and trade union legislation which the Government have pursued since 1979 we have submitted our proposals for public consultation, and we have been able to frame legislation in the knowledge that the measures will be welcomed by employers, employees and the public generally. Our election manifestos, which contained many of our proposals in this area, have also clearly gained widespread public support.

  Mr. Waller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he is considering any further reform of trade union legislation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Green Paper "Removing Barriers to Employment", published on 20 March, contains the Government's current proposals for the further reform of industrial relations and trade union law. In addition we will not hesitate to come forward with proposals for legislation to help prevent industrial action such as that recently experienced in certain public services, if appropriate.

  Visual Display Units
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proposals he has to ensure the health and safety of visual display unit operators.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Health and Safety Executive has published guidance on work with visual display units. We are currently discussing further proposals with our European partners.

  Youth Training Scheme
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many YTS places in(a) Scotland and (b) the United Kingdom had not been filled at the most recent available place.

  Mr. Cope
  At the end of May 1989 there were 13,800 unfilled YTS places in Scotland and 141,200 unfilled YTS places in Great Britain.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment which European country had the fastest fall in unemployment over the past two years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  Over the past two years the unemployment rate has fallen faster in the United Kingdom than in any other major European country, and is now lower than the European community average.

  Mr. Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many jobs have been created in the last five years in the United Kingdom, and in the other member states of the European Community; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  Employment estimates are not yet available for many EC countries after 1987. Over the five-year period from 1982 to 1987 the increase in employment in the United Kingdom was greater than in the rest of the European Community combined. The table shows the data for each EC country for 1982 to 1987.

  Civilian employment (thousands)

  1982

  1987

  Change

  Percentage change

  United Kingdom

  23,584

  25,060

  1,476

  6·3

  Belgium

  3,578

  3,621

  43

  1·2

  Denmark

  2,476

  2,663

  187

  7·6

  Germany

  25,177

  25,440

  263

  1·0

  Greece

  3,501

  3,597

  96

  2·7

  Spain

  11,043

  11,383

  340

  3·1

  France

  21,240

  20,976

  -264

  -1·2

  Ireland

  1,131

  1,067

  -64

  -5·7

  Italy

  20,297

  20,584

  287

  1·4

  Luxembourg

  158

  169

  11

  7·0

  Netherlands

  5,009

  5,251

  242

  4·8

  Portugal

  3,959

  4,169

  210

  5·3

  EC12-United Kingdom

  97,569

  98,920

  1,351

  1·4

  Sources: United Kingdom (ED) Rest of EC (Eurostat).

  The Government have placed great stress on creating the right economic conditions in which enterprise can flourish and jobs can be created. Since 1980 the United Kingdom has had the fastest growing economy in western Europe and we are now in our eighth successive year of sustained growth. As a result of this, employment has increased greatly.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the level of unemployment in the London borough of Brent.

  Mr. Lee
  In June 1989 the number of unemployed claimants in the London borough of Brent was 8,815, a fall of 4,674 or 36·7 per cent. over the last 12 months. The comparison is slightly affected by the change of coverage in the count from September 1988 due to the changes in benefit regulations affecting young people under 18 years of age.
  151
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the increase in the number of self-employed people in work since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Bernard Braine
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people were self-employed in the United Kingdom in June 1979 and June 1989; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  Between June 1979 and March 1989, the latest date for which estimates are available, there was an increase of 1,173,000, or 62 per cent., in the number of

  Changes March 1979 to March 1989 in the number of employees in employment by region

  Males

  Females all

  Females full time

  Females part time

  Region

  Change (thousands)

  Percentage change

  Change (thousands)

  Percentage change

  Change (thousands)

  Percentage change

  Change (thousands)

  Percentage change

  South East

  -77

  -1·8

  515

  16·4

  317

  16·7

  198

  15·9

  East Anglia

  96

  23·3

  93

  33·9

  44

  28·1

  49

  41·6

  South West

  -34

  -3·7

  105

  16·2

  62

  16·9

  43

  15·3

  West Midlands

  -135

  -10·1

  74

  8·2

  28

  5·3

  46

  12·5

  East Midlands

  -27

  -2·9

  90

  14·2

  38

  10·3

  52

  19·7

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  -181

  -15·2

  42

  5·3

  -5

  -1·1

  47

  13·3

  North West

  -338

  -21 9

  -21

  -1·9

  -62

  -9·3

  41

  8·8

  North

  -118

  -16·1

  21

  4·2

  -20

  -6·9

  41

  20·5

  Wales

  -129

  -21·0

  -3

  -·7

  -35

  -14·0

  32

  20·6

  Scotland

  -176

  -14·7

  40

  4·6

  -31

  -5·6

  71

  22·5

  Northern Ireland

  -41

  -13·7

  9

  4·1

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a = not available

  Mr. Hayward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the United Kingdom's current youth unemployment rate; what is the figure of other European countries; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  The table shows unemployment rates prepared on a harmonised basis and seasonally adjusted, for those aged under 25 years, for April 1989 in the United Kingdom and other European countries as published by the statistical office of the European Communities. The youth unemployment rate in the United Kingdom is about half the European Communities average.

  Harmonised unemployment rate (seasonally adjusted) for under 25 year olds, April 1989

  European country

  Total percentage rate

  Spain

  36·6

  Italy

  32·0

  Greece1

  24·4

  Ireland

  22·3

  France

  21·5

  Belgium

  17·7

  Netherlands

  16·3

  Portugal2

  12·0

  Denmark

  9·8

  Germany

  5·2

  Luxembourg

  3·8

  United Kingdom

  9·2

  EC average

  18·0

  1 April 1987.

  1 March 1989.

  Mr. Irvine
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the number of people of working age in employment in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) other European countries.

  Mr. Lee
  The United Kingdom has a higher proportion of people of working age in employment than any other
  152
  self-employed people in the United Kingdom. It is estimated that over 3 million people are now self-employed. Self-employed people now represent 12 per cent. of the work force in employment.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the increase or decrease in each standard planning region of(a) male employees, (b) female full-time employees and (c) female part-time employees since June 1979.

  Mr. Lee
  The available information is as follows:

  European Community country except Denmark. The latest available European Community figures are for 1987 when the United Kingdom had 68 per cent. of persons aged 15 to 64 in employment. Most other European Community countries had less than 60 per cent. of such persons employed. Denmark had 77 per cent. employed (Scandinavian countries outside the European Community had similar figures) and Germany and France had 61 per cent. and 59 per cent. respectively.

  Mr. Conway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment in how many parliamentary constituencies in the United Kingdom unemployment has fallen by over 50 per cent. since January 1986; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  Between January 1986 and June 1989 unemployment fell by 50 per cent. or more in 359 parliamentary constituencies in Great Britain. The comparison is affected by the change in compilation of the count in March 1986 to reduce over recording and changes in benefit regulations in September 1988 affecting young people under 18.

  Mr. Orme
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many and what percentage of claimants in Salford, East were classified as long-term unemployed in April; and what plans he has to reduce this number.

  Mr. Lee
  In April 1989 the number of unemployed claimants, in Salford, East who had been unemployed for over 12 months was 2,664 or 49 per cent. of the total unemployed. Employment training is specifically designed to give the longer-term unemployed the opportunity to acquire the skills they need to return to work.
  153
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the change in the number of long-term unemployed people aged 24 to 45 years in the last two years.

  Mr. Lee
  Unemployment figures are not available for the requested age group. However, the number of unemployed claimants aged 25 to 44 years in the United Kingdom who had been unemployed for over 12 months fell by 134,515 or 45·6 per cent. in the two years to April 1989.

  Dr. Woodcock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what major Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development country has the sharpest fall in the rate of unemployment over the past two years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  Over the past two years the unemployment rate has fallen faster in the United Kingdom than in any other major OECD country. The unemployment rate in the United Kingdom is now lower than the European Community average.

  Sir Fergus Montgomery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the fall in the numbers of long-term unemployed in the north-west.

  Mr. Lee
  The number of unemployed claimants in the north-west who had been unemployed for over 12 months fell by 37,633 or 25·1 per cent. in the year to April 1989.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give the latest unemployment figure for the Rugby/Daventry travel-to-work area.

  Mr. Lee
  In June 1989 the number of unemployed claimants in the Rugby and Daventry travel-to-work area was 1,929.

  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he has taken to reduce unemployment in the last year.

  Mr. Lee
  Nearly 3 million new jobs have been created over the last six years and there are now more people in work in this country than ever before in our history. The Government will continue to provide the right economic conditions to create new jobs and reduce unemployment further. In addition, an extensive range of employment and training measures are already in place to help unemployed people back into work.

  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment by what amount unemployment in the parliamentary constituency of Bury, South has changed over the last six months for which figures are available.

  Mr. Lee: In June 1989 the number of unemployed claimants in the Bury, South constituency was 2,352, a fall of 434 over the past six months.

  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the current level of unemployment in Bexley; and what was the level three years ago.

  Mr. Lee
  In June 1989 there were 3,825 unemployed claimants in Bexley local authority area compared with 8,603 in June 1986, a fall of 4,778 or 55·5 per cent. over the 154
  last three years. The comparison is slightly affected by the change of coverage in the count from September 1988 due to the benefit regulations affecting those young people under 18.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the latest total for the number of people registered as unemployed in the Basildon constituency and for the corresponding period in each of the last four years.

  Mr. Lee
  The table shows the number of unemployed claimants in Basildon parliamentary constituency for each June from 1985 to 1989. The figures are affected by the change in the compilation of the count in March 1986 to reduce over-recording and by the change of coverage from September 1988 resulting from changes in benefit regulations affecting people aged under 18 years. Direct comparisons cannot therefore be made.

  Unemployment in Basildon parliamentary constituency

  June

  Number of unemployed claimants

  1985

  6,767

  1986

  6,448

  1987

  5,345

  1988

  3,701

  1989

  2,670

  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are now unemployed in the north-west.

  Mr. Lee
  In June 1989 there were 256,764 unemployed claimants in the north-west.

  Mr. Dover
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the current levels of unemployment in the United Kingdom and in the EEC.

  Mr. Lee
  Over the past two years the rate of unemployment has fallen faster in the United Kingdom than in any other major industrialised country, and is now lower than that of the majority of our European partners. The unemployment rate in the United Kingdom is also lower than the European Community average.

  International comparisons of Unemployment Standardised unemployment rates1—Seasonally adjusted

  Percentage rate

  Latest month

  Spain

  17·7

  February

  Ireland

  1(17·0)

  May

  Italy

  1 (10·7)

  May

  France

  10·1

  April

  Belgium

  9·5

  April

  Netherlands

  9·4

  January

  Greece

  1 (7·4)

  April 1987

  Denmark

  1 (7·1)

  May

  United Kingdom

  6·6

  April

  Germany

  5·5

  March

  Portugal

  5·5

  November

  Austria

  2 (4·8)

  February

  Norway

  4·8

  February

  Finland

  3·8

  April

  Luxembourg

  1 (1·8)

  April

  Sweden

  1·6

  April

  EC average

  1 (9·3)

  May

  1 For those EC countries for which no OECD standardised rates are available, similar harmonised rates compiled by the Statistical

  155
  Office of European Communities (EUROSTAT) are shown in brackets. These showed the United Kingdom rate at 6·8 per cent. in May compared with the EC average of 9·3 per cent.

  2National definitions. Standardised rates not available for Austria.

  Mr. Roger King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of the United Kingdom population is in employment; and what is the European average.

  Mr. Lee
  In 1987 nearly 45 per cent. of the total population of the United Kingdom were in employment, compared with an average of around 39 per cent. for Europe as a whole (excluding eastern Europe).

  HIV-positive Workers
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has any evidence of discrimination in the workplace against persons who are HIV positive; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  There is little significant evidence available, but my right hon. Friend is concerned about any unjustified workplace discrimination. In most occupations there is no risk of infected persons passing HIV to others. There is no justification for employers to treat people who are HIV-positive differently from other employees or job applicants.

  Strikes
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has received any representations about strikes in the public sector; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has received any representations about unofficial strikes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  My right hon. Friend has received many representations concerning the recent irresponsible and unnecessary industrial action in certain public sector services. The Government are considering what needs to be done to protect the public interest, and we will not hesitate to come forward with appropriate proposals for legislation if that proves necessary.

  Mr. Thornton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many strike ballots have been held before proposed strikes in the last five years; how many resulted in a vote not to strike; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service is currently aware of some 1,023 ballots which took place between 26 September 1984 and 31 May 1989 of which 115 were against taking strike action.

  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans to meet the general secretary of the Trades Union Congress to discuss the current wave of strikes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  My right hon. Friend has no current plans for such a meeting.

  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to introduce legislation to stop unofficial strikes; and if he will make a statement.
  156
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any proposals for the prohibition of strikes in essential transport services; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to introduce measures to curb the right of public sector workers in vital industries to undertake strike action.

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he is taking to combat strikes in the public sector; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Recent industrial action in certain public sector services has been irresponsible and unnecessary. The Government are considering what needs to be done to protect the public interest, and we will not hesitate to come forward with appropriate proposals for legislation if that proves necessary.

  Mr. Franks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are employed in(a) the public sector and (b) the private sector; and how many working days were lost through strikes in each of 1988–89.

  Mr. Nicholls
  An article in "Economic Trends", December, page 119, set out the Central Statistical Office's estimates of the breakdown of employment in the public and private sectors in the United Kingdom at mid-1988 as 6,327,000 and 19,077,000 respectively. Revisions to employment data since the compilation of the article will be reflected in the next annual publication.

  Working days lost through stoppages of work due to industrial disputes in the 12 months ending March 1989 were 1,561,000 in the public sector and 1,296,000 in the private sector.

  A copy of "Economic Trends" is available in the Library.

  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many working days were lost through strikes in the public sector in 1988–89; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many working days were lost through strikes in the public sector and the private sector of the economy in 1988–89; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  In the 12 months to March 1989, working days lost through stoppages of work due to industrial disputes totalled 1,561,000 in the public sector and 1,296,000 in the private sector. The public sector figure includes 1,163,000 working days lost in the postal disputes in August and September last year and the private sector figure includes 754,000 working days lost in a shipyard dispute. Expressed in terms of days lost per thousand employees, the public sector figure is 247, the corresponding private sector figure 68.

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many strikes there have been in the last 12 months; and how many there were 10 years ago.

  Mr. Nicholls
  In the 12 months to May 1989, a total of 700 stoppages of work due to industrial disputes are provisionally recorded as being in progress. In the
  157
  corresponding period 10 years ago, the 12 months to May 1979, a total of 2,453 stoppages were recorded as in progress. These statistics exclude stoppages involving fewer than 10 workers or lasting less than one day unless the total number of working days lost is greater than 100.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment he has made of the causes of the rise in working days lost through industrial disputes in April compared to March of the current year.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The latest estimates of working days lost through stoppages of work caused by industrial disputes for March and April of this year are 74,000 and 89,000 respectively. There is normally a significant fluctuation from month to month in the number of working days lost and the March to April increase is smaller than the median of other monthly increases over the past 36 months. The April 1989 figure is, apart from the April 1988 figure, the lowest for any April since 1954.

  Mr. Andrew MacKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many days have been lost by industrial action in the first six months of the current year; and what was the comparable figure for each of the previous 10 years.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The estimate for June 1989 of working days lost through stoppages of work due to industrial disputes is not yet available; but for the first five months of 1989 it is provisionally recorded that 435,000 working days were lost. The comparable figures for the first five months in each of the previous 10 years are as follows:

  Working days lost through stoppages of work due to industrial disputes in first five months of each year

  Year

  Number

  1979

  8,076,000

  1980

  2,341,000

  1981

  2,341,000

  1982

  2,510,000

  1983

  2,125,000

  1984

  8,669,000

  1985

  5,012,000

  1986

  1,082,000

  1987

  2,626,000

  1988

  1,226,000

  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans to meet representatives of the Trades Union Congress to discuss strikes on London transport, British Rail and in the docks; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  My right hon. Friend has no such plans. The resolution of these disputes is a matter for the parties concerned.

  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many days were lost in industrial disputes(a) in the most recent 12 month period for which figures are available and (b) in 1978.

  Mr. Nicholls
  A total of 2,911,000 working days were lost through stoppages of work due to industrial disputes in the most recent 12-month period ending in May 1989. In 1978, a total of 9,405,000 working days were lost.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has recently met the chairman of the National Training Task Force to discuss the establishment of new small businesses; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met Brian Wolfson, chairman of the National Training Task Force, on Wednesday 12 July when development funding for the first training and enterprise councils was announced. These new, local, employer-led organisations will help establish a coherent network of support for new and small businesses by, among other things, building upon help provided by local enterprise agencies and others.

  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he plans to meet the chairman of British Venture Capital Association to discuss the development of small businesses; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  I have no immediate plans to meet the chairman of the BVCA in the near future, but I do have regular contact with the association.

  Mr. Carttiss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will report what the Government are doing to help small businesses; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  The Government's overall policy towards small businesses is to create a climate in which they can flourish and to tackle their unmet needs for professional advice and access to finance. The principal Government measures of particular help for small businesses include:

  The small firms service, which provides information and business counselling to new and established small firms and to those wishing to start a business. The SFS gives support to local enterprise agencies which also receive grants from the Government;

  The Rural Development Commission, which provides similar advice and technical services to small firms in rural areas;

  The enterprise initiative, launched by the DTI in January 1988, which offers access to specialised consultancy in a number of key business areas. particular emphasis is being given to single European market issues;

  The recently extended loan guarantee scheme, under which small firms can secure bank loans with the backing of substantial underwriting from the Department;

  The business expansion scheme which encourages equity investment in small firms by allowing tax relief on eligible investment;

  The enterprise allowance scheme which provides an allowance of £40 per week to previously unemployed people to make up for loss of benefit in their first year of self-employment; and

  A range of training programmes operated by the Training Agency which take account of new and established small firms' business training needs.

  The success of these measures is reflected in continued steady healthy growth of the small firms sector.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what role the training and enterprise councils will have in setting up and advising small business; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  Training and enterprise councils will be contractually responsible to the government within their areas for three programmes currently run by the Training Agency area offices—the enterprise allowance scheme, business growth training and small firms counseling—and they will work with local enterprise agencies and others to ensure a coherent network of support for small firms.

  Mr. Dickens
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many expressions of interest he has received in setting up training and enterprise councils; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what progress has been made in establishing training and enterprise councils; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Tracey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the number of expressions of interest he has received to set up training and enterprise councils.

  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received from employers on training and enterprise councils; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The National Training Task Force has now received 32 applications for training and enterprise council development funding. This is an excellent response. On 12 July my right hon. Friend announced the 19 applications which have so far been approved. These are listed as follows.

  List of training and enterprise council areas that have been approved for development funding as at 12 July

  South East:

  Essex

  Hampshire

  Hertfordshire

  Isle of Wight

  Milton Keynes

  South West:

  Devon and Cornwall

  Dorset

  West Midlands:

  Birmingham

  North West Midlands

  Walsall

  Yorkshire and Humberside:

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  Sheffield

  North West:

  Cumbria

  East Lancashire

  Oldham

  Rochdale

  South and East Cheshire

  Northern:

  Teesside

  Tyneside

  Wages Councils
  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proportion of employees in the clothing manufacturing industry are paid at the wages council minima.

  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proportion of employees in the licensed non-residential industry are paid at wages council minima.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proportion of employees in the retail food industry are paid at wages council minima.

  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proportion of employees in the retail food industry are paid at wages council minima.

  Mr. Nicholls
  No estimates are made of the proportion of workers paid on the wages council minimum in individual trades. Recent estimates for the wages council system as a whole suggest that a substantial proportion of workers—probably as many as two thirds are paid more than minimum.

  Mr. Lofthouse
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment he has made of the impact that the proposed abolition of wages councils will have on pay rates in Yorkshire and Humberside.

  Mr. Nicholls
  No such assessment has been made. However, the removal of wages councils minima would enable employers to offer, and workers to accept, jobs at rates which would previously have been unlawful. It is not possible to measure this greater flexibility on pay levels, but it is unlikely that there would be any general reduction in the earnings of workers in wages council trades.

  Industrial Action (Ballots)
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received about the need for a code of practice on industrial action balloting; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Various representations on the draft statutory code of practice were received and are now being considered. My right hon. Friend will, in due course, decide whether to proceed with the draft, and if so whether to modify it in the light of these representations.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many pre-strike ballots were carried out by trade unions in 1988–89; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Advisory, Concilliation and Arbitration Service is currently aware of some 490 ballots which took place between 1 January 1988 and 31 May 1989.

  Fraud Investigators
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how much money the employment fraud investigators saved the Exchequer in the year 1988–89; and if he will make a statement.
  161
  Mr. Lee
  The net benefit saved from this Department's fraud investigators' work during the year 1988–89 was £62·5 million.

  Tourism
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will discuss with the chairman of the British Tourist Authority the provision of training facilities for employees and employers in the tourist industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  I am keen to encourage improvements in training in the tourism industry, and the education and training unit, run jointly by the English tourist board and the British Tourist Authority, has made a most valuable contribution to that.

  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on his plans to encourage British tourism.

  Mr. Robert Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he intends announcing the results of his tourism review; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  I refer my hon. Friends to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 6 July to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Mr. Bevan) at column 278.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans to meet the chairman of the English tourist board to discuss the tourism review.

  Mr. Lee
  I frequently meet the chairman of the ETB to discuss a range of matters affecting tourism.

  Mr. Bevan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a further statement on the tourism review.

  Mr. Lee
  I have nothing to add to the answer given to my hon. Friend by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 6 July at column 278.

  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the role of regional tourist boards following the tourism review.

  Mr. Lee
  I expect the English tourist board to devolve many of its activities and direct substantially more of its funding to the regional tourist boards. This will enable the RTBs to increase their marketing activities and their direct involvement in encouraging the development of tourism locally.

  Mr. Gerald Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans to meet the chairmen of the regional tourism boards to discuss the tourism review; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  I hope to meet the chairmen of the regional tourist boards very shortly.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish in the Official Report, the total Government expenditure on the British Tourist Authority and each of the national tourist boards for each year from 1978 to the latest available year at current and constant 1988 prices.
  162
  Mr. Lee
  Responsibility for the Scottish, Wales and Northern Ireland tourist boards lies with their respective Secretaries of State. The figures requested for the British Tourist Authority and the English tourist board (including the payments of grants under section 4 of the Development of Tourism Act 1969, administered by the English tourist board) are:

  Current prices

  £ million

  BTA

  ETB

  Section 4 scheme

  1978–79

  11·0

  5·0

  1·3

  1979–80

  12·8

  6·1

  4·2

  1980–81

  14·2

  7·3

  4·2

  1981–82

  16·2

  8·7

  4·0

  1982–83

  18·1

  10·5

  4·5

  1983–84

  17·0

  8·6

  6·3

  1984–85

  17·3

  9·2

  8·4

  1985–86

  17·1

  8·8

  7·9

  1986–87

  20·4

  10·3

  9·5

  1987–88

  22·0

  11·3

  12·0

  1988–89

  23·7

  12·6

  13·2

  Constant 1988 prices

  £ million

  BTA

  ETB

  Section 4 scheme

  1978–79

  24·3

  11·0

  3·0

  1979–80

  24·7

  11·8

  8·1

  1980–81

  22·9

  11·8

  6·8

  1981–82

  23·4

  12·6

  5·8

  1982–83

  24·3

  14·1

  6·0

  1983–84

  21·7

  11·0

  8·1

  1984–85

  21·1

  11·2

  10·3

  1985–86

  19·8

  10·2

  9·1

  1986–87

  22·8

  11·5

  10·6

  1987–88

  23·4

  12·0

  12·8

  1988–89

  23·7

  12·6

  13·2

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish in the Official Report the total planned expenditure on the British Tourist Authority and each of the national tourist boards for 1989–90, 1990–91, and 1991–92, respectively.

  Mr. Lee
  Responsibility for the Scottish, Wales and Northern Ireland tourist boards lies with their respective Secretaries of State.

  In 1989–90, planned expenditure on grant-in-aid to the British Tourist Authority and to the English tourist board is £24·8 million and £13·2 million respectively. In addition, £10 million will be available to fulfil commitments made under the section 4 scheme prior to its suspension.

  Expenditure plans for following years will be determined under public expenditure survey arrangements in the normal way.

  TVEI
  Mr. Haselhurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the progress of the technical and vocational education initiative.

  Mr. Cope
  The technical and vocational education initiative is making excellent progress. TVEI is helping to prepare young people for working life by ensuring that their education is directly relevant to the world of work. All education authorities in Great Britain are now taking
  163
  part in TVEI: by September this year, some two thirds of them will have moved from the pilot phase to extending TVEI to all schools and colleges.

  Labour Costs
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the effect of changes in unit labour costs in manufacturing over the last year on employment.

  Mr. Lee
  Over the last year average earnings in manufacturing have risen by about 9¼ per cent., but the 5½ per cent. increase in productivity has kept the increase in unit wage costs over the period to May 1989 down to 3 per cent. In the year to May 1989, employees in employment in manufacturing fell by 37,000.

  There are many factors that affect employment over a short period of time and it is not possible to give an estimate of the effects of unit wage costs. However, if manufacturing in this country is to remain competitive it is vital that industry keeps unit wage costs under control.

  Disabled People (Legislation)
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has received the report recently published by the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation (RADAR), and the Southwark law project on the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  I have received the report and noted the contents. The conclusions reached in it are being considered in the internal review of services which the Department provides to support the employment and training of people with disabilities.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many inspections were carried out during the last financial year of employers' premises, to check that obligations under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944 were being met; and how many of these revealed infringements.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many inspections were carried out during the last financial year of employers' premises, to check that obligations under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944 were being met; and how many of these revealed infringements.

  Mr. Lee
  In the year from April 1988 to April 1989 quota enforcement officers carried out 2,050 inspections of employers records under the terms of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944. The number of inspections revealing infringements was 632. The inspections were targeted particularly on employers known not to hold a permit to recruit people not registered as disabled, and thus did not cover a representative cross section. The employers concerned undertook in future to comply fully with their obligations under the Act.

  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what aspects of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944 are being considered in his Department's internal review of employment assistance to disabled adults; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  The review is considering all aspects of my Department's services for people with disabilities which 164
  are provided under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944. These include the quota scheme, sheltered employment for people with severe disabilities, and the arrangements at national and local level for advising the Secretary of State on matters concerning the employment and training of people with disabilities. It is proposed to consult widely about the conclusions of the review.

  Minimum Wages
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many prosecutions for breaches of minimum wages legislation were undertaken in 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988 and 1989 to date; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The numbers of prosecutions for all offences under wages council legislation for the years requested are as follows:

  Number

  1985

  2

  1986

  3

  1987

  8

  1988

  11

  11989

  2

  1 To date.

  The policy of the wages inspectorate under all Governments has been to seek compliance with the law by advice and persuasion and to consider prosecution only where an offence is deliberate or repeated.

  Engineering
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the average hours of full-time workers in the engineering industry including overtime.

  Mr. Lee
  The latest available information, for April 1988, is published in table X2, part B of the 1988 new earnings survey report. A copy of the report is in the Library.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the average numbers of hours of work of full-time employees in the engineering industry in each year since 1980.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Estimates compiled from the new earnings survey are provided in the table. Data on a consistent industry classification basis are not available prior to 1982.

  Average total weekly hours1 Engineering industry2—Great Britain

  April

  Hours

  1982

  40·9

  1983

  41·1

  1984

  41·6

  1985

  41·8

  1986

  41·9

  1987

  41·9

  1988

  42·3

  1 Full time employees on adult rates of pay whose earnings in the survey week were not affected by absence. However, 1982 relates to males aged 21 and over and females aged 18 and over.

  2 Covers Standard Industrial Classification (1980) Classes 32 (Mechanical Engineering), 33 (Manufacture of Office Equipment and Data Processing Equipment), 34 (Electrical and Electronic Engineering) and 37 (Instrument Engineering).

  Dock Workers
  Mr. Janman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received about the port-by-port negotiations between dock workers and the port employers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has received any representations about the need for port-by-port negotiations between the dock workers and their employers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  My right hon. Friend has received no representations about port-by-port negotiations between former registered dock workers and their employers. Following the abolition of the restrictions of the dock labour scheme, employers and employees must decide what form of negotiations about the terms and conditions of 9,200 former registered dock workers meets the needs of the ports concerned.

  The Government note that terms and conditions of 30,000 other workers in scheme and non-scheme ports are the product of successful local negotiations between employers and employees, and that port employers have offered similar talks to former registered dock workers. The Government believe that the offer should be taken up, in the interests of the dock workers themselves and the ports on which their jobs depend.

  Labour Market
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he is taking to improve the labour market; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  We have taken positive steps to improve the labour market by developing an effective range of employment and training measures, improving industrial relations, promoting enterprise in small firms and self-employment and removing barriers to employment. These measures have made a major contribution to the massive improvement in the employment situation in the last three years and will be vigorously pursued in the future.

  Picketing
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans to amend the code on picketing; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  My right hon. Friend has no current plans to amend the statutory code of practice on picketing.

  Skill Shortages
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what measures he is taking to reduce skill shortages; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Government are continuing to encourage employers to define and tackle their own skill needs through the introduction of training and enterprise councils and business growth training. The Government are also helping young people and the unemployed to learn new skills through YTS and employment training.

  Enterprise Allowance
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment he has made of the extent to which the enterprise allowance scheme provides value for money in creating new jobs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  Both the IBBs efficiency unit and the National Audit Office have in recent reports endorsed the scheme as a value-for-money employment measure. The net cost per person who leaves the unemployed register is £1,846. This figure takes into account flow backs in the form of tax, national insurance and savings in benefit and the effects of deadweight and displacement, but excludes administration costs. Latest survey evidence shows that 65 per cent. of those who complete a full year on the scheme are still trading two years after the allowance has ended, and that for every 100 businesses continuing at this three year point, 114 additional jobs have been created.

  Mr. Bright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the progress of the enterprise allowance scheme.

  Mr. Nicholls
  A total of 446,000 people have started their own business under the enterprise allowance scheme since it began in 1982. Some 84,000 people are currently in receipt of the allowance.

  Social Charter
  Mr. Marland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement setting out his reasons for opposition to the proposed European social charter.

  Mr. Cope
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Butler) on Tuesday 20 June 1989 at column 120.

  Mr. Curry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what indications he received of the intentions of the French presidency to proceed with the social charter following the EC Employment Ministers meeting in Auxerre; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  I attended the informal meeting of EC Employment Ministers at Auxerre on 10 July and agreed that the United Kingdom would take part in the working group which the French presidency now intend to set up to consider a social charter. Our view remains that the provisional draft charter proposed by the European Commission is unnecessary and unacceptable and that it will do nothing to contribute to job creation which was agreed to be the top social priority at the European Council in Madrid last month. We will be making clear in our discussions during the French presidency the problems and disadvantages we see in the Commission's proposed charter. We will continue to stress the very important point agreed in Madrid that national legislation and voluntary agreements have a legitimate role in achieving the Community's social dimension, and not everything has to be the subject of directives from the European Community.

  ACAS
  Mr. Kirkhope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many industrial disputes have been referred to the Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service in the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Information on the number and types of conciliation cases dealt with by the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service is published in its annual report. In 1988 the service received a total of 1,163 requests for conciliation. In over 80 per cent. of the cases no industrial action took place. It is entirely for the parties concerned to decide whether they wish to seek the assistance of ACAS in settling disputes.

  Part-time Workers
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on action taken to improve the working conditions and employment protection of part-time workers in the past decade.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Government believe that the interests of all workers, including part-timers, are best served by their policy since 1979 of reducing barriers to economic efficiency.

  Industrial Training Boards
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment with which industrial training boards he has still to agree a levy for the financial year 1989–90.

  Mr. Nicholls
  My right hon. Friend has agreed proposals from six industry training boards to collect levy from their industries in the financial year 1989–90. No further levy proposals are expected for this period.

  Trade Union Immunities
  Mr. Day
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received seeking the restoration of trade union immunities as they existed prior to the passing of the Employment Act 1981; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Representations seeking the repeal of the measures taken to reform industrial relations and trade union law since 1979 are made to my right hon. Friend from time to time, from various sources. These reforms have, however, helped to correct imbalances of power between unions and employers, and unions and their own members, and contributed significantly to the important changes of attitude which have made the improvement in our industrial relations record possible.

  Hairdressing (Training)
  Sir John Hunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the present arrangements in respect of training schemes within the hairdressing industry.

  Mr. Cope
  The Government actively support structured training leading to vocational qualifications and welcomes the efforts made in the last few years by the hairdressing industry to improve its training arrangements. The 168
  industry, represented by the hairdressing training board, has developed a national scheme for new entrants to the industry and has recently received approval from the National Council for Vocational Qualifications for its new qualification in hairdressing.

  Tourism (Japan)
  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans to meet the chairman of the British Tourist Authority to discuss the promotion of the British tourism and leisure industry in Japan; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  I have recently returned from Japan where I led a delegation of senior representatives of the British tourism, travel, and retail industries including representatives of the BTA. The aim was to convince the Japanese of our interest in their market and to bring back practical advice to the British tourism industry on how to encourage more Japanese visitors to Britain. I am convinced that the Japanese market offers great potential and I will be considering with the chairman of the British Tourist Authority how best to carry forward the delegation's recommendations.

  Secondary Industrial Action
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans to meet the trade union commissioner to discuss secondary picketing and secondary action; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  My right hon. Friend has no such plans to meet the Commissioner for the Rights of Trade Union Members.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received seeking the repeal of current laws relating to secondary picketing and secondary action; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Representations on the proposals for changes to industrial relations law put forward in the Green Paper "Removing Barriers to Employment" are currently being considered. The proposal to make it unlawful to induce industrial action by workers of an employer not party to a trade dispute, except in the case of lawful picketing, was supported by a majority of those commenting on it.

  TUC
  Mr. Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans to meet the general secretary of the Trades Union Congress to discuss the current industrial relations situation.

  Mr. Nicholls
  My right hon. Friend has no current plans for such a meeting.

  Standards Programme
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the implementation procedures for the standards programmes launched by his Department on 22 June.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The publication "Standards significant to health and safety at work", launched by the Health and
  169
  Safety Executive on 22 June 1989, updates a similar publication first produced in 1983. It is a list, published for information, of those standards to which frequent reference is made by HSE in its advisory and enforcement work.

  Enterprise Agencies
  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many enterprise agencies are operating in the United Kingdom; how much they received from his Department in 1988; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  We know of 433 local enterprise agencies operating in the United Kingdom. Of these, 394 are approved under statutory provisions which allow for tax relief on donations to them. In 1988–89 just over £2·5 million was also paid out in grant aid by my Department to approved local enterprise agencies in England.

  Training Agencies
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what action his Department is taking to monitor the work of private training agencies contracted to work for his Department.

  Mr. Cope
  The Employment Department, through the Training Agency, has in place a comprehensive strategy for the monitoring and quality development of training delivered through contracts with other organisations.

  Employment training and YTS contractors are examined rigorously to establish whether they should become approved training organisations. Once approved, contractors continue to be visited regularly by Training Agency staff and training standards advisory service inspectors to review the performance and quality of training, and financial and health and safety arrangements. The Training Agency also carries out an annual review of all contracts to draw together all available information before deciding the size and scope of any future contracts.

  Training providers who contract to deliver seminars and workshops under business growth training are monitored by Training Agency staff against expenditure and performance; the quality of training is reviewed at periodic meetings with contractors, and by follow-up questioning of trainees.

  Fatal injuries3 to employees at work reported to HSE's factory and agricultural inspectorates5

  Health and Safety executive area

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986–871

  1987–8816

  South West

  8

  15

  16

  16

  12

  17

  12

  South

  11

  7

  11

  9

  11

  11

  14

  South East

  17

  17

  17

  19

  21

  14

  23

  Greater London

  29

  33

  32

  29

  34

  26

  32

  East Anglia

  8

  11

  13

  14

  16

  13

  10

  Northern Home Counties

  5

  9

  9

  14

  10

  10

  8

  East Midlands

  13

  14

  9

  8

  12

  11

  8

  West Midlands

  13

  16

  18

  11

  11

  7

  11

  Wales

  22

  23

  13

  23

  19

  21

  27

  Marches

  11

  11

  12

  11

  7

  6

  5

  North Midlands

  14

  16

  16

  11

  12

  8

  8

  South Yorkshire and Humberside

  11

  14

  15

  14

  13

  15

  11

  West and North Yorkshire

  19

  18

  21

  19

  17

  19

  11

  Greater Manchester

  13

  13

  11

  14

  14

  13

  10

  Merseyside

  9

  9

  11

  16

  16

  9

  12

  North West

  10

  13

  17

  7

  4

  8

  10

  North East

  18

  21

  9

  17

  15

  15

  11

  Health and Safety
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has any plans to extend the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  My right hon. Friend has no such plans. The Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 already applies to the control of virtually all workplace risks in Great Britain. It also applies to offshore installations and to certain other activities within territorial waters and designated areas of the continental shelf. The Act places duties on all people concerned with work, including employers, employees and the self-employed, to ensure the health and safety of people at work and of others who may be affected by working activities.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many accidents, fatalities and diseases at work reported to the Health and Safety Executive occurred in retail in each year since 1981.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The available information for the retail industry, based on reports to the local authorities and to the Health and Safety Executive, is as follows:

  Severity of injury

  Employment Status

  Year2

  Fatal

  Major

  Over three days

  Employees

  1986–87

  4

  851

  5,291

  11987–88

  2

  831

  6,000

  Self-employed

  1986–87

  1

  2

  6

  11987–88

  1

  5

  10

  Members of the public

  1986–87

  7

  499

  n/a

  11987–88

  4

  493

  n/a

  1 Provisional

  2 For the year commencing 1 April

  n/a Not available

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish a table showing accidents at work, fatalities at work, and diseases at work reported to the Health and Safety Executive in each year since 1980 by standard region.

  Mr. Nicholls
  This information is not held by standard region and could be provided in this form only at disproportionate cost. Available information broken down by Health and Safety Executive areas is as follows:
  171

  Health and Safety executive area

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1955

  1986–871

  1987–8816

  Scotland East

  19

  21

  29

  22

  18

  22

  15

  Scotland West

  28

  27

  12

  17

  13

  8

  18

  All injuries4 to employees at work reported to HSE factory and agricultural inspectorates5

  Health and Safety Executive Area

  1986–871

  1987–8846

  South West

  6,781

  6,486

  South

  6,472

  6,556

  South East

  5,889

  5,642

  Greater London

  13,918

  12,949

  East Anglia

  5,637

  6,064

  Northern Home Counties

  4,318

  4,409

  East Midlands

  4,862

  4,987

  West Midlands

  7,728

  7,536

  Wales

  8,539

  8,203

  Marches

  5,834

  5,725

  North Midlands

  8,645

  7,891

  South Yorksire and Humberside

  8,376

  8,104

  West and North Yorkshire

  9,596

  9,022

  Greater Manchester

  8,804

  8,461

  Merseyside

  9,086

  7,959

  North West

  6,561

  6,643

  North East

  11,082

  10,723

  Scotland East

  7,734

  8,518

  Scotland West

  7,132

  7,285

  1 Data for the year beginning 1 April.

  2 From 1981 to 1985 the figures include some injuries to the self employed and from 1981 to 1983 they may also include some injuries to members of the public.

  3 Fatalities to employees reported to HSE's Factory and Agricultural Inspectorates under, and as defined in, the Notification of Accidents and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations, 1980 for the years 1981 to 1985 and the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations, 1985 since 1 April 1986.

  4 Includes major injuries and over three day absences reported directly to enforcing authorities under RIDDOR.

  5 Figures reported to other enforcing authorities are not available by HSE area.

  6 Provisional.

  Ill-health notifications reported to HSE's Factory and Agricultural Inspectorates2

  Health and Safety Executive Area

  1986–871

  1987–8813

  South West

  23

  23

  South

  14

  12

  South East

  25

  15

  Greater London

  40

  15

  East Anglia

  5

  4

  Northern Home Counties

  13

  3

  East Midlands

  10

  8

  West Midlands

  29

  14

  Wales

  18

  9

  Marches

  9

  18

  North Midlands

  11

  9

  South Yorkshire and Humberside

  14

  14

  West and North Yorkshire

  12

  11

  Greater Manchester

  15

  10

  Merseyside

  12

  14

  North West

  11

  14

  North East

  16

  12

  Scotland East

  8

  4

  Scotland West

  5

  49

  1 Data for the year beginning 1 April.

  2 Figures reported to other enforcing authorities are not available by HSE area.

  3 Provisional.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will take steps to make it compulsory for accidents in shops to be reported to the Health and Safety Executive.
  172
  Mr. Nicholls
  The Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1985 already require that accidents which arise out of or in connection with, work activities covered by the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 are reported to the relevant enforcing authority. In the case of accidents in shops this is normally the local authority.

  Training Schemes
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has any plans to review his Department's schemes for the unemployed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  The Government's policies have produced a business climate in which nearly 3 million new jobs have been created over the last six years. As a result, there are now more people in work in this country than ever before in our history. My Department runs a wide range of programmes which have assisted unemployed people to secure those jobs and share in this new prosperity. These measures are kept under regular review to ensure that they continue successfully and cost effectively to help unemployed people back into work.

  French Employment Minister
  Dame Jill Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on his meeting with the French Employment Minister on 4 July in London; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Cope
  M. Soisson visited London on 4 July at the invitation of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. We held a constructive meeting covering a wide range of issues, in particular plans for the current French presidency of the European Commission.

  Co-operative Development Agency
  Mr. Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he will be announcing his plans for the future of the Co-operative Development Agency.

  Mr. Cope
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Maples) on 13 July at columns 581–82.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to develop and encourage the work currently undertaken by the Co-operative Development Agency.

  Mr. Cope
  The Co-operative Development Agency has done good work in supporting and advising co-operatives but much of this is now carried out by other support bodies. Consequently, as I announced in a reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Maples) on 13 July, the Government have decided not to extend the life of the CDA when the ceiling of grant available to support it is reached.

  The agency has also played a role in co-ordinating and representing the interests of the co-operative movement as

  173
  a whole. We believe that it is for co-operative organisations themselves to determine their future needs and arrangements in this respect.

  Restart
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many unemployed people have(a) been called for a restart interview, (b) attended a restart interview, (c) been referred to unemployment benefit office for failing to attend a restart interview, (d) been

  England

  Scotland

  Wales

  Great Britain

  (a) Called for a Restart interview

  2,506,409

  381,418

  177,809

  3,065,636

  (b) Attended a Restart interview

  1,822,031

  291,197

  136,479

  2,249,707

  (c) Referred to UBO for failing to attend a Restart interview

  277,948

  28,334

  19,265

  325,547

  (d) Been disallowed after referral to UBO

  21,075

  2,555

  1,757

  25,387

  (e) Called for a Restart follow-up interview

  261,335

  17,131

  23,140

  301,606

  (f) Attended a follow-up interview

  188,780

  12,463

  18,964

  220,207

  (g) Referred to UBO for failing to attend a follow-up interview

  23,113

  946

  1,656

  25,715

  (h) Been disallowed after referral to UBO

  not available separately (included in (d) above)

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how may unemployed people have been referred to the following outcourses as a result of their restart interviews, and, for each of the outcourses, how many people started or attended(a) a job, (b) a restart course, (c) employment training, (d) community programme, (e) new job training schemes, (f) a jobclub (g) enterprise allowance schemes, (h) voluntary work/voluntary projects programmes, (i) employment rehabilitation centres, (j) disablement rehabilitation option and (k) claimant adviser for the Training Agency in the year to March 1989 in (i) England, (ii) Scotland, (iii) Wales and (iv) Great Britain.

  Mr. Lee
  The information requested is provided in the table. We do not know how many of those interviewed ultimately end up in a job or other opportunity as a result of the restart interview.

  Restart counselling

  Numbers referred to:

  England

  Scotland

  Wales

  Great Britain

  Job

  185,405

  32,330

  17,525

  235,260

  Restart course

  56,403

  12,905

  6,829

  76,137

  Employment training

  237,256

  47,121

  21,134

  305,511

  Community programme

  25,054

  5,783

  2,802

  33,639

  New job training scheme

  98,480

  14,702

  7,869

  121,051

  Table 1 Visits to the United Kingdom by residents of Western Europe1

  Number of visits (thousands)

  Average number of nights' stay

  Average expenditure per visit at current prices (£)

  All tourists

  of which: business

  All tourists

  Business tourists

  All tourists

  Business tourists

  1978

  7,865

  1,566

  9·1

  4·5

  130·4

  152·1

  1979

  7,873

  1,646

  9·5

  4·2

  149·6

  172·4

  1980

  7,910

  1,784

  9·2

  4·8

  154·1

  185·8

  1981

  7,055

  1,650

  9·2

  4·0

  153·9

  182·5

  1982

  7,082

  1,634

  9·1

  4·4

  163·9

  203·1

  1983

  7,164

  1,712

  9·4

  4·1

  191·3

  217·3

  1984

  7,551

  1,925

  9·1

  4·1

  202·7

  219·8

  1985

  7,870

  2,035

  9·4

  4·3

  226·8

  251·7

  1986

  8,355

  2,244

  9·0

  4·3

  259·7

  291·8

  1987

  9,317

  2,473

  9·3

  4·0

  269·4

  303·1

  1988

  9,668

  2,889

  8·9

  4·3

  257·8

  299·4

  1 European Community plus Austria, Cyprus, Finland, Gibraltar, Iceland, Malta, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Yugoslavia.

  174
  disallowed, (e) been called for a restart follow-up interview, (f) attended a restart interview, (g) been referred to the unemployment benefit office for failing to attend a follow-up interview and (h) been disallowed after referral to the unemployment benefit office for the Training Agency in (i) England, (ii) Scotland, (iii) Wales and (iv) Great Britain in the year to March 1989.

  Mr. Lee
  The information requested is provided in the table:

  Numbers referred to:

  England

  Scotland

  Wales

  Great Britain

  Jobclub

  165,939

  34,506

  14,663

  215,108

  Enterprise allowance scheme

  78,832

  7,267

  5,417

  91,516

  Voluntary work/VPP

  9,263

  1,028

  1,100

  11,391

  E.R.C.

  1,790

  257

  189

  2,236

  D.R.O.

  57,204

  9,758

  4,266

  71,228

  Claimant adviser

  140,878

  20,424

  10,439

  171,741

  Western Europe (Visits)
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish in the Official Report (a) the number of visits to Great Britain from western Europe, (b) the number of visits from western Europe to Great Britain, giving details of (i) the number of business and tourist trips, (ii) the average number of nights' stay and (iii) average expenditure at current and constant 1988 prices for each year from 1978 to 1988 inclusive.

  Mr. Lee
  The available information relates to visits to and from the United Kingdom and is given in the following tables. Suitable price indices for the calculation of expenditure at constant prices are not available.
  175

  Table 2 Visits to Western Europe1 by residents of the United Kingdom

  Number of visits (thousands)

  Average number of nights' stay

  Average expenditure per visit at current prices (£)

  All tourists

  of which: business

  All tourists

  Business tourists

  All tourists

  Business tourists

  1978

  11,517

  1,802

  10·2

  5·4

  99·4

  107·3

  1979

  12,959

  2,037

  10·3

  5·9

  116·0

  122·4

  1980

  14,455

  2,158

  10·1

  5·6

  131·6

  137·7

  1981

  15,862

  2,147

  10·4

  5·3

  140·2

  151·9

  1982

  17,625

  2,190

  9·8

  5·3

  146·5

  165·8

  1983

  18,229

  2,328

  9·9

  4·9

  163·6

  187·0

  1984

  19,371

  2,533

  10·2

  5·0

  178·3

  202·2

  1985

  18,944

  2,566

  10·2

  5·1

  191·6

  237·1

  1986

  21,877

  2,596

  10·4

  5·2

  209·3

  242·8

  1987

  23,678

  2,898

  10·4

  5·3

  227·1

  266·4

  1988

  24,519

  3,187

  10·5

  5·1

  239·6

  263·1

  1 European Community plus Austria, Cyprus, Finland, Gibraltar, Iceland, Malta, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Yugoslavia.

  Domestic Trips
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish in the Official Report for each year from 1978 to the latest date available, the number of domestic trips undertaken by Great Britain residents, giving the average number of nights and expenditure at current and constant 1988 prices.

  Mr. Lee
  The following table gives the available information. Suitable official price indices for the calculation of expenditure at constant prices are not available.

  Domestic trips of one night or more by British residents

  Year

  Number of trips (thousands)

  Average number of nights per trip

  Average expenditure per trip at current prices (£)

  1978

  119,000

  4·5

  26·1

  1979

  118,000

  4·5

  32·2

  1980

  130,000

  4·3

  35·0

  1981

  126,000

  4·2

  36·5

  1982

  123,000

  4·2

  36·6

  1983

  131,000

  4·2

  40·8

  1984

  140,000

  4·1

  42·7

  1985

  126,000

  4·0

  50·2

  1986

  128,000

  4·0

  55·9

  1987

  132,000

  3·8

  51·3

  1988

  130,000

  4·0

  60·4

  Source: British Tourist Authority.

  Skills Training Agency
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his timetable for the privatisation of each skill centre.

  Mr. Cope
  An advertisement offering the Skills Training Agency for sale will be published later in the summer. Bids for all or part of STA will be invited. I expect that negotiations with potential purchasers will take place in the autumn, and that a sale will be concluded after Royal Assent to the Employment Bill.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans his Department has formulated to ensure that the quality and participation rate of training are safeguarded within the Skills Training Agency after privatisation.
  176
  Mr. Cope
  The customer will be the primary judge of training quality in the STA after privatisation. The normal monitoring will apply to programmes that they contract with the Government to provide.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps his Department is taking to ensure that all information required for collective bargaining purposes will be made available to he recognised trade unions in the Skills Training Agency.

  Mr. Cope
  The Department will disclose information required for collective bargaining purposes in accordance with their legal obligations. Since the announcement that the STA is to be offered for sale, there have been 10 meetings with the recognised trade unions, eight special information bulletins, and many letters responding to questions asked by the trade unions.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he plans to issue the sale memorandum for the skill centres.

  Mr. Cope
  The information memorandum will be ready for issue to prospective purchasers later in the summer.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list in the Official Report, all monies received by the Skills Training Agency from the Manpower Services Commission, Training Commission and Training Agency in each year since 1984; if he will detail the developments in skills training provision with reference to each specific allocation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  Moneys received by the Skills Training Agency from the MSC, Training Commission, Training Agency for each financial year since 1984 are as follows:

  £000's

  1984–85

  Training Opportunities Programme

  71,339

  Youth Training Scheme

  3,755

  Total

  75,094

  1985–86

  Old Job Training Scheme

  63,078

  Youth Training Scheme

  1,615

  Total

  64,693

  1986–87

  Old Job Training Scheme

  65,354

  177

  £000's

  Youth Training Scheme

  1,467

  Jobclub and Restart1

  862

  Total

  67,683

  1987–88

  Old Job Training Scheme

  58,472

  New Job Training Scheme

  1,883

  Youth Training Scheme

  1,364

  Jobclub and Restart1

  651

  Total

  62,370

  1988–89

  Old Job Training Scheme

  29,232

  Employment Training

  7,283

  New Job Training Scheme

  1,606

  Youth Training Scheme

  1,412

  Jobclub and Restart1

  340

  Total

  39,873

  1 Sponsored by the Employment Service.

  Rural Areas
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on his employment and training policies for rural areas.

  Mr. Lee
  Rural areas benefit from the full range of my Department's measures to reduce unemployment and promote training. We are conscious of the special needs of rural areas and these are taken into account in designing and delivering our programmes.

  Accidents (Deaths)
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people have been killed in accidents at work in the last 10 years; and what the figure was for the previous 10-year period.

  Mr. Nicholls
  In the 10 years ending March 1988, a total of 4,713 fatal injuries to employees were reported to the appropriate authorities. The corresponding figure for the previous 10 years was 7,297.

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

Motorway Driving
Lord Stoddart of Swindon Lord Stoddart of Swindon asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to take measures to enforce the rule that traffic on motorways must use the nearside lane except when overtaking.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, motorists should always use the nearside lane except when overtaking, but the enforcement of road traffic law is a matter for individual chief officers of police.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that I understand perfectly the difficulties of enforcement? However, is he also aware that some of our three-lane motorways have become two-lane motorways because of the failure and refusal of motorists—and indeed lorry drivers—to use the inside lane except when overtaking? Would it be possible to put messages on bridges, or signposts at the side of motorways reminding motorists and lorry drivers that they should use the inside lane except when overtaking? Is it the Government's policy to introduce into the driving test a test of motoring skills on motorways?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I have a great deal of sympathy with the noble Lord as regards the concern which he has expressed. There is nothing more infuriating than finding people hogging either the middle or outside lane.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: Do not say "hogging", my Lords!
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham might even be one of those who hogs it! I believe that it would be inadvisable to clutter up the motorways with notices depicting any one part of the Highway Code. I can assure the noble Lord that a considerable number of tests are carried out, not on motorways, but on high speed dual carriageways.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, the noble Earl refers to the Highway Code. Might it be useful to take another look at the appropriate paragraph of the Highway Code? Paragraph 165 states:
"You may, however, stay in the middle lane when there are slower vehicles in the left-hand lane but you should return to the left-hand lane when you have passed them".
The impression of some drivers is that that paragraph means that when they see vehicles even 100 yards ahead in the slower lane they can continue
688
in the middle lane. It would appear that it needs a little more amplification.
The noble Earl referred to the position of each chief police officer. I travel in particular on the M.1. What has happened to the police vehicles that used to remain on the raised policing points? One seldom sees them these days. Is it a decision solely of the chief police officers of the respective forces?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the deployment of the forces is under the control of the chief officer of the area. If he wishes to deploy more people on the motorways and he believes that that is the right deployment of his forces, he will do so. About 7 per cent. of all policemen are used on traffic duty.
On the first part of the noble Lord's question, I thought as he read out the paragraph of the Highway Code that it seemed eminently sensible. Part of the trouble is people's interpretation of it. They tend to think that the inside of the carriageway is for lorries and that the middle carriageway is for motor cars. That is not so. They ought to get into the inside lane as soon as possible.
Lord Strathcarron: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that when the motorway is crowded and a driver moves over to the nearside lane he is stuck there forever? He can never come out again. That is one of the reasons why the nearside lane is not more generally used.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, he is only stuck there because the other people in the middle lane are doing the same and are not moving over as he has into the nearside lane.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, does the Minister accept that some of us are very worried about the proposed widening of many motorways in order to accommodate congestion? Is not congestion often caused by the very practice that has been mentioned? My noble friend's Question is very much to the point. If we can reduce the need to widen motorways by proper use of existing lanes it would be a very valuable exercise.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, whether or not we widen the motorways, the principle remains. If people fulfil the requirements of motorway discipline many of the problems would be over, not least for those who travel at 70 miles per hour in the fast lane and encourage other people to overtake them—which they should not do—in the middle lane.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, would it be possible for chief contables throughout the country to be assisted in providing more controls on motorways? It is quite remarkable that when a police car appears everybody slows down to 70 miles per hour. They overtake in the proper way. A single police patrol car has a dramatic effect on people causing them to behave sensibly and obey the law.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord is perfectly right. The presence of a police car does much to encourage people to stay within the law. The

689
difficulty is that chief officers have to decide whether to deploy more people on traffic duty and therefore take them off normal policing or whether to keep more people on policing. I rather fancy that if the balance were tipped too much towards motorway policing the noble Lord might complain that there were not enough Bobbies on the street.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the middle lane hoggers are mostly to blame? They are scared to go in the fast lane. If they go in the slow lane they become trapped behind a heavy goods vehicle. Consequently there is the danger of accidents taking place because the person driving down the fast lane will overtake the person in the middle lane and go into the slow lane when it is empty. This criss-crossing on the motorway is most dangerous. Education against the middle-lane hoggers is required, and advertisements should be placed on bridges, as my noble friend suggests.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I was trying mentally to follow the noble Lord as he moved from one lane to another and back again. I am sure he is right.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his sympathetic response to my Question. Will he reconsider the idea of notices at the sides of motorways? These need not clutter up the motorway more than it is already cluttered. All that need be done is to attach signs to existing signs and to bridges. I am not asking for anything more than that. Will he also ask his friends in the Department of Transport whether they will consider a separate or additional driving test before people can use motorways?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I certainly take the point which the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, makes; I shall look into it. But to stick up notices, even if they are added to boards which are already there or to bridges, cannot do other, I suggest, than clutter up motorways. My fear is that if there is an argument for putting up those kinds of notices it will prove a precedent for putting up others, such as "Remember to stay at 70 mph". However, I shall look into the points which the noble Lord raises and I shall see that he receives a reply.

Non-Custodial Sentencing
2.42 p.m.
Lord Hylton Lord Hylton asked Her Majesty's Government:
What consideration they are giving to the possibility of reparation and restitution by convicted persons, both to society in general and to the victims of crime, as an alternative to custodial sentence; and when they expect to reach conclusions.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, reparation and restitution are already possible. When an offender has been convicted of an imprisonable offence, the courts may order him to perform community service, which is
690
one form of reparation to society. Courts can also order an offender to pay financial compensation to his victim.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that reply. What guidance has been given to the courts to encourage them to make the greatest possible use of the existing provisions for reparation and restitution, especially when dealing with non-violent offenders? Will Her Majesty's Government provide the necessary resources for the probation service and others who enforce those sentences?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, no circular has been sent out by the Home Office, but Part of the Green Paper was targeted at 17 to 20 year-olds. That was followed by an action plan which went to the probation service urging it, among other things, to talk to the courts as part of a wider strategy for reducing the use of custody for young adults.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, can the noble Earl tell the House what has happened to the imaginative and important pilot schemes based on the mediation/reparation idea and initiated by his department in four cities in the north of England? These were set up, as he will remember, in 1985. Will he tell the House whether the results have been assessed and if not why not? Does he agree that this mediation could make a tremendous contribution to the treatment and the way that offenders are dealt with in the community rather than in custody?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, as the noble Lord will know, it is part of the Government's philosophy to try to give sentences outside custody as opposed to custody where possible. The Home Office funded four experimental reparation schemes between 1985 and 1987 enabling the victim and the offender to meet on an entirely voluntary basis to discuss offences and if possible to arrange reparation. Those schemes were in Cumbria, Coventry, Leeds and Wolverhampton. The Green Paper Punishment: Custody in the Community sought views on the role of reparation and mediation in the criminal justice system. We hope to publish a report on our experimental schemes in the next few months. We shall consider future plans in the light of responses to that report.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, can the noble Earl give an indication of the extent to which the courts are using the powers they now have to order restitution or community service instead of imposing a sentence of imprisonment? Are these well established powers in fact being used by the courts?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, they are being used fairly effectively. Indeed, under the Criminal Justice Act 1988 the courts are required to give reasons if they do not make an order for compensation where that is necessary. Community service orders are carried out and an offender aged 16 or over who is convicted of an offence for which an adult could be sent to prison can have one of these orders placed upon him. The order is for a minimum of 40 hours work

691
and a maximum of 240. About 35,000 offenders each year receive community service orders.
Lord Carr of Hadley: My Lords, can my noble friend tell us whether there is any sign of much regional variation in the way in which these non-custodial powers are being used?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not have any figures to show variance within the regions. I have no doubt that they will not follow an exactly similar pattern.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, does the Minister agree that compensation and a non-custodial sentence do not necessarily, nor should they, run together? A person who has committed an offence should pay compensation as well as serve a sentence.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I tried to the follow the noble Baroness but I got left behind. Would she mind repeating her question?
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I am sorry if the Minister did not follow me. The Question seems to suggest that reparation and restitution are alternatives to conviction and custodial sentences. Surely, compensation, which subsequent questions seem to have brought in, is not an alternative. Compensation should be arranged even if the individual has to go to prison.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, of course, that varies. The courts can make compensation orders and the Criminal Justice Act 1988 requires them to give reasons if they do not do so in suitable cases. Over 100,000 are made each year, and in 1987 they totalled £19 million. So they are alternatives.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, are the courts careful to ensure that there should be no illusion that a criminal can buy his way out of crime? Will they examine these cases with great care?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it would be quite wrong if a criminal felt that he could buy his way out of punishment. The whole purpose of the provision is to encourage those who have committed criminal acts to repay the victims for some of the distress which they have caused. In some cases they cannot give back to the victim so they must give back to society.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, does the noble Earl accept the fact that non-custodial sentences are more likely to make the offender face up to his crime and his personal problems whereas prison may degrade him and drag him deeper into crime?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that largely depends upon the crime and the criminal. There are some cases where, without question, a custodial sentence is required. There are other occasions when the community and the criminal can best be served by a sentence being carried out outside prison.

Coniferous Afforestation: Wales
2.52 p.m.
Lord Moran Lord Moran asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in view of the Earl of Arran's statement on 8th May 1989 (Official Report col. 451) that coniferous afforestation can damage landscape and can contribute to soil erosion and acidification of rivers and lakes, and of the announcement by the Secretary of State for the Environment on 16th March 1988 (Official Report, Commons, col. 596) that approval would not normally be given for new plantings predominantly of conifers in the uplands of England, they will extend similar protection to the uplands of Wales.
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, I apologise for the length of the Answer. I cannot agree that a ban on conifer planting in the uplands of Wales would be helpful. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales said in another place on 23rd March 1988:
"The existing consultation arrangements, the effectiveness of which will be enhanced by the woodland grant scheme, will continue to balance the environmental and forestry planting objectives in the upland areas of Wales".
I can confirm that planting is only approved under the Forestry Commission's grant schemes after full consideration has been given to its likely impact on the environment, including those aspects referred to specifically by the noble Lord.
Lord Moran: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Is he aware that between 1980 and 1987 60 miles of rivers in Wales had to be downgraded from class 1 to class 3 because of the effects of acidification; many lakes have also been affected; and that the economic loss to fisheries in Wales as a result of acidification has been estimated by the Welsh Water Authority as between £1 million and £3 million with a potential loss of between £18 million and £24 million? In May the noble Earl, Lord Arran, told the House that conifer afforestation can contribute to acidification of rivers and lakes and increases its effects, notably the concentration in streams of toxic aluminium which kills the fish and may also be a hazard to human health. Therefore does the Minister agree that afforestation by conifers in the Welsh uplands ought now to be curtailed and that, in the light of the communique issued after the Paris summit, the Welsh Office should pay more attention to environmental factors than it has done hitherto?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me if I do not embark upon a discourse on the Paris summit. However, it is important that such afforestation schemes are each judged on their merits. They do not all necessarily generate the bad effects to which the noble Lord has referred. It is important that that should be done in close consultation with all concerned and, in particular, in accordance with the various guidelines issued by the Forestry Commission.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, nevertheless, is the Minister aware that in Wales there is disquiet about the future direction of forestry policy in the Principality? For example, is he aware that the Council for the Protection of Rural Wales calls for a forestry policy along the lines of that now in force in England? Can he give the Government's response to that request? Secondly, will the Government consider giving financial assistance to the Coed/Cymru scheme to preserve native woodlands which is at present nominally but not financially backed by the Forestry Commission?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I shall look into the latter point to which the noble Lord referred. As regards the wider question about forestry policy in Wales as compared with that in other parts of the United Kingdom, circumstances are very different in the Principality. Far greater areas of land are available there for the purpose and in many cases a different policy is therefore appropriate. It is important that the views of the Forestry Commission should be taken on the matter. It is the expert and it has published a number of documents in order to help those concerned.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, will it listen to Welshmen such as the noble Lord?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, yes. All the schemes to which I have referred and which were referred to in the original Question tabled by the noble Lord require planting consent in general terms. That is granted only after wide-ranging consultation.
Lord Eden of Winton: My Lords, in the light of the Answer which my noble friend gave as regards Wales, can he say what is the Government's policy towards encouraging the establishment of broadleaved hardwood plantations? If it is the intention that they wish to see the establishment of more native tree plantations in the United Kingdom, will he discuss the matter with his right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to ensure that proper incentives are provided for those forms of plantation which unlike coniferous plantations take several generations to mature?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, my noble friend is right to draw a distinction between the two types. In some parts of the country broadleaf planting is more appropriate than conifer planting. However, that does not apply in every area. For example, in some of the upland areas broadleaved trees do not grow satisfactorily. As regards the position of my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, my noble friend will know that there is now a move towards grant-aiding such schemes rather than providing them with the tax relief that they have received in the past and which some would say has been subject to some abuse.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, is the Minister aware that acidification mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Moran, does not come from the trees? It is collected by the trees from the outlets of some fossil fuels; for example, factories and coalmines. Is
694
he also aware that a hectare of conifers collects five tonnes of CO2 per year which would otherwise go up into the ozone layer and destroy it?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, as the noble Lord rightly indicates this is a complex technical matter. Certainly it is not the case that everyone agrees that the planting of trees contributes towards the acidification of rivers and other water areas. The matter is now being actively considered by the relevant experts, including the Welsh Water Authority and the Forestry Commission which are now conducting research into the matter.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that when the matter was raised in connection with an amendment to the Water Bill the noble Earl, Lord Arran, said that to limit coniferous planting in these areas was going too far? Will he also confirm that our total import bill for timber and timber products is £6 billion per annum? Will he also confirm that this country is the least afforested country in Europe, apart from Ireland, with 10 per cent. of the land taken up by forestry as against 28 per cent. in France and 30 per cent. in Germany? In those circumstances are the dangers mentioned in the Question grossly exaggerated?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I believe that afforestation policy, particularly in the Principality to which the Question applies, is best taken forward by means of the policy announced by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. Essentially it is one of considering each case on its merits.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, quite apart from the question of acidification and the dispute between the conifers and I he oaks, is not the greenhouse effect beneficially influenced by the plantation of trees which consume carbon dioxide and not monoxide, which is created by the greenhouse effect?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, my noble and learned friend's intervention simply indicates and confirms that there are two sides to every question. The scientific effect to which my noble and learned friend refers is correct, but so are some of the effects to which other noble Lords have also referred.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, does the Minister accept that a great many landowners and environmentalists, including myself, do not find that conifers constitute a blot on the landscape, especially if they are imaginatively planted so as to avoid monoculture? Will he also agree that conifers are probably the only species which in the end are economically profitable, apart from unusual hard woods such as cricket bat willows?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I think the answer to that is that it is undoubtedly right to plant conifers in some cases but not in every case. Broadleaved species, as my noble friend Lord Eden mentioned, are sometimes more appropriate and should be supported in those cases.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in my experience if you plant conifers, especially spruce, up to the side of a loch, the fish will go to the other side where conifers are not planted. The reason for that is the increase in acidity. As regards improving the landscape, certain aspects can be improved by conifer planting. However, it entirely depends on how they are planted and how rigid lines are overcome by allowing space within the fences for other more natural trees, such as birch, to soften the outline.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend speaks from great knowledge and experience of these matters. I am tempted to think that his initial observation suggests that fish prefer the broadleaved species.

Monopolies and Mergers Commission
3.2 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel asked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they now have to wind up the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Lord Young of Graffham): My Lords, none.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the Secretary of State. I understand that he is on the point of taking Trappist vows for various reasons beyond his power. Can I coax him into a further answer? When he finally throws in the towel, which we understand will be fairly soon, will he accept that problems will be left to his successor? Does he accept that there is a problem as to the credibility of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission after the beer report? That report took two years to complete and has been effectively cast aside by the noble Lord. Is that not rather a sad descent from the concept of the original monopolies commission as set up by my noble friend Lord Wilson of Rievaulx in 1948?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, on the robustness of his views. There is a director general of an organisation known as the TUC, which I suspect is known to the noble Lord. Of course it must be known to him as it is the paymaster of his party. The director general of that organisation wrote to me expressing views which seemed to me to be slightly different from those of the noble Lord, as he asked me to ignore the vast proportion of the MMC's report. There is also another organisation known as the Transport and General Workers' Union whose representatives came to see me. They also asked me to ignore the report entirely and I referred them to the noble Lord. Obviously they have not yet contacted him.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, will the noble Lord be kind enough to tell the House the name of the director general of the TUC?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, he has obviously been demoted. He is the general secretary.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the rules of the TUC specifically preclude it from making contributions to political parties?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, of course in talking of the TUC, I was referring collectively to all unions. I accept that.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that since the MMC was set up some 40 years ago, there have been 254 separate reports? Some of those were good and were enacted; some were partially enacted; and others were rejected by the government of the day. Is it not ridiculous to suppose that any government should accept verbatim a 501 page report costing £2 million, taking two years to complete by five people, four of whom have very little knowledge of the beer or brewing industry at all and one of whom put in a minority report? Surely that is typical of some of the work of the MMC and after 40 years perhaps we should look to see whether we have the best people serving on it.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I totally reject everything that my noble friend has said in this particular instance and I accept in full the conclusions which the MMC found in regard to the supply of beer. To look again and have consultations is the correct way to remedy defects of the market place. I believe time will show that what we have done is a very subtle way of ensuring that the market works. I remind all in your Lordships' House that the Director General of the Office of Fair Trading will look again at this matter in three years' time, together with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State at the Home Office and indeed the Lord President of the Council. They will be looking at ways in which licences are granted. I can accept that at times the noble Lord, Lord Williams, has to scrape to the very bottom of the barrel, albeit a beer barrel, to find ways to criticise the Government, and that is always understood in these difficult circumstances.
Lord Peston: My Lords, bearing in mind the Secretary of State's answer to his noble friend, with which I am much in sympathy, will he confirm that this is a superb report by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission? Will he also confirm that in the past a report of this quality has never been criticised in the way just suggested? Will he also take an early opportunity—perhaps at this very moment—to issue a statement of support for the excellent work of the commission in the hope that it will continue to do such excellent work even though occasionally it embarrasses others who may be quite friendly to the Secretary of State?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I do not believe that I have to say anything about the work of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. I have followed all its decisions on merger cases, unlike someone—Roy Hattersley by name—who was the

697
Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection. That brings back memories, does it not? He overturned a decision of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission in February 1977, which is something I have yet to do.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, following the great compliment paid by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, a moment ago, although it was right for my noble friend to say that he has no plans for winding up the commission now, I hope that he will not close his mind to the fact that it may well need to be amended and improved in many ways in the future in the light of modern circumstances.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I think that I should make one thing quite clear. The fact that the economy of the United Kingdom has come round so much during the past 10 years is because it is competitive. The guardian of that sense of competitiveness is the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. Let us never forget that.

Business of the House
3.8 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order 44 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be suspended until the Summer Recess—(Lord Belstead).
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Electricity Bill
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to acquaint the House that they, having been informed of the purport of the Electricity Bill, have consented to place their prerogatives and interests, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament, for the purpose of the Bill.
Read a third time.
Clause 4 [General duties of Secretary of State and Director]:
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 3, line 3, after ("on") insert—
("" to promote all activities connected with or associated with combined heat and power schemes;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, for the convenience of your Lordships Amendment No. 1 has been grouped with Amendments Nos. 3 and 13. The objective of Amendment No. 1 is to refer once again to combined heat and power, which has been raised on previous occasions. However, before moving into the purpose of Amendment No. 1, I should like to deal briefly with Amendments Nos. 3 and 13 which are purely drafting amendments.
Amendments Nos. 3 and 13 refer to combined heat and power but it would take people who have
698
a particular mastery of the English language to realise that that was the case in the Bill. For some reason the parliamentary draftsman on this occasion has adopted a particularly convoluted form of words. The purpose of Amendments Nos. 3 and 13 is to refer to the very simple words used in Section 19 of the Energy Act 1983 which refers to the combined production of heat and electricity. I hope very much that when we come to those amendments your Lordships will agree that we should refer to combined heat and power in terms which are comprehensible rather than in terms which are difficult to follow.
Amendment No. 1 is the substantive amendment. I need hardly remind your Lordships of the importance now being attached, on all sides, to the need to ensure that energy is used not only in an efficient manner but in an environmentally effective manner. It was only yesterday that the Energy Committee in another place issued a report dealing with the effect of energy in regard to the greenhouse problem and referring specifically to the need above all to concentrate on energy efficiency. We shall be coming back to the question of energy efficiency later, I have no doubt.
The purpose of this amendment is to emphasise the enormous contribution to energy efficiency and, above all, the environmentally positive impact on energy of combined heat and power. As mentioned at previous stages, the use of waste heat from power stations has been strongly developed in continental countries, including Scandinavia, but very little in Britain. We now have an urgent need to review the ways in which we produce and use energy as efficiently as possible but essentially in a way that is as environmentally satisfactory as possible. The use of waste heat from power stations is one way of achieving those objectives.
What many of us on all sides of the House regret about the present Bill is that the reference to combined heat and power, which was only accepted by the Government at a fairly late stage, has been introduced in a way which is much less positive than in the Energy Act 1983. The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the Secretary of State and the director will take positive steps to promote the development of combined heat and power so that the energy produced in power stations can be augmented by the useful utilisation of the waste heat. Instead of running the hot water through cooling towers and then back into the system we must make use of this hot water by piping it through surrounding buildings and providing a heating service.
This matter of making the most effective use of our energy resources in an environmentally acceptable manner is so important that I have not the slightest hesitation in coming back to it for the third time. We have an opportunity, even at this late stage of this major Bill, to make sure that we attach importance as a House and as a country to the best use of the energy that we produce and to recognising the environmental consequences of the misuse of energy and the fact that we produce more energy through electricity generation than is necessary for the needs of the time.
Therefore, I ask your Lordships to take particular note of this third opportunity during our lengthy deliberations on this Bill to introduce into it no more than is in the Energy Act 1983 which this Bill supersedes. We are not going beyond that. What we are saying is that this is an issue of such importance that it should figure in the early part of the Bill under the duties of the Secretary of State and the director. I hope very much that the noble Baroness, when she responds on behalf of the Government, will agree that at the very least the promotion of combined heat and power schemes in present circumstances, as recently emphasised at the summit meeting—to mention only one instance when this issue has been raised—should be accepted. I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, at this late stage of the Bill I do not propose to detain the House for very long but I should like to cross one or two "t"s and dot one or two "i"s concerning what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. It is to the advantage of every one of us, wherever we live, whatever our labour, whether in industry, commerce or the professions, that we should have the cheapest heating available. The object of privatisation, we have been told not once but many times, is to bear down on prices. I have never liked the phrase "bear down". The gracious Speech referred to policies designed to "bear down" on inflation. And look what happened! We have had reference from my noble friends on the Front Bench, who must be as weary of this Bill as we are, to the fact that they will bear down on prices. If that is one of the objects of the exercise, surely combined heat and power is one way of achieving it.
I support wholeheartedly the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, in pressing for this matter to be put at the forefront of the Bill. I have little doubt that if it were done it would find considerable support in another place. I do not think the Government would have great difficulty in persuading their supporters to agree.
We are told that more efficient power and electricity generation will derive from the Bill thanks to competition. That must mean that there will be less waste. There would be less waste still if we had combined heat and power. It is very simple. As the noble Lord Lord Ezra, said, combined heat and power is environmentally beneficial. We are all environmentalists now. The point is: who is greener than the rest? We are all green now. Some of us are very green indeed, likewise our knowledge of electricity. But let that pass! We are all green, and this is a green consideration.
Combined heat and power is one of several ways of increasing the efficiency of electricity generation. That is all I have to say. It is all that needs to be said, but others will say it much better than I.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, there are grave suspicions as to whether the Government are serious about their new green image. One way they could expel those doubts would be to accept this amendment, which is extremely important in the context of many green issues.
700
As we have already heard, in the first place, if heat from power stations is used more efficiently, you will (a) need fewer power stations and (b) you will need to burn less fossil fuel. If that is so, the injury to the ozone layer and the heating-up of the atmosphere will be that much less. In green terms that is one of the best ways of ensuring that the Government can appear to be green whether or not they are.
So I sincerely hope that the noble Baroness will consider this amendment very seriously indeed. It may very well be argued that, as the industry is being privatised, if combined heat and power is so good and if it so increases efficiency, market forces will naturally become involved in combined heat and power projects. But that is not so. Under normal circumstances that may very well be the case, but there is another element to be considered.
There needs to be co-operation between the providers of power and the local authorities. Through combined heat and power you need to get the waste heat into people's homes and into factories. Therefore you need the co-operation of local authorities because highways have to be dug up in order to provide the links between houses or factories. It may very well be that the schemes could start off with local authority housing being the first to be connected to the national or the local heat grid.
That is why this amendment is so important and why I believe that the Government should accept it. As I say, it is necessary that there be co-operation between various authorities. The Select Committee on Energy in another place produced an admirable report on combined heat and power. It showed very clearly in print and with no dubiety at all, that combined heat and power would not only be beneficial in relation to conservation or energy, but it would also be beneficial to people by reducing the price of the heat. That is another reason why, if the Government want to reduce inflation, they should be considering this amendment very seriously and considering accepting it in its entirety.
In conclusion, the noble Baroness will be aware of the Atkins Report and the lead schemes. In her reply perhaps she will say exactly how those schemes are getting on. Can the Minister also confirm that the Atkins Report agrees that combined heat and power schemes are viable in their own right? Nevertheless, can she also endorse what I have said; namely, that it needs the co-operation not only of the energy producers but of other authorities as well?
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I admit that I am not all that optimistic about the prospect of my noble friend accepting this amendment. That is not to say that I do not think that it should be included in the Bill. I can see very few possible arguments against its inclusion. There is fairly general and widespread support for the sentiments that underlie this amendment. I suspect that the Government will say two things: first, that the amendment is unnecessary and that it will be implemented in any case. If it is unecessary there are other sections of the Bill that I have described as legislative garbage, which could well be omitted thereby leaving space for this modest contribution.

701
Secondly, I suspect that there is also the argument that the Government view this amendment, coming as it does from sources outside themselves, as somehow impingeing on the integrity of their own scheme. I believe that that reflection leads one to think that that is not a great tribute to the wisdom, strength or sense of the Government's scheme. I fear that what concerns them is that a very minor but sensible amendment such as this, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, will somehow place a burden on newcomers to the industry who as a result will find themselves less competitive.
It adds to my suspicion that in this Bill the Government have had their priorities wrong. However, so firmly are they committed to the aim of competition that again and again they have tended to lose sight of matters that are equally important; namely, security and safety.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, mentioned bearing down in electricity prices. I wonder whether in the past couple of years, when fuel prices have actually been falling, we have been witnessing a certain amount of bearing up on those same prices. I ask why in this Bill the Government are taking a line that is less positive than the Energy Act 1983? Can the Government explain that?
Each time I travel home from the House by train—when I am allowed to do so both by management and unions—I pass Didcot power station. At the base of that station one sees an enormous pile of black coal. Suspended above the cooling towers there is an enormous white cloud of steam which is simply heating the sky and inducing all kinds of undesirable effects elsewhere. By making clear that we want combined heat and power we shall be encouraging everybody to double the fuel efficiency of power-generating plants.
The co-operation of local authorities and the importance of domestic heating have already been touched on. I simply add the case for using this waste of heat in industrial applications. I cite the example of Bulmer's cider factory at Hereford which both generates electricity, some of which goes into the grid, and uses the waste heat and steam in its cidermaking process. So there is a big industrial application. Mention was made by an earlier speaker of newcomers to industry or to electricity generation. The example I have just cited is surely the kind of operation that the newcomers should be headed straight into.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, I declare an interest as the new president of the Combined Heat and Power Association. I agree with every word that has been said so far by every noble Lord. I hope that my noble friend has read the very excellent sixth report from the Energy Committee which is Tory dominated. I wish to draw her attention to just one small passage in particular in paragraph 128. It states:
"Estimates of the feasible savings in CO2 production up to the year 2020 due to CHP vary widely. Dr. Ken Currie suggests that savings could be 9·5 million tonnes per annum".
For that reason alone I hope that my noble friend is able to take on board this very modest amendment.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, I simply cannot understand why the Government oppose this amendment or others on the same lines. It does not interfere with market forces. All it does is try to encourage them. They must know as well as I do the difficulties of putting a CHP scheme into operation if it is more than an industrial one. The roads must be dug up and the heat mains must be laid. There is a considerable time to wait before a project is viable. Any encouragement—that is the word I would have used—that can be given by the Government surely ought to be given.
We now have an opportunity with CHP which was not easily there before. A difficulty arises with a large city. The power station may be some distance away and the mains are expensive to lay. Therefore a long time passes before the scheme can be made viable. However, it is probable that in the future we shall have many smaller power stations, probably running on natural gas turbines. With such a set-up, the heat going out of the turbine can be taken, with no loss of energy or electrical generation. There is a slight loss when using steam because the steam must be condensed at a higher temperature. But with likely new power stations heat will just be thrown away. Surely the Government realise that in any such scheme many different authorities are involved. The director must overcome the difficulties and obstacles which may be laid before the commercial exploitation of CHP. It is nothing to do with trying to override market forces. It is helping market forces. It is time that the Government gave us a proper explanation of why they do not support CHP if that is the case.
3.30 p.m.
Viscount Torrington: My Lords, being, it would appear, almost a sole voice in rising to oppose the amendment I do not in any way question the desirability of CHP as a concept. It is extremely elegant but it is seldom economical. I lived in Pimlico very close to a post-war housing estate called Churchill Gardens, which had one of the first CHP schemes in this country. I understand that it was not the ultimate closure of Battersea power station that brought the CHP scheme to an end but something which happened rather earlier. I do not know what it was but it is symptomatic of the problem that CHP is seldom economic.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene and declare an interest. I happen to be chairman of a company which is providing that heating now. We were asked to do it simply because Battersea power station closed down. To my certain knowledge there was no intention to close down the scheme. The power station itself was to close and some other way had to be found to provide the heat.
Viscount Torrington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I was under the impression, obviously wrongly, that the CHP scheme closed before the power station.

703
In thinking about the future CHP schemes it always seems to me that power stations and high density housing do not on the whole go very well together. I accept what the noble Viscount said about possible future generation through rather smaller schemes. However, the idea of a new nuclear power station alongside high density housing is unattractive.
The purpose of privatising electricity is to make the industry profit conscious. One cannot force the board of directors of a company to take deliberately uneconomic decisions unless one is prepared to provide considerable subsidies to create quasi-economic conditions. I question whether that is desirable today. By the same token, no board of directors of a privatised company will turn down the opportunity to go into a CHP scheme if it can be seen to be potentially profitable. Thus, where CHP is based on sound economic conditions, it will in all probability be developed.
Unless the House wishes to impose an obligation on the industry to invest in activities which have no clear economic justification, I would suggest and recommend that the amendment should be rejected. At the same time I see, as it were, the sense in retaining an advisory element. As the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, suggested, perhaps such advice is more correctly directed to local authorities. The Bill is about privatising electricity. It is not the purpose of the Bill to enshrine advice which can be properly obtained elsewhere.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I shall be a second voice against the amendment. I do not think it is necessary and there may be much more in the wording than at first sight appears. I would go along with the statement of the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, that there should be encouragement of CHP. I undertand that, but as I read the amendment, it does not simply suggest encouragement; it suggests positive financial decisions and obliges people to carry out such activities whether or not they are satisfactory. For that reason I do not like the amendment.
I confirm what the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said about the Churchill Gardens estate in Pimlico. I was a member of the London Electricity Board at the time the power station was kept operating for no other reason than to keep that one estate supplied. That was uneconomic and eventually had to stop. That is not the only estate on which Westminster Council has tried to combine heat and power. It was also built into the Lisson Grove estate. It proved to be a failure there. All the waste products of the estate were incinerated on site. People did not like the nuisance and the occasional smell, which, when the wind was in a certain direction, definitely came back.
The noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, said that such a scheme would not be practical in a large city. There is a marvellous scheme in Edmonton which is successful but was enormously expensive to build. Its production of heat may be very good and it is able to put some power into the national grid but the people who live locally have lorries constantly
704
trundling up there—a large number of London boroughs share this facility—and therefore it is unsatisfactory from that point of view. The amendment refers to promoting all activities. It is not selective and does not say that consideration should be given to what will be good and what will be harmful. It is a general amendment and promotes everything.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, mentioned "positive steps". I do not know what the word "positive" means here but I think it might have financial implications if one compares it with other areas. I think in particular about positive sex discrimination which is constantly talked about in the committees on which I have been sitting at the United Nations. In that respect there are certainly implications beyond mere suggestion. However, the concept is without doubt right. Everyone would like to see the waste energy from power stations being used. In Iceland I was quite fascinated to see heat from volcanoes being harnessed for cooking and for heating people's homes. That was a most marvellous environmental scheme.
We all want to see the best use of energy but the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, went on to say that we do not want to see the generation of more electricity than is necessary. That was a strange remark because the amount of electricity that is necessary is extremely difficult to quantify. There is never any way of knowing from where a sudden call for more power will come. At present in London, with this heat, there is a great demand for electricity for air conditioning. Yet, if we had a normal summer the demand would be nothing like as great. Indeed, we are having an exceptionally hot summer which is creating a very heavy demand.
Further, if overnight we had a torrential storm and freezing conditions set in, again there would be a sudden demand for electricity. The peaks and troughs of demand for electricity are never possible to quantify. Every year one works out what one will need in terms of loading; but one never matches it exactly, because it always goes one way or the other by the end of the year. Moreover, I am talking about just one area board, so that factor must be multiplied all over the country.
As I said, I found the noble Lord's remark a strange one. I think it must always be necessary to have the capacity to generate more elecricity than is required.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, perhaps I may mention to the noble Baroness that the object—
Noble Lords: Order!
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord in the flow of his remarks, but as we are now on Third Reading it is only correct for speakers to speak once.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I am sorry that I am slightly lost in the technicalities of the matter. However, perhaps it was the case that the noble Lord should have asked the leave of the House before he spoke.

705
However, the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, mentioned the number of highways which would need to be dug up. Again, that is no small problem in terms of the environment. Many matters have been brought out in this debate. I went to see the decontamination procedures used in the electricity plant in Hamburg. The amount of waste product left after decontamination was unbelieveably large. We asked, as regards a power supply for the size of London, what would we ever do with the waste products. We were told that the Swedes come and take the gypsum away and apparently make it into some form of building material.
We then asked the Hamburg people, "What do you actually get for that?" They said, "Oh, no, we don't get; we have to pay out quite a large sum to the Swedes to take it away". Therefore to shackle the industry which may be taking on this enterprise, and which may well undertake to develop combined heat and power, with government decisions or promotion as an absolute duty and not allow it to consider all aspects of the matter would be wrong. There is a need for the people who would be undertaking this as a private enterprise to be able to assess the good schemes together with other schemes and thereby work out those that are the most suitable environmentally—which are the ones we should all like to see used. I do not think that this blanket amendment is the answer.
Lord Peston: My Lords, in speaking to this amendment, I suppose that the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, is right in his view that we are all green now. I regret to say that I think I still remain a rather pale shade of pink. However, that is by the way. I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, or my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel need apologise for bringing the matter back to your Lordships. This is a minor matter, but it is also a serious one.
During the passage of the Bill we have taken the opportunity to raise certain broad matters connected with the electricity industry. In my view, this is one which is worth raising. It seems to me that, under the three "Es", as it were, of engineering, economics and the environment, the amendment, and the thinking that lies behind it, score positively on all three counts. From an engineering point of view it is a sensible action to take. It makes economic sense at least to ask about the economics of not wasting so much of the input relative to the output. Of course, there is no argument whatsoever that what is proposed is environmentally undesirable and even the two noble Lords who are not happy about the amendment have not suggested that for one moment. Indeed, quite the contrary is the case: it is environmentally desirable.
As the amendment scored positively in respect of the three criteria which are relevant here I had hoped that the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, would rise at the beginning of the debate to say that she would accept the amendment. But, I suppose that I must he as gloomy as the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, and deduce from her silence that she may not do so.
706
The crux of the matter, apart from the points which have already been made, is, first, that we are discussing here the general duties of the Secretary of State and of the director general. Therefore it is quite appropriate to put this kind of matter under their general duties. Secondly, the word in the amendment is "promote". I am bound to say that I do not read that word as meaning to provide money for, or instruct, or say that you must do such things. The word "promote" means promote; in other words, to encourage this development and to ask occasionally, especially of the director general, why it is not being developed.
The industry in private hands may answer—as I think the noble Viscount, Lord Torrington, has mentioned—that it is not being developed because it is uneconomic and therefore if makes no sense to it to do so. However, it is still perfectly reasonable for the provision to be in the Bill. Moreover, it is especially reasonable in terms of these general duties and because in other parts of the Bill such words are already included.
In supporting the amendment I also hope that the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Stoddart of Swindon and those made by the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, are accepted; namely that we are not trying here to supplant market forces. All of us would like to achieve this kind of development with market forces. Indeed, it makes life much easier, if the privatised industry simply does what is right. However, one's concern is that that does not always happen. As my noble friend Lord Stoddart pointed out, there are good reasons for supposing that that will not happen because of the complexity of the inter-relationship between the private and public sectors. That is why this is such an excellent amendment. I do not think that it is threatening to the concept of privatisation; it is also not threatening to any of those who believe very strongly in the doctrine of the market mechanism.
En passant I must say that I simply do not understand how sex discrimination came into the discussion on this amendment. I must confess that I became a little lost at that point. If there is a sex discrimination angle to the issue, then of course I shall support the amendment even more strongly because of my opposition to sex discrimination. Perhaps, again, the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper—if she managed to derive anything from the argument —will enlighten us on the matter in her reply.
It seems to me that the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, put his finger on the key point in the matter. He referred to the 1983 Energy Act. We certainly do not want to weaken anything in connection with that legislation. He said that the Bill gives us an opportunity. It is later, on the last day of this century, that we must grasp the opportunity and I very much hope that the Government will do so.
3.45 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, I have considered these amendments most seriously. I hope that in responding I may follow the example of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and deal first with

707
Amendments Nos. 3 and 13 and then return to what is, I believe, the main amendment.
As regards the legal drafting point raised by Amendment No. 3, there are three separate aspects of the noble Lord's amendment. The first is to replace the phrase, "in association with electricity", with the phrase;
"in combination with electricity, or incidentally from its generation".
I appreciate that those words are used in the Energy Act 1983 and that they probably mean much the same as "in association with". But, as no doubt my noble friend Lord Peyton would agree, why use nine words to describe a process when three will do? More important, the proposed new wording would conflict with other references to combined heat and power in the Bill, notably in new Schedule 13 and in Schedule 16.
The second aspect is to leave out the words;
"and steam produced from and air and water heated by such heat".
The point here is that a reference to heat in the abstract is not enough, since the heat is always supplied in the form of hot air or hot water. Moreover, it should be borne in mind that Section 11 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 gives local authorities power to lay heat pipes in streets and uses the same wording as we have provided in the Bill.
If we take out the reference to,
"steam produced from and air and water heated by such heat",
in Clause 11, it may be thought that the powers which can be conferred on licence holders to lay heat pipes in streets are in some way different from the powers which local authorities already have. I am sure that that is something which is not intended.
The third aspect is to add the qualification that the heat must be for heating buildings or for other useful purposes. Again, I appreciate that this wording is in the Energy Act 1983. It was probably appropriate when describing the duties of electricity boards, but here the Bill is referring to works powers which can be conferred on licence holders by their licence. The effect of the amendment would be that works powers could be conferred by a licence only if the heat were for the heating of buildings or for other useful purposes. It would probably be relatively easy to decide whether heat was being used for the heating of buildings but the problems come when a decision has to be taken on whether a purpose is a useful one or not. Who decides? One person may think that a particular purpose is useful; another person might think that the purpose is useless. That aspect of the amendment seems to give rise to some recipe for confusion and uncertainty.
Despite being lawyer, I always sympathise with the desire to simplify the wording of proposals. Nevertheless, here, for reasons of consistency within the Bill and other applicable legislation, as well as the need for absolute clarity, I cannot accept the amendment nor Amendment No. 13. I should point out that with Amendment No. 13 the movers have lost the concept of heat being produced incidentally from the generation of electricity. It could be argued that in some processes the heat is not actually
708
produced in combination with the electricity but is produced incidentally from its generation. For example, operationally, it may be necessary to provide a constant supply of heat but only an intermittent supply of electricity. Indeed, the opposite could also be the case. As I have already said, we think that the words "in assocation with" are the best way to describe the various processes that are involved.
I am sorry to have been rather lengthy in explaining this matter but it is always difficult to say something that can appear clear when written down.
I return to Amendment No. 1, which is the important amendment. We believe that combined heat and power has an important contribution to make to increased energy efficiency and environmental improvement. As the noble Lord said when he introduced the amendment, we have discussed the point on previous occasions. However, I should repeat the general proposition that our privatisation proposals are expressly designed to encourage competition and to allow fair access to the market. I believe that there is general agreement on that point.
Because we recognise the case made by combined heat and power supporters, we have specifically provided in Clause 11(3) equal rights of access to public undertakers; for example, the powers to break streets and lay cables. More significantly—this has not been mentioned a great deal in the course of our discussions today—we have amended the Bill in order to acknowledge directly the important role that CHP has to play. As a result of amendments introduced in your Lordships' House, it is now a part of the director's general functions to keep under review in particular all activities connected with the supply of combined heat and power. That concession, now contained in Clause 48, was introduced and welcomed on Report.
However, the amendment requires that in addition to keeping CHP activities under review the director and the Secretary of State should also have to promote such activities. A duty to promote, in the particular context of CHP, leads immediately into the grey and unsatisfactory area of government subsidies or other support for schemes which are not commercial. The concern applies whether we are seeking to "promote", "encourage", "support" or however else the noble Lord cares to describe such a duty. The very fact of a legislative duty means that CHP would be treated more favourably than if left to market forces alone. I believe that that is why my noble friend Lady Gardner introduced the question of sex discrimination. It was not applicable to the amendment but merely to the use of the word "promote" and the concept of positive discrimination.
I believe that CHP schemes once they are up and running, can prove themselves and that they will have a competitive edge over other forms of generation because of the economy factor which has been referred to. Everyone who has spoken believes that to be so—that once up and running the schemes can stand alone. I am therefore at a loss to understand why a subsidy should be thought necessary.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, will the noble Baroness give way? It has been made clear from all sides of the House that there is no question of subsidies being contained within the amendment. It is unfortunate that she is trying to smear the amendment by saying things about it which are untrue.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am by no means trying to smear the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, well knows that I am a great supporter of CHP. All that I have said so far goes to prove that we have made every effort to meet the arguments that have been raised. I am now going on to show how the Government support the various schemes and the concept of combined heat and power.
I did say that this was a grey area. While we are opposed to subsidising uneconomic CHP schemes, I am not saying that every scheme would be uneconomic. However, it is possible that that is how the provision would be interpreted. We are, and have been, active in providing proper help and support to bring CHP schemes to the market place. As I said, we are all agreed that once up and running they are economic in their own right and should therefore not need subsidy. I believe that we are in agreement on that point.
The Department of Energy, through the Energy Efficiency Office, has funded an extensive programme to seek to establish the potential for CHP, both on a city-wide and a local basis. We have supported and funded schemes at the demonstration stages. Ministers have taken every opportunity to spread the message. A wide range of CHP projects has benefited from the support and there is no reason to suggest that such support and encouragement will not continue.
References have been made to the wording of the 1983 Act and why we do not continue the "adopt and support" phrase contained in that Act. The answer is that the duty placed on electricity boards to adopt and support economic CHP schemes in Section 19 of the Energy Act 1983 was framed in very different circumstances from those of the privatised industry. The 1983 Act was seeking to create new market opportunities within an industry which was still totally dominated by the CEGB and its close relationship with the area boards. Given the absence of effective competition and the monopoly position enjoyed by the CEGB, it was felt necessary to place the boards under a direct duty to consider proposals for that important and energy-efficient alternative source of generation. It was also felt necessary, again to counter-balance the dominance of the CEGB, to require boards to adopt and to support all such viable schemes.
Our privatisation proposals are designed to overcome the obstacles to CHP development at source; therefore, we do not need to repeat the 1983 Act. In view of the interest shown in the Government's "green" image, perhaps I might say that, as we all know, "green" has more than one meaning. It may be a bit green of the Opposition not to recognise that combined heat and power is already supported. In the environmental sense, we believe that the Government most certainly are green.
710
I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, that we understand that there are about two gigawatts of existing industrial CHP schemes. The independent projects that have already been notified to the department as a result of the privatisation proposals envisage a further two gigawatts of industrial CHP. This means a doubling, so it is clear that industrial CHP is economic and is going ahead in the way in which we hope all CHP schemes will do.
On the industrial and commercial front, the Energy Efficiency Office has been active in supporting and promoting CHP and novel applications for CHP under its energy efficiency demonstration scheme. To date, 25 projects have been supported. In addition we have undertaken extensive research into the potential for CHP, and reports on the market potential for CHP in public, commercial and domestic buildings and in industry have been published during the past year.
On the subject of reports, the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, raised a question about the Atkins Report. As your Lordships will know, the Atkins Report recommended that C'HP could be economic in the long term. The Government therefore provided £0·75 million for lead city studies in Leicester, Belfast and Edinburgh. These studies showed that the Belfast and Edinburgh schemes were not attractive enough for further development. However, the Leicester scheme is progressing through Leicester Energy Ltd. which at the moment is considering how to proceed.
In short, in relation to Amendment No. 1, we offer support and funding at the research and demonstration stages. In the Bill we are removing all the legislative barriers to the further development of CHP and our privatisation proposals in general provide an unparalleled opportunity for CHP operators to enter the market. In addition, in the Bill we have added the specific duty to review CHP activities. I believe that this adds up to the sort of support, promotion, encouragement—say what you will—that the noble Lord seeks in moving the amendment. For that reason, I hope he will think that it is not necessary to pursue the amendment.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, as one who has been very keen in the women's movements, can she tell me where I can find the reference to sex discrimination? It has completely confused me. I have searched the amendments and see no reference at all to it. The Minister referred to it and I am genuinely asking about it. I do not understand what the reference was.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am sorry for the reference; it clearly has no application at all to the amendment; it was used only as an analogy.
4 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I am much indebted to the noble Baroness for the considered reply which she gave to the amendment. However, before I proceed I wish to ask about the procedures of the House during Third Reading. I am clear that no noble Lord, apart from the one introducing an amendment, can

711
speak more than once. But, apart from that, I thought that the normal rules of procedure applied. I had undertood that if a noble Lord wished to intervene on something that another noble Lord has said, subject to the agreement of that noble Lord—which in the case of the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, I had—that noble Lord could speak. I am not at all clear why I was prevented from making the very brief comment which I had intended.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. I apologise to him; he is absolutely correct that at Third Reading he is entitled—as are any of your Lordships—to seek clarification during the course of the remarks of any other noble Lord. He is correct when he makes the point that he will have spoken twice when he winds up the debate on the amendment which he has initiated. One is not allowed to speak twice when one is not seeking clarification and not winding up a debate which one has initiated. Apart from that one may speak only once.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I am much indebted to the noble Lord for that clarification. He could not have known what I was going to do because he interrupted me as soon as I got on my feet! However, let that pass; I shall deal with it in a moment.
Perhaps I may deal first, with the subsidiary amendments. I am sorry that the noble Baroness has not agreed to them or to some part of them. In dealing with the matter she herself referred to combined heat and power. Everybody knows what that means; the combined use of heat and electricity is something about which a lot of people know. I am very sorry that it is not referred to in the Bill, whereas it was specifically referred to in the Energy Act 1983. For the life of me, I cannot understand why this measure of obscurity has been introduced unless there is some ulterior motive. I very much hope that there is not.
So I wish to ask the Government to think again about that. When the Bill goes to another place, perhaps they could introduce an amendment to make it clear that the reference in the two other amendments that I have moved is to combined heat and power. I wish to leave that to them; it is of course not a matter on which I wish to ask the House to express an opinion. I merely make an appeal to the Government to clarify what they mean in those clauses of the Bill.
Turning to Amendment No. 1, I wish to underline what my noble friend Lord Tordoff said when he intervened—namely, that the word "promote" does not involve, and is not intended to involve, any form of financial subsidy. The promotion of a cause does not involve a financial subsidy; it merely means that one supports a cause, one encourages a cause. If the Government prefer the words in the Energy Act 1983, I should be delighted; the phrase "adopt and support" is stronger than the word "promote".
We are simply asking that in the circumstances in which we live today, in which energy efficiency and the minimisation of adverse environmental impact are so important, the Government should indicate that they promote those activities in the energy
712
sector which can serve those purposes. That is what the word "promote" is intended to mean. I do not suppose that if we had the Oxford Dictionary at our disposal and looked up the meaning of the word "promote", it would necessarily or exclusively say that the word means that one provides a subsidy. In fact, it may not use the word "subsidy" in connection with "promote" at all. As soon as we have finished the debate, I shall rush to the Oxford Dictionary to see whether or not I am right. I merely wished to say that in order to make absolutely sure that the amendment does not involve any form of financial contribution. I should like to make that very clear.
Next, I wish to turn to the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, on which I was going to made a brief point. I shall now take the opportunity to do that. She did not understand my comment that by developing combined heat and power schemes we could diminish the need for additional electricity generation. Let me explain. If we use the waste heat from power stations to provide heating which would otherwise have to be met from electricity, obviously we are reducing the demand for electricity. I cannot explain it more simply than that. We are getting more energy out of power stations than we would otherwise get. Therefore it diminishes the need for additional generation. I should have thought that that was relatively simple. I hope that I have made my point.
However, what disturbs me in general about the reply of the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, is that she has assured us that the Government are very keen—I cannot use the word "promote"—to develop, to encourage, to ensure that combined heat and power schemes come about. They have taken trouble to remove the impediments which have previously existed. She made that point very clear and I can confirm what she said. She herself is a great supporter of combined heat and power schemes.
If that is how the Government are minded, if they wish to encourage these schemes, if they wish to make sure that the schemes are extended, I should have thought that this simple amendment could have been agreed to. I could say much more but I think that the time has now been reached when we should decide whether or not as a House we accept the amendment. I commend it to the House.
4.10 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 97; Not-Contents, 146.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Airedale, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Ampthill, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Ardwick, L.

Carter, L.

Auckland, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L

Blackstone, B.

Cobbold, L.

Blease, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Blyth, L.

Craigavon, V.

Boston of Faversham, L.

David, B.

Bottomley, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

713

Dean of Beswick, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Molloy, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Monson, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Mulley, L.

Ennals, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Nathan, L.

Ezra, L.

Nicol, B.

Falkland, V.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Fitt, L.

Peston, L.

Foot, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Gallacher, L.

Phillips, B.

Galpern, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Rochester, L.

Grey, E.

Roll of Ipsden, L.

Halsbury, E.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Hampton, L.

Seear, B.

Hanworth, V.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Serota, B.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Shackleton, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Stallard, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Stedman, B.

Hylton, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Jeger, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Listowel, E.

Thurlow, L.

Lockwood, B.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Longford, E.

Turner of Camden, B.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Underhill, L.

McCarthy, L.

Walston, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Warnock, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Whaddon, L.

McNair, L.

White, B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Mersey, V.

Winstanley, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abercorn, D.

Eccles, V.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Eden of Winton, L.

Aldington, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Allerton, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Annaly, L.

Elton, L.

Arran, E.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Faithfull, B.

Barber, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Ferrers, E.

Beloff, L.

Fortescue, E.

Belstead, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Bessborough, E.

Gainford, L.

Birdwood, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Blatch, B.

Gray of Contin, L.

Boardman, L.

Greenway, L.

Borthwick, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Brentford, V.

Hanson, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Henley, L.

Butterworth, L.

Hertford, M.

Caithness, E.

Hesketh, L.

Caldecote, V.

Hives, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Carnock, L.

Hood, V.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Hooper, B.

Cayzer, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Cockfield, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Killearn, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Kimball, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Knutsford, V.

Daventry, V.

Layton, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Long, V.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Lyell, L.

Donegall, M.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Dundee, E.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

714

Margadale, L.

Rochdale, V.

Marley, L.

Rodney, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Sainsbury of Preston Candover, L.

Merrivale, L.

Middleton, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Monk Bretton, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Morris, L.

Savile, L.

Mottistone, L.

Shannon, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Sharples, B.

Moyne, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Munster, E.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Strange, B.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Nelson, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Swinton, E.

Newall, L.

Terrington, L.

Norfolk, D.

Teviot, L.

Northbourne, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Onslow, E.

Thorneycroft, L.

Orkney, E.

Torrington, V.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Trafford, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Trefgarne, L.

Pender, L.

Trumpington, B.

Penrhyn, L.

Ullswater, V.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Weir, V.

Wise, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Wolfson, L.

Reay, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Rees, L.

Wynford, L.

Reigate, L.

Young, B.

Renton, L.

Young of Graffham, L.

Renwick, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.17 p.m.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 3, line 38, at end insert ("and a duty to take into account, in exercising those functions, the effect on the physical environment of activities connected with the generation, transmission or supply of electricity.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 2, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 21 to 26 which are also standing in my name.
During the Report stage on 5th July, I undertook to take back the environmental amendment to Clause 4, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, and to introduce an amendment at Third Reading embodying the spirit of his amendment and taking into account also some suggestions from others, including some from my noble friend Lord Norrie.
The amendment tabled will place on the Secretary of State and the director a duty to take into account, in exercising the functions assigned or transferred to them by Part I of the Bill, the effect on the physical environment of activities connected with the generation, transmission or supply of electricity.
The expression "physical environment" is used in Section 10(4)(a) of the Telecommunications Act 1984. It is a wide concept and should I hope therefore be welcomed. The physical environment is of course to be distinguished from the social environment, the working environment or the home environment. The working environment is, of course, covered by health and safety legislation.
As your Lordships will be aware, the Government were strongly inclined to think that the

715
environmental provisions of the Bill should be concentrated in Schedule 9. However, this amendment shows that we have recognised the strength of the feeling that there should be an environmental duty on the Secretary of State and the director in Clause 4. The amendment introduces such a duty in a straightforward manner. I hope that it will commend itself to the House. Taken together with the amendments to Schedule 9 which the House has already approved, I think that we shall have achieved a set of rigorous, precise and practical environmental provisions which I hope will be supported by Amendments Nos. 21 to 26.
Those amendments to Schedule 9 show that I gladly grasped the lifeline which the noble Lord, Lord Howie, chivalrously threw me during the discussion of his amendments on 6th July on Report. They make it clear that "sites" are among the objects of architectural, historic or archaeological interest whose protection is desirable. They also make it clear that the word "buildings" includes "structures". The amendments bring the schedule into line in this respect with the wording of the Water Act. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Howie, for originating those amendments.
I commend the amendment to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Baroness for bringing forward the amendments. They respond to the points which we made on Report. We are glad that there will be a general duty on the director and Secretary of State in exercising their functions to take into account the effect on the physical environment. We interpret the physical environment rather more widely than the noble Baroness, but it will obviously be up to the courts or others involved to determine the meaning of the word "physical". I should argue that there should be no duty to take account of the effect on the mental environment and that the physical environment is anything that is not the mental environment. That includes the workplace and other areas which the noble Baroness mentioned.
I have only two problems with Amendment No. 2. First, I am uncertain about the grammar, and I do not quite understand how the amendment fits into the Bill as drafted. Secondly, if, as I am told, the new wording should not be inserted in line 38 on page 3 at the end of subsection (3) but should constitute a new paragraph at the end of subsection (3), there is a problem of slightly greater substance. If that is the case there is a duty, but only paragraphs (a) to (e) are qualified by the expression:
"in the manner which he considers is best calculated".
If the additional wording were to come after paragraph (e) the duty would not be a duty which the Secretary of State or director would have to exercise:
"in the manner which he considers is best calculated".
That is only a very small point. I see noble Lords opposite shaking their heads in disagreement. I have argued in the course of our discussions on the Bill that subsection (3) is subordinate to subsection (1). We have gone through that argument and I do not
716
wish to pursue it. In the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, if the expression:
"and a duty to take into account"
is added at the end of line 38 it is either wholly ungrammatical in the sense that it comes within paragraph (e) or it comes after paragraph (e). If it comes after paragraph (e) it cannot be qualified by the expression:
"in the manner which he considers is best calculated"
because the clause will read:
"Subject to subsections (1) and (2) above, the Secretary of State and the Director shall each have a duty to exercise the functions assigned or transferred to him by this Part in the manner which he considers is best calculated
(a) … (b) … (c) …(d) …(e)
and a duty to take into account, in exercising those functions, …"
followed by the text of the amendment of the noble Baroness.
I very much hope that the noble Baroness will be able to obtain advice on the matter. It seems to us that if she had put forward a new paragraph (f), reading "leave out 'duty' and insert 'to take into account"' the new duty would quite clearly be subject to the decision of the Secretary of State and director in a manner which "he considers is best calculated …". If the wording is left outside paragraph (e) it does not seem to us or to our legal advisers to fall within the scope of that particular duty.
Having left that thought with the noble Baroness as a matter on which she might wish to take advice, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Howie of Troon I must thank the noble Baroness. I am afraid that the noble Lord is not able to be in his place today but he asked me specifically to thank the noble Baroness for her amendments to Schedule 9. Had he been here I am sure that he would have made a considerable intervention on the subject. Since he is not here I am happy to say merely that I accept the amendments.
Lord Renton: My Lords, now that the noble Lord has praised the amendment with faint damnation, perhaps I may say that I believe that the Government should earn our gratitude for having listened to the many representations made during Committee and Report stages. Those were to the effect that we should make it even clearer than is already stated in the ninth Schedule to the Bill that those concerned will have a duty to protect the environment. We should be glad that it has been put, as Members of both sides of the House suggested—
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me to intervene? I apologise. It was my original amendment on Report which the noble Baroness agreed to take back and redraft. I am not ungrateful. I am always grateful when we score successes and receive concessions from the Government.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I hope that I have not done the noble Lord an injustice so far as concerns the origin of the amendment. However, I was

717
surprised at the hesitation that he expressed in acknowledging his gratitude. He said that he doubted whether it was wise to insert it in this particular part of Clause 4. I should have said that if we are to have the duty in the forefront of the Bill, as it now is, it should be expressed, as it has been, as part of the general duty of the Secretary of State and the director.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene again but the noble Lord has completely missed my point. I moved an amendment at Report stage seeking to make this a duty on the Secretary of State and director in Clause 4. I was very grateful to the noble Baroness for taking it away and redrafting it. What I am talking about at the moment is the drafting and the way in which this fits into Clause 4. I cannot have any objection to the inclusion of the duty in Clause 4 because I moved the original amendment.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I shall not go on trying to put the remarks of the noble Lord into the context which they deserve. I shall simply say, as I was saying, that I am very glad that in addition to what has been set out in the ninth Schedule to the Bill from the start we now have this clear statement of a duty, together with other duties in Clause 4. For that I should have thought we could unanimously rejoice.
Lord Morris: My Lords, I have listened carefully to the extremely interesting argument of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. I think that his fear may be based—I may be wrong—on an interpretation of the words "and a duty". The word "and" should undoubtedly be interpreted as conjunctive rather than disjunctive. If that is the case, as I think it is, he has nothing to worry about at all.
4.30 p.m.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Norrie is not able to be here today and has asked me to express his gratitude to my noble friend Lady Hooper for the amendment. By speaking now, it will save me having to speak on the motion that the Bill do now pass, so I am saving time by wasting time.
If there is any difficulty about the drafting, it can always be put right in another place when it considers our amendments to the Bill. Perhaps that might give my noble friend a way out, if a way out is needed. I do not follow the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, any more than I do those of my noble friend Lord Norrie. However, I should like to pay tribute to my noble friends Lord Norrie and Lord Renton for the enormous amount of work that they have done to ensure that the environment is more properly recognised in the Bill. I also pay tribute to the work of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. The Bill will leave the House a much better and healthier Bill so far as concerns the countryside.
As I have driven around and travelled around in trains, when they are running, I have been amazed
718
by the number of ghastly overhead electricity lines throughout the length and breadth of the country. One hopes that, as a result of the Bill, we shall not see a proliferation of such lines in future and might in fact see some disappear. I am grateful for the amendment.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I think that the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, is absolutely right in suggesting that the other place will have to look at the drafting of the amendment. While we are all agreed on the merits of the principles of the amendment, I am convinced that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, is correct in suggesting that the grammar is wrong. So far as I can see, one cannot secure a duty. I am certain that the wording will have to be tidied up in another place.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am grateful for the escape lines as it were, offered by my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Monson. Nevertheless, I do not think that they are necessary.
Perhaps I may help the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. This is apparently the way of phrasing such insertions in the Bill. I queried it myself. It is stated explicitly, "at end insert", referring to line 38. I am assured that it will be a new line at the end of subsection (3). It will come after paragraph (e), so it will be within subsection (3) but it will be the final statement.
The duty in the amendment is additional to the duty referred to in the second line of Clause 4(3); that is, line 19 of page 3. The duty is one of taking into account the effects on the physical environment of exercising those functions which include all the functions in Clause 4. I think that it is quite clear. The noble Lord might like to reflect on it, but obviously we shall also look at it and, if there is a need to do anything—which I do not think there is—it can be done in another place.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 11 [Powers etc. of licence holders]:
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Clause 34 [Electricity from non fossil fuel sources]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 26, line 15, after ("stations") insert ("whether within or outside the United Kingdom").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 5 and 6.
There has been considerable discussion at earlier stages of the Bill about the status of what I would call, for abbreviating purposes, the "French link" in the non-fossil fuel quota. In responding to my noble friend Lord Shepherd when he asked whether what is to be supplied from France must be clearly identified by a generating station which uses renewable or alternative energy sources, the noble Baroness replied:
"To contribute to the obligation it"—
referring to imported electricity—

719
"will have to be positively identified as from a non-fossil or renewable source within the non-fossil obligation".—[Official Report, 6/7/89; col. 1311.]
That is the object of Amendment No. 4.
The assurance given by the noble Baroness was very welcome and I shall discuss the other aspects of it when I come to Amendments Nos. 5 and 6. It seems to us that, because it was welcome, it should be included in the Bill rather than left to an order or some unidentified document of which a number have been mooted as being circulated after the Bill has received Royal Assent.
The French link imports electricity to the United Kingdom at a price determined by the EDF system of marginal cost, which is an extremely sophisticated marginal cost calculation. Particular generating plants are not explicitly identified as supplying the link. As the noble Baroness rightly pointed out, it is important for the purposes of the non-fossil fuel quota that they should be positively identified. Contracts must therefore be entered into via the French link with individual generating stations.
The problem in respect of Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 is the reverse. The aim of the amendments is to prevent imported nuclear or hydro-electricity from France being preferred over the development of any possible UK renewable generation. I believe that we are at one in trying to encourage renewables. We want to be assured that there is no possibility that, in the identification of the sources of French electricity, the renewable source could supplant UK renewable systems.
The annual electricity energy demand in France is met at the moment by nuclear, hydro and fossil-fired plants more or less in the following proportions: 70 per cent. nuclear, 20 per cent. hydro and 10 per cent. fossil fired. Let us suppose that the electricity imported across the Channel through the inter-connector is identified as being hydro. It would then be theoretically possible under the Bill, and no doubt under the orders that will be promulgated, for that hydro-generated electricity in France to count as part of the renewable section in the quota mentioned by the noble Baroness. On 15th June she said that the size of the first extra renewable tranche should be around 50 megawatts and that there should be further tranches of 100 to 150 megawatts by 1995, a further 100 to 150 megawatts by 1997 and, finally, a further 300 megawatts by the year 2000, all within the 600 megawatt overall limit.
The capacity of the 2,000 megawatt cross-Channel link that could be attributed to hydro on the percentages that I have given of French production would be 400 megawatts. Therefore the whole of the renewable tranche that the noble Baroness spelt out on 15th June at cols. 1533 and 1534 of Hansard could easily be taken up by French hydro-electricity. Not only that, but by 1997—in the unlikely event that the whole of the French link were to be hydro-generated—it could absorb the whole of the renewable tranche that the noble Baroness has indicated is the Government's intention. We have an assurance from the Government that the imported electricity from France will have to be positively identified as coming from a non-fossil or renewable
720
source within the non-fossil obligation. It seems important therefore to us first, to provide in the Bill that that shall be so, and, secondly, to make sure that the hydro-electricity generation in France should not replace, in the non-fossil fuel quota, United Kingdom renewables. That is the objective of the amendment. I beg to move.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I appreciate the desire of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, to clarify the position. However I explained the purpose of Clause 34 (9) (b) when we discussed this topic during Committee stage. I explained then that the United Kingdom has treaty obligations which prevent us from discriminating in any way against supplies from other European Community countries. We do not intend—indeed we are unable—to do otherwise. Our approach will be to treat imports on a basis which is no less favourable, and no more favourable than the basis on which supplies from within the United Kingdom are assessed. Subsection (9)(a) was included in the Bill to make sure that this is the case, even where there may be significant differences between the non-fossil contracts within the United Kingdom and those for imports.
I fully accept that the purpose behind the amendment is to make sure that UK renewable generators are given a fair chance to meet the non-fossil obligation before any imports are considered. I am sure that this will happen even without the amendment. The public electricity suppliers will be looking for the most economic way of meeting their non-fossil obligations. I am sure that they will not be slow to take advantage of the competitive renewables on their own doorstep.
In addition, the extra tranches of capacity on top of the non-fossil fuel obligation exclusively for renewables—to which the noble Lord has referred —will give a further substantial boost to the development of renewables. We shall obviously be looking at the progress which the developing technologies have made when it comes to setting the size of each tranche as we go through the 1990s.
These amendments, however, seek to force any public electricity supplier who contracts for imports to prove that he was unable to find any renewable source from within the United Kingdom instead. But there is no balancing requirement on a public electricity supplier who contracts for UK non-fossil sources to prove that he could not have contracted for imports. It is therefore, as I read it, a one-way option against imports of electricity.
I very much fear that this would put us in breach of our treaty obligations. To impose onerous requirements which apply solely to imports would clearly be discriminatory. But this is just one of the problems—and the main problem—that we have with these amendments. They would also prevent imports counting towards the non-fossil obligation where there were intermittent renewable sources of generation available without putting any ceiling on the cost, and from anywhere in the United Kindom, as they are written at present. This could lead to renewable sources being contracted for at ludicrously high prices when imports were available at much

721
more competitive prices. A public electricity supplier in the South-East may have to contract for power from an unbuilt wave machine in the north of Scotland, rather than contracting with an existing non-fossil station just 23 miles across the Channel. That would have alarming effects on the fossil fuel levy and on electricity prices in general. I am sure that that was not the intention of the noble Lord.
I have listened carefully to his arguments. However, I believe that the amendments would not achieve what he sets out to achieve. I trust that he will feel able therefore to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful as always to the noble Baroness for her response. I do not think that she has addressed the problem that I raised. There will be no contracts with individual stations in EDF, because on the basis of its system marginal cost EDF does not identify particular generating plants supplying the link. All we know is that the percentages are 70 per cent. nuclear, 20 per cent. hydro, and 10 per cent. fossil. The noble Baroness stated on 6th July that to contribute to the obligation—that is, the non-fossil fuel obligation—it (by which she meant imported electricity) will have to be positively identified as coming from a non-fossil or renewable source within the non-fossil obligation. That raises the problem of how one identifies non-fossil renewable and fossil within the context of the French link. The French link at the moment is not able to do that. I was glad that the noble Baroness made that statement. It is very important that UK renewables should not be swamped by electricity coming across the French link which it can claim in one way or another is hydro-generated.
In all frankness the noble Baroness has failed to address this problem. I therefore find that I have to press my amendment. I commend the amendment.
4.47 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 4) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 78; Not-Contents, 146.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Dormand of Easington, L

Airedale, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Ardwick, L.

Ennals, L.

Barnett, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Blackstone, B.

Ezra, L.

Blease, L.

Falkland, V.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Fitt, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Foot, L.

Bottomley, L.

Gallacher, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Galpern, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Carter, L.

Grey, E.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Hampton, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Hanworth, V.

Davies of Penrhys. L.

Hirshfield, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Hylton, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

722

Jeger, B.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Rochester, L.

Kagan, L.

Seear, B.

Listowel, E.

Shackleton, L.

Longford, E.

Stedman, B.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

McCarthy, L.

Strabolgi, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

McNair, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Tordoff, L.

Molloy, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Underhill, L.

Nicol, B.

Walston, L.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Warnock, B.

Peston, L.

Weir, V.

Phillips, B.

Whaddon, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

White, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Williams of Elvel, L.

Winstanley, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abercorn, D.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Aldington, L.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Halsbury, E.

Allerton, L.

Hanson, L.

Annaly, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Arran, E.

Henley, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Hertford, M.

Auckland, L.

Hesketh, L.

Beloff, L.

Hives, L.

Belstead, L.

Holderness, L.

Bessborough, E.

Hood, V.

Birdwood, L.

Hooper, B.

Blanch, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Blatch, B.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Blyth, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Boardman, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Borthwick, L.

Killearn, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Kimball, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Knutsford, V.

Brentford, V.

Lauderdale, K.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Layton, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Long, V.

Butterworth, L.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Caithness, E.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Caldecote, V.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Margadale, L.

Carnock, L.

Marley, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Clitheroe, L.

Merrivale, L.

Cockfield, L.

Mersey, V.

Colnbrook, L.

Middleton, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Craigavon, V.

Morris, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Mottistone, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Daventry, V.

Moyne, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Munster, E.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Donegall, M.

Nelson, E.

Dundee, E.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Eccles, V.

Newall, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Norfolk, D.

Ellenborough, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Onslow, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Orkney, E.

Elton, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Faithfull, B.

Pender, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Ferrers, E.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Fortescue, E.

Platt of Writile, B.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Gainford, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Reay, L.

Greenway, L.

Rees, L.

723

Reigate, L.

Swinton, E.

Renton, L.

Teviot, L.

Renwick, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Rochdale, V.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Sainsbury of Preston Candover, L.

Torrington, V.

Trafford, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Trumpington, B.

Savile, L.

Ullswater, V.

Sharples, B.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Wise, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Wolfson, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Strange, B.

Wynford, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Young, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Young of Graffham, L.

Swinfen, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.56 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 not moved.]
Clause 35 [Fossil fuel levy]:
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 28, line 16, at end insert ("by reference to the aggregate amount charged by that person for leviable electricity supplied by him during the qualifying month").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 7, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 8 and 9. These are technical amendments which make clear how fossil fuel levy payments are to be calculated.
My honourable friend gave a full explanation of the Government's policy on the levy in another place in early February. Since then we have touched on it several times in our debates. In response to the understandable interest in how the levy will work, the Government have made a series of amendments to include more information in the Bill. At Committee stage we clarified the costs to be covered by the levy, and at Report stage we introduced amendments showing what the fossil fuel levy regulations will cover. These three amendments complete that job by showing how levy payments will be calculated.
Perhaps I should briefly reiterate how it is planned that the levy will be calculated. Each year an estimate will be made of the financial shortfall which the public electricity supply companies are likely to incur in meeting the non-fossil obligations placed on them. This will be the difference between the total payments they are expected to make under their collectively negotiated contracts for non-fossil power and the amount they would have paid if that electricity had come from fossil fuel stations. That is the amount to be recovered through the levy—the cost we are paying for security of supply. That is a cost, incidentally, which we were always paying, but it was always hidden away in the bulk supply tariff.
There will also be an estimate of the total value of electricity sales by all licensed suppliers in the year. By dividing the expected shortfall by the expected value of sales, the director will calculate the levy rate for that year. The levy rate will therefore be a percentage of sales value. This is what Amendment No. 7 makes clear. Through the year
724
suppliers will make regular payments of levy to the director based on the value of their leviable sales.
The sums collected, less administrative expenses, will be handed over to the public electricity suppliers to fund the deficit that they will have incurred. In line with government policy, our intention is that the detailed operation and enforcement of the levy should be contracted out by the director to an agent working on his behalf.
There is perhaps one aspect of these amendments which I might highlight for your Lordships. It is in the definition of leviable electricity. Sales from non-fossil stations which a supplier has contracted for individually, rather than collectively, will not come within that definition and will therefore not attract the levy. This will give a further boost to independent renewable generators because suppliers will not have to pay the levy on supplies that they receive from them. This will put renewable generators at an immediate competitive advantage compared to fossil generators, even if they have not come within one of the extra tranches of capacity which we are reserving exclusively for them.
I hope that this explanation has made the proposed method of charging the levy a little clearer and that your Lordships will welcome the further clarification of government policy on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Peston: My Lords, we fully accept the fact that the amendment is technical. My slight difficulty, which does not need to delay the House, concerns the concept of leviable electricity. I think that I understand what the noble Baroness said: leviable electricity is either generated by a fossil fuel generating station or by a non-fossil fuel generating station in pursuance of qualifying arrangements.
However, to some extent the subject is new to me and I should like to know whether the Minister has any documents explaining the matter more fully. For those interested in the subject, is there a longer explanation which she may be able to convey? I add immediately the words "not at this moment", but one would like to understand the subject a little more. I do not seek to delay the proceedings and I have no intention of dividing the House. It is an interesting idea and one would like to pursue it a little further. We should be most grateful for any further documentation.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I shall be happy to find any such additional information and write to the noble Lord.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
5 p.m.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendments Nos. 8 and 9:
Page 29, line 21, at end insert—
(""leviable electricity" means electricity which—

(a) is generated by a fossil fuel generating station; or

(b) is generated by a non-fossil fuel generating station in pursuance of qualifying arrangements;

"non-fossil fuel generating station" means a generating station fuelled or driven otherwise than by a fossil fuel;").
Page 29, line 35, after ("and") insert ("other").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 37 [Provisions supplementary to section 36]:
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sanderson of Bowden)The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sanderson of Bowden) moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 31, line 5, at end insert—
("(3A) The Secretary of State shall lay before each House of Parliament a copy of every direction given under section 36 above or this section unless he is of the opinion that disclosure of the direction is against the interests of national security or the commercial interest of any person.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this government amendment reflects the commitment that I gave at Report stage on 6th July to consider the points made by the noble Lords, Lord Peston, and Lord Rochester, in speaking to Amendment No. 83.
On that occasion I said that, while we saw some merit in what was proposed in the orginal amendment, it did not quite meet what the Government wished to see. As you will see, we have been able to take on board the amendment almost as it stood but have had to add an additional safeguard, that of commercial confidentiality. We believe that this is important since it is likely that the nature of the directions given in times of fuel shortage will directly affect how private companies will be required to carry out their business. We need to recognise that in all circumstances it may not be appropriate to publicise such details.
In view of your Lordships' wish to remove the commercial safeguard, it may be helpful if I explained why we believe that the government amendment, as drafted, should stand. It concerns the amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Peston, will move. It is important to bear in mind that the qualfications we are introducing to the publication of Clause 36 and 37 directions are more likely to be relevant to those which may need to be issued in the future should a dislocation to fuel supplies have occurred which threatened electricity supplies to consumers. As was made clear at Report, the stocking directions themselves are likely to in the public domain at vesting.
However, we cannot obviously foresee what circumstances might arise to make necessary further directions under subsection (4) of Clause 36 or subsection (2) of Clause 37. Hopefully they will never need to be used, but it is likely that any such directions will need to contain detailed operational requirements with which generating companies and the transmission company will have to comply. It is also likely that such directions will have an impact on the industry's financial and contractual relationships. We believe therefore that it would not necessarily be appropriate to publish in every case directions which in essence can tell private companies how to run their businesses. I beg to move.
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 10, Amendment No. 11:
Line 5, leave out ("or the commercial interests of any person").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his extremely helpful response to our earlier amendment. As I said on the last occasion that we discussed the subject, we do not wish to say anything that will prevent the Secretary of State from acting
726
in the national interest at a difficult time with respect to fuel stocks. That is not a point of contention.
My noble friend Lord Williams and I have tabled our amendment to the amendment because, while we recognise the reasonable degree of validity in what the Minister has said about commercial interest, and also entirely accept that one hopes that the Secretary of State will never have to act under the clause but if he must make a direction that he will be able to reveal it, we are concerned to know whether it would be possible and in the interest of the Secretary of State to have to say at any time, "Yes, it is no secret that I have had to act but I cannot tell you"—that will probably be the other place largely—"and I cannot let you have a copy of the direction I have given because of the commercial interests of any person".
My unhappiness is precisely for the Secretary of State and for the operations of Parliament. I fully recognise the commercial interest question generally in a privatised industry. Clearly one must take that seriously here and elsewhere. However, contained in what the noble Lord said, with which I agree, were rather far-fetched circumstances in which that may happen. I believe that the Minister should think a little more about our amendment. To put it crudely, I am not persuaded that the Secretary of State would ever get away with the unlikely option given by the Minister.
That is the real reason for tabling the amendment. It is nothing to do with commercial interest per se. It is concerned somewhat with Parliament and the way in which the Secretary of State would behave in the position in which he found hirnself. I am not certain that the Minister has yet addressed himself to what I had in mind. Before deciding what to do I should like to hear his comments on my argument as to why our amendment to the amendment is reasonable. I beg to move.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for the way in which he put his amendment. I have looked at the matter closely and I shall try to give him the reason why we take this view. While I welcome the fact that he agrees that we should bring forward the amendment, I believe that we need to discuss further the question of commercial confidentiality.
First, I should like to give an example. In times of fuel shortage the Government may decide that, in order to maintain electricity supplies, it is necessary for the generators to purchase additional quantities of oil or coal from the international market. It is not difficult to imagine the effect that the publication of such directions will have on traded fuels in the market. Increased demand may serve to increase prices in any event. But to give those holding fuel for trading purposes notice that the generators were being directed to purchase additional fuel would be an open invitation for the holders to increase their prices. It would also be a stimulus to those ready to bid up prices by purchasing speculatively merely for on-sale to generators at even higher prices.
I looked closely at what the noble Lord was likely to say. I point out that there will be several generators in the field and not merely one or two. In any part

727
of the country in a particular situation the Secretary of State might be required to direct certain generating stations to get supplies of one kind or another—that is, oil or coal—into that area. For that reason, it could put those companies at a commercial disadvantage. That is the purpose behind the addition to the clause which we have put in on commercial grounds. On the other hand, if it was an across the board direction, I believe that the Secretary of State would see no reason why it should not be brought to Parliament in the way suggested by the subsection.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord has given an extremely good example of the nature of the problem. However, it is still not obvious to me that the Secretary of State could get away with doing that. I do not see how it could be kept secret that he was acting in that way and I do not see then how he could persuade the other place that for that kind of reason he will not let the other place know the directive. I am with the noble Lord as regards his concern about the problem. My concern is whether this clause, in any meaningful sense, gives the solution to the Secretary of State. I believe that the examples given were absolutely excellent but that does not solve the problem.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, with the leave of the House, it is a question of timing. Once the Secretary of State discloses the information to Parliament, then there is debate all round. However, there may be a timing advantage to companies affected if disclosure was not given. Eventually the information would come into the public domain, but at the time at which they were having to do what was required of them by the Secretary of State, they would still have confidentiality pertaining. That is the way I read it and I hope the noble Lord will understand why we have put this provision into this clause.
Lord Peston: My Lords, it seems to me a very evenly balanced argument. I am slightly at a loss as to what to do. I believe that my own view is correct. On the other hand, the Minister's view is not so different and so incorrect and therefore it would be rather bad manners to press the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Amendment No 10, agreed to.
Clause 48 [General functions]:
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 38, line 2, leave out from ("to") to end of line 5 and insert ("facilitating the exercise of his functions under this Part").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, during Report stage my noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil moved Amendment No. 117 which would have left out the second half of Clause 48(1)(b). I believe he described it as "meaningless and useless words", but he recognised that we might think them necessary. My noble friend Lord Dundee offered to take back and reconsider the amendment, and this is the result.
This amendment replaces the last 24 words in the paragraph with a mere nine words. This will simplify the clause without detracting from its meaning, and I am grateful to my noble friend for having raised the issue. I am sure that he will understand that the word "facilitate"—and I have looked this up—means to render easier, to promote or to help forward. In fact, it is a very active verb indeed. I hope that my noble friend will accept this amendment in the spirit in which it is moved.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I should like to take the opportunity to say that I am most grateful to my noble friend for having considered the point and for having taken out one piece of inelegance from the Bill.
I should like to make an additional two observations. First, I find it much easier to understand the meaning of the word "facilitate" with which my noble friend was good enough to help me than I do some of the other contents of this Bill.
Perhaps I may just shadow my thanks with one further observation. I am very sorry that there should not be on the Marshalled List a similar amendment to remove those horrible words to which I referred on Report in Clause 61(3). They are uniquely hideous and I am sorry that your Lordships are invited to leave them on the staute book. However, I thank my noble friend.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 13 not moved.]
Clause 53 [Periodical and other reports of consumers' committees]:
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 40, line 34, leave out ("from time to time") and insert ("at least once in every year").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, during the debate on Report we discussed the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that the director should receive a report from each consumers' committee at least once in every year. I agreed that the Government would bring forward an amendment to meet the noble Lord's concern and achieve consistency with similar provisions elsewhere in the Bill, in particular in Clause 43(4).
As we come to the end of the proceedings of this Bill I should like to say to the noble Lords, Lord Peston and Lord Williams of Elvel, how grateful we are on the Government Front Bench to them for their part in those proceedings even though we have not always been able to accept amendments. I should like to say how grateful we are to all your Lordships who have taken part.
Whenever we accept amendments, of which this is an example, my noble friend Lord Peyton professes sometimes to be suffering from shock. I know that my noble friend has borne those shocks with fortitude and I hope that they have not hit him like those from an electrical current. In particular, I hope that the noble Lords, Lord Williams of Elvel and Lord Peston, and other noble Lords will think that we have meted out to them some similar shock

729
treatment, whether or not it is electrical. I hope that they will realise that their contributions have been of very great value to this Electricity Bill.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for the amendment about which we are extremely happy and for his further words. I am sure that in due course my noble friend Lord Williams will have some flattering words to say to the Government Front Bench. As I shall not have an opportunity to do that, perhaps I may echo the words of the noble Earl and say what great personal pleasure I have had in discussing this Bill and in particular in listening to the arguments from the Front Bench even though on occasions, as the noble Earl is well aware, one has had to say that one is not persuaded. However, I thank the noble Earl.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 62 [Concurrent proceedings]:
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 46, line 21, leave out ("of this Act") and insert ("above").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I shall also speak to Amendment No. 16. The sole purpose of these amendments is to correct a minor drafting error. The effect is to enable reference to be made in Clause 62 to earlier clauses of the Bill in a manner consistent with that employed elsewhere in the Bill when referring to preceding clauses. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 46, line 45, leave out ("of this Act") and insert ("above").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 114 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 74, line 35, leave out ("those paragraphs") and insert ("that paragraph").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a drafting amendment. The reference in line 35 should be to "paragraph" in the singular, and not in the plural. This drafting amendment puts this right. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Consumers' committees]:
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 18.
Page 77, line 8, at end insert ("and the National Consumers' Consultative Committee").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I had hoped that the Government would accept this amendment. However, they may argue—and I look forward to hearing the argument—that it is unnecessary in that paragraph 6, which refers to "meetings of the committee" could be interpreted to include the new National Consumers' Consultative Committee. If the noble Lord can assure me that that is the advice that the Government have been given, then there is
730
no need for the amendment. Otherwise it seems to follow overwhelmingly that meetings of this committee should be open to the public in the same way as are the other committees under this clause, other than the provisos contained in the two sub-paragraphs. It is overwhelmingly right, not only on logical grounds but on grounds of general consumer protection, that such meetings should be held in public as far as possible.
My current order of preference is (a) that the Government accept the amendment; (b) that they reject it but say that it is unnecessary because it is already in the Bill; and (c) that your Lordships' House should divide.
Lord Renton: My Lords, we all welcome the addition of the National Consumers' Consultative Committee. It will be more important than each of the regional committees. I do not see why its work needs to be considered in any greater secrecy. Therefore, I would have thought that this amendment has a good deal to commend it.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, the effect of this amendment would be that all meetings of the NCCC would be open to the public, regardless of the subject under discussion. In other words, the NCC would have no discretion to exclude the public when confidential matters were under discussion. This is because the rest of paragraph 6 of Schedule 2 refers solely to the regional committees. I presume that this was not your Lordships' intention, and certainly not the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, in moving the amendment. However, even if this defect were remedied, I am afraid that I cannot accept the amendment.
As my noble friend Lady Hooper made clear when she accepted the amendments moved by my noble friend Lady Oppenheim-Barnes at Report, including what is now Clause 54 of the Bill, the Government continued to believe that the interests of consumers will best be served by local consumers' committees serving local needs. In coming to this view, we had accepted the recommendation of the Select Committee on Energy in another place that there was no need for a body to replace the existing Electricity Consumers' Council in the privatised industry.
However, as she also made clear, we agreed completely with my noble friend Lady Oppenheim-Barnes that it was very important that the experience of the local committees should be pooled and exchanged at national level so that the appropriate lessons could be drawn and that any national issues could be addressed at national level. The amendment tabled by the noble Baroness and accepted by the House gave formal effect to this.
The NCCC, therefore, as its name suggests, will be essentially a co-ordinating and advisory body, and not a direct successor to the ECC. That body did not hold its meetings in public, and the Government feel that it would be neither appropriate nor practicable to subject the NCCC to the provisions of Schedule 2, paragraph 6. These provide for public access to the regional committees in order to give direct access at grass roots level to the body

731
looking at those issues which directly affect consumers in that locality.
However, that does not mean that consumers will not wish to take an interest in what is going on at the national level. The director is already under a duty to include a survey of the NCCC's activities in his annual report, which will be published. Given this fact, and the nature of the NCCC's role, I do not think that public access to the NCCC's proceedings would furnish anything of value to the individual consumer to which he or she will not already have access through the local committees which he or she can attend.
The concern of the individual consumer is, ultimately, with the performance of his or her local electricity supplier. That is why the performance of each public electricity supplier will be monitored by a local consumers' committee. The NCCC will make sure that the chairmen of each of the regional committees, who will automatically be members of the NCCC, are kept fully abreast of developments in other parts of the country. If issues are raised at the NCCC which they feel are of interest, concern or relevance to the consumers which they serve, they will be able to convene meetings of their own committees which are open to the public, in order to keep local consumers informed.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, understands the reason why we are resisting this amendment, but I have to say that we are.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I should like to make a point to the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson of Bowden. Unless the Government accept this amendment, defective as it may be, they will not have the opportunity in another place to propose an alternative amendment.
This is a technical matter. If an amendment to Schedule 2 is not accepted here in this form, or in some form, there will be no opportunity in another place to rectify the amendment. The noble Lord has quite properly argued that there are technical defects in this amendment and that it would be wrong for the NCCC to have an obligation to hold meetings ad infinitum which are open to the public. Nevertheless, I hope that the noble Lord recognises that there will be occasions when the NCCC should have meetings which are open to the public. Unless the noble Lord accepts this amendment and redrafts it in another place as a Commons amendment coming back to us, there is no provision in our parliamentary procedure for introducing another amendment in the other place.
I hope that the noble Lord will bear in mind what I have said and consider whether he can accept this as a kind of interim amendment which the Government might like to redraft in another place.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, says about the technicalities. I accept the point that he makes about the drafting; that the change would have to be made here. However, I am still very concerned about this amendment. The Gas Consumers' Council does not hold its meetings in public. The National
732
Consumers' Council, as a private company, does not normally hold its meetings in public.
There is nothing to prevent the NCCC from holding open meetings, as does the National Consumers' Council on very rare occasions. The answer I have given must stand and I am sorry that I cannot accept the amendment.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I was much impressed by the reasons that the noble Lord gave in reply to noble Lords opposite. However, in order to clear one's mind and to get this absolutely straight, can we be sure that if there is not this amendment or any amendment like it, that the National Consumers' Council will be free to call a press conference or to hold a public meeting? If that is so, then my own fears would be dispelled.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I see no reason why the NCCC should not call a press conference or have an open meeting if it so desires. I think that to accept this amendment would go very far beyond that situation.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is it the case that if this body decided to hold its meeting in public, it could do so while retaining a private part of the agenda? However, under this amendment the private part of the agenda could not be private.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I have to admit that I am absolutely staggered. I thought this was an innocent little amendment but it seems to be producing an extraordinarily complex debate. I simply do not understand what the Minister is on about. We have the individual local committees which we all believe will be extremely useful and this schedule states that meetings of those committees shall be open to the public other than for certain matters, which I assume would be the private business part of the agenda.
Leaving on one side, for the moment, the precise drafting of the amendment, it seems to be elementary logic that the NCCC should behave in much the same way. I always defer to the noble Lord on matters of drafting and I do not seek to argue that my drafting is perfect. I want the NCCC to be exactly the same as the expression "the committee" in this schedule.
I believe I heard the Minister say that he has no intention of budging, and I see that he is nodding agreement. Therefore, I have to say to your Lordships that of my three possibilities I am now down to the third and I press the amendment.
5.31 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 18) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 75; Not-Contents, 130.

DIVISION NO. 3

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

McCarthy, L.

Airedale, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Ardwick, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Barnett, L.

McNair, L.

Blackstone, B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Blease, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Molloy, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Monson, L.

Bottomley, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Nicol, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Peston, L.

Carter, L.

Phillips, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

David, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Dean of Beswick, L. [Teller.]

Prys-Davies, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Rea, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Ennals, L.

Rochester, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Sainsbury, L.

Ezra, L.

Seear, B.

Falkland, V.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Foot, L.

Shackleton, L.

Gallacher, L.

Stedman, B.

Galpern, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Grey, E.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Hampton, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Hanworth, V.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Tordoff, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Jeger, B.

Underhill, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Walston, L.

Kennet, L.

Whaddon, L.

Kirkhill, L.

White, B.

Listowel, E.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Lock wood, B.

Winstanley, L.

Longford, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Ellenborough, L.

Aldington, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Allerton, L.

Elton, L.

Annaly, L.

Faithfull, B.

Arran, E.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Ferrers, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Fortescue, E.

Beloff, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Belstead, L.

Gainford, L.

Blyth, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Borthwick, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Greenway, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Brentford, V.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Henley, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hertford, M.

Butterworth, L.

Hesketh, L.

Buxton of Alsa, L.

Hives, L.

Caithness, E.

Holderness, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Carnock, L.

Hood, V.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Hooper, B.

Clitheroe, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Cowley, E.

Joseph, L.

Craigavon, V.

Killearn, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Kimball, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Knutsford, V.

Daventry, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Layton, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Long, V.

Dilhorne, V.

Lyell, L.

Donegall, M.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Dundee, E.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

734

Margadale, L.

Reigate, L.

Marley, L.

Renton, L.

Merrivale, L.

Renwick, L.

Mersey, V.

Rochdale, V.

Middleton, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Savile, L.

Morris, L.

Seebohm, L.

Mottistone, L.

Sharples, B.

Moyne, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Munster, E.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Strange, B.

Nelson, E.

Strathcarron, L.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Newall, L.

Swinfen, L.

Norfolk, D.

Swinton, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Onslow, E.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Orkney, E.

Thorneycroft, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Torrington, V.

Oxfuird, V.

Trafford, L.

Pender, L.

Trumpington, B.

Penrhyn, L.

Ullswater, V.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Weir, V.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Wise, L.

Wolfson, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Wynford, L.

Reay, L.

Young, B.

Rees, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.38 p.m.
Schedule 6 [The public electricity supply code]:
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 96, line 23, at end insert ("Subject to sub-paragraph (1A),").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I speak also to Amendment No. 20. In Committee we discussed an amendment which I tabled regarding the positioning of meters to assist the disabled. This received a helpful reply from the Minister so I withdrew the amendment but we rather left in the air the cost of providing a meter which had been altered or adapted for a disabled person.
Therefore, I prepared an amendment to deal with that aspect and the Minister, having accepted the amendment in principle, kindly agreed to redraft it to fit the Bill more accurately. The amendment is now before the House. I am extremely grateful to the Minister for her help in redrafting the amendment and for placing it in the correct position in the schedule. I beg to move.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I am delighted that this amendment has come forward again. On behalf of the boards, I wish to say that they consider it important—though they are quite willing to undertake anything of this nature—that the role of a general social services department of a local authority should not be overlooked. It might be that in conjunction with the kind of work set out here that there is need for greater adaptation of properties which would not be those with the social services. It would be important to have liaison with them.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for moving these

735
amendments. We recognise the deep concern felt by your Lordships regarding the interests of the disabled. I recall the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, speaking on this matter at an earlier stage. Indeed, it was a concern that the Government shared.
In Clause 4 of the Bill we have already provided that in carrying out their duties in respect of the quality of electricity supply services provided, the Secretary of State and the director general will take into account in particular the interests of the elderly and the disabled. The draft public electricity supply licence also contains a condition requiring the public electricity supplier to produce a code of practice on the services it offers for the elderly and disabled, including such matters as the provision of special controls and adaptors.
These amendments add to this by ensuring that a disabled person will not suffer a financial penalty because of his need to have his meter re-positioned or adapted for his use. I commend these amendments to the House.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 96, line 25, at end insert—
("(1A) A public electricity supplier who, for the purpose of meeting the needs of a disabled person—

(a) alters the position of any electricity meter which has been provided by him; or

(b) replaces such a meter with one which has been specially adapted,

shall not make any charge for the alteration or replacement; and section 25 of this Act shall apply in relation to any dispute arising under this sub-paragraph as if it were a dispute arising under sections 18 to 24 of this Act.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 9 [Preservation of amenity and fisheries]:
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendments Nos. 21 to 26:
Page 111, line 8, leave out ("buildings and other") and insert ("sites, buildings and").
Page 111, line 12, after ("features,") insert ('sites,").
Page 111, line 19, after ("paragraph") insert—(" "building" includes structure;").
Page 112, line 6, leave out ("buildings and other") and insert ("sites, buildings and").
Page 112, line 10, after ("features,") insert ("sites,").
Page 112, line 22, at end insert—(" "building" includes structure;").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, these amendments have already been spoken to. I beg to move them en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I beg to move, That the Bill do now pass.
In so doing, I make my remarks about the Bill now and my noble Lord Sanderson of Bowden will speak at the end of the debate. At the beginning of the Second Reading debate of 25th April I made clear that the Bill had been prepared in the light of extensive consultation with the industry, with employee and consumer representatives; with
736
independent generators and with other interested parties including environmental bodies.
I also said that your Lordships would still wish to examine the Bill with your customary care and thoroughness. This your Lordships have done, and in a number of respects I believe that the Bill is better as a result of our deliberations. Not unnaturally, given your Lordships' well-known concern for the environment, Schedule 9 of the Bill has received intensive scrutiny. It is now supplemented by a general duty under Clause 4. I believe what we now have are environmental provisions which are rigorous, precise and practical. Careful thought has also been given to research and development. I am happy that we have been able to meet the anxieties expressed by your Lordships and particularly by Members of the Select Committee on Science and Technology in this respect.
On the consumer front it was always our view that national co-ordination of the activities of the new consumers' committees would be an important part of the arrangements for consumer representation which our proposals establish. But it is also due in no small measure to the advocacy of my noble friend Lady Oppenheim-Barnes that the Bill now makes provision for a National Consumers' Committee representative of those grass-roots regional interests which we believe are so important, and which will help to achieve the national co-ordination of the consumer representation in the privatised electricity supply industry. We have also accepted or introduced other consumer-related amendments dealing with access to meetings of the regional consumers' committees, and the guaranteed standards of service compensation concerning disconnections. There is also the amendment most recently passed relating to the disabled. I am greatly indebted to those on all sides of the House who contributed to these and other amendments which I have not particularised.
I know that we do not all agree with everything in the Bill. It would be a strange world if we did. Nevertheless, I am sure that we are all agreed that it is an important Bill that will have long-term repercussions on one of our most vital, important—and perhaps I can go so far as to say complex industries. So every moment of constructive disagreement and every moment of informed debate must be counted against those factors. I believe that the six guiding principles stated in the White Paper are still intact, relating as they do to customers needs, competition, regulation, security and safety of supply and the opportunities for those working within the industry. I also believe that some of the detail of the Bill we are sending back to the other place is an improvement in a number of significant respects.
I therefore thank all of your Lordships who have contributed from all sides of the House. I thank in particular my noble friends here on the Front Bench for their support. My noble friend Lord Sanderson, as well as dealing with all matters north of the Border, has done much else besides. He has certainly been present and vigilant throughout our debates. I also thank my noble friend Lord Glenarthur who was able to make an important contribution at the

737
earlier stages. I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Dundee both for his Front-Bench contribution and for all the behind-the-scenes activities that fall to the lot of a Whip. It has not escaped my notice either that noble Lords on the Benches behind me have been very active. I am most grateful to all those who felt able to show support consistently as well as to those with whom I have agreed to differ from time to time.
We have had important contributions from all sides of the House. At an earlier stage I seem to remember that there were contributions from the Bishops' Benches. However, I hope it will not be considered invidious if I refer to the main Opposition spokesmen. I refer in particular to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, who fought so valiantly for their causes, and with some degree of success. I also refer to the Official Opposition and in particular the noble Lords, Lord Williams of Elvel, and Lord Peston, who have not failed in giving really detailed scrutiny to every provision. More importantly, they have never failed in their courtesy in so doing. In that happy spirit I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Baroness Hooper.)
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, as the noble Baroness said, this is an important Bill. Next to the Water Act it is probably the most important Bill that Parliament has had to consider in this Session. At Second Reading I asked your Lordships three questions and they were these. What will this Bill do for the consumer? What will it do for the environment? What will it do for the investor?
Now that the Bill has passed through all stages in your Lordships' House, I wish to comment on those three questions. I also invited noble Lords opposite to join with me in amending what I regarded as an imperfect Bill. I am very happy to say that they have responded generously to my invitation. We have amended the Bill, sometimes against the advice of the Government, in a way that has improved it. Regarding the consumer there has been some improvement. There has been concession that there should be public access to consumer committees and that they should report and meet at least once a year. There has also been a concession that there should be a National Consumers' Consultative Committee. The definition of tariff consumer is now established, and there is to be an extention from 15 days to 20 days for payment of charges. All those are welcome concessions. I would be wrong if I said that those were the limits of our ambitions when we started with the Bill. Nevertheless, we have to settle for what we have.
There have been major changes as regards the environment. As the noble Baroness pointed out, after a good deal of pressing the Government have conceded a general duty on the Secretary of State and the director to take account of the environmental impact of electricity transmission, generation and supply. We have passed New Clause 3 which imposes on the Secretary of State and the director a major measure to take account of the efficient use of
738
electricity, with penalties if that is not done. In New Clause 12 we have an obligation on the Secretary of State and the director to ensure that licences allow the Secretary of State to take control of nuclear installations in the event of a civil emergency. In Clause 97 we have strengthened that to ensure that all necessary powers are available to the Secretary of State to take control whenever he perceives that a civil emergency has arisen.
All that is good, and I am glad that the noble Baroness referred to the Schedule 9 amendments because we support practically everything the Government have done on Schedule 9. The argument concerning the investor is much less precise. We are told today—literally today, at one o'clock on the news—that the financial market puts a price tag of £13 billion on a privatised industry whereas in the last national accounts from the Electricity Council the net asset value was put at £37 billion. That is a substantial discount. The Financial Times, not traditionally a great supporter of my party, published a leading article entitled "Turn against Parkinson", on the grounds that nuclear power and the grid should be taken out of the construct. It suggested that if this was done it would become a saleable proposition.
I do not believe that the Government will pay attention to what the Financial Times says. The Government's position, as the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, said earlier, is set in concrete and is not to be moved. But if that does not happen, the Bill will leave the House deeply flawed. Because it is deeply flawed the flotation will be extremely difficult. Apart from anything else there is a the great unknown. What about contracts? What about the code of conduct for the operation of the grid? What about operation non-settlements? How will the merit order work? Who will run all this?
At Second Reading I said that this will never be a good Bill. It is based on what I described as the "Mars bar" philosophy, which is wholly inappropriate to the generation, transmission and supply of electricity. At that time I invited the noble Baroness to take away her Bill and put it in the waste-paper basket. Alas, she failed to accept my invitation, for reasons which I fully understand, but it is not too late for the Government to pay attention to what the Financial Times said. I say, that, as I said on the grid amendment which we discussed at Report stage, to help the Government. The construct of the Bill as it stands will not work.
In conclusion, I must thank my noble friends Lord Peston, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove and Lord Dean of Beswick for their help on the Bill. They have been extremely co-operative and have taken a good deal of the burden off my shoulders. As the House will know, the Opposition have to struggle without the resources which the Government have available to them. I must also thank the noble Baroness for her courtesy and kindness throughout all our proceedings. With that remark I associate the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson of Bowden, and the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, who was distracted from other matters to come to speak on parts of the Bill. I also thank the noble Earl, Lord Dundee. We

739
are most grateful for the courtesy shown by the Front Bench to the points that we made.
I wish I could say that I wish the Bill well, but I cannot. I forecast a stormy passage for your Lordships' amendments when they go down to another place. There will be extensive debates. We feel that we are right. We feel that your Lordships have introduced into the Bill key elements which have made it better. If the Government try in another place to overturn those key elements, we will as a House reassemble to consider what another place has to say to us. The battle is not yet over.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I too should like to thank the noble Baroness and her colleagues for their courtesy and for the consideration which they gave to all the points made from these Benches. I should like to thank her specifically for her reference to my colleague, the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, and myself.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Williams, I have certain reservations about the Bill. I should like to talk about two of them. One concerns competition. The Government have emphasised throughout the proceedings that one of the major objectives of the Bill is to stimulate competition in the electricity industry. In view of the way in which the industry is to be restructured, the emergence of effective competition is unlikely for a long time ahead. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, referred to the leading article in yesterday's Financial Times, which I have before me. It made clear the point which concerns me. Under the structure proposed in the Bill it will be difficult for there to be much competition. We read of the great difficulty that has already arisen in the negotiations between the distribution companies and the two major successor generating companies to reach agreement on the new contracts. Until that agreement is reached it will be difficult for any newcomers.
I have declared an interest during the course of our deliberations on the Bill. I am involved in two negotiations for new power stations. I am afraid that we have run into extreme difficulties in reaching any sensible basis on which we can negotiate. In view of the way in which the nuclear stations have been put into one of the two big generating complexes—the CEGB has therefore been split into only two parts—the prospect for real competition has been very much limited. Furthermore, the ownership of the grid by the distribution companies has added a further complication.
During the course of our deliberations we tried to correct those two fundamental defects, which would, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams, pointed out, have aided the Government cause. Had there been a more rational restructuring with at least four generating companies being the descendants of the CEGB; a separately owned nuclear company, with all its attendant problems; an independently owned grid company and then the 12 distribution companies, I think that we would have had a basis upon which real competition could have developed. However, as it is, the situation is very complex. I cannot see much effective competition developing for a long time.
740
That is my fundamental concern about the Bill if the objective is to stimulate competition.
Secondly, as regards energy efficiency, we had to fight very hard to introduce Clause 3 into the Bill. Moreover, it is rumoured in press reports that the Government propose to use their strength either to get it annulled or replaced in another place. In that case the Bill will have to return here and we shall have to deliberate on the matter. I should be very saddened if that were the case.
The amendment was feelingly supported by the majority in your Lordships' House. It represents our views on the vital importance of energy efficiency. That was a view which was tellingly endorsed by the sixth report of the Energy Committee of another place which was published only today. Energy efficiency will be a crucial element in our future energy operations, especially as regards dealing with the problems of the environment. There is no doubt about that. We tried to inject that thought into the Bill and I hope that it will remain there. I am naturally saddened that, in spite of three efforts, we did not manage to achieve a more effective reference to combined heat and power.
Therefore, while we achieved a good deal during our lengthy debates in this House —for example, we managed to strengthen the references to the environmental problems; the position of consumers has been strengthened and that of rural consumers has also been safeguarded—there are still some fundamental defects. I believe that we shall return to this problem in the years ahead.
I should like to conclude by thanking all my colleagues on these Benches and expressing appreciation once more for the consideration given to our views, even though there was not that ready acceptance which I should have liked from the Government Benches.
6 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I have not enjoyed the passage of this Bill. I found myself in repeated, sharp and convinced disagreement with my noble friends in the Government. But at the same time I should like to pay tribute to them and thank them for their unfailing patience and courtesy—and I mean that. I can well understand how difficult it must be to steer through your Lordships' House a Bill of this complexity which excites as much controversy as this one.
My anxieties have always centred more than anything else upon who owned and managed the grid. After the Report stage I was left in a state of considerable anxiety because I felt that we had inadequate information before us both on the management of the grid company and on the system of payments and contracts of which the grid company is bound to be the clearing agent.
I discussed with my noble friend the Leader of the House the possibility of moving a reasoned amendment to the Third Reading of the Bill. He is a monument of courtesy and patience and he responded to my arguments in the most generous way. He procured for me a copy of a document entitled The Grid Code. It is the first draft. I shall

741
willingly lend it to any noble Lord who wishes to spend five minutes of unbearable excitement studying its contents—
The Earl of Lauderdale: Summer Recess reading!
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My noble friend will be first in at the kill. I cannot pretend to have studied the document in any great detail. However, one thing is absolutely clear to me: it leaves the National Grid Company in total command and in absolute control. I have asked the Government on many occasions to whom the National Grid Company is to be answerable. I have been told that, like other companies, it will be answerable to its shareholders. How much weight can we give to that answer? It is to be answerable to its owners, who it operationally commands and with whom it will compete for the business of large users, as well as for contracts with generators.
I do not believe in those circumstances that it is doing anything but violence to language to say that the grid company will be answerable to its shareholders. On the contrary, I believe that its shareholding companies will be very careful before crossing swords with this over-mighty body. The distributing companies may have found the Central Electricity Generating Board a little irksome from time to time, but I would hazard a guess that they will find the yoke of their own child even more uncomfortable.
I am still left—indeed, I think that the House is also—in a state of considerable ignorance as to how the system of payments will work out and how contracts will be reconciled. After all, there will be a considerable mesh of contracts: contracts between the generators and the grid company; between the generators and the public electricity suppliers; and between the generators and large users. There will also be contracts between the grid company and public electricity suppliers and between the grid company and large users. I find it very difficult to look through the mists of all that and understand what will happen in the event. For example, what happens when power is twice purchased under two or more contracts?
I should like to finish by saying something about the way in which Parliament is treated, not by this Government but by all governments. We have before us a Bill. However, we do not have before us a volume the size and dimension of which I am holding, containing much important material. It is true that to a limited extent we have access to the draft licences and to the draft articles of association of the companies which are intended to be set up by the Bill.
From time to time reference is made by Ministers to these documents. But I think that it is sometimes very hard for Parliament, especially for those Members who sit on the Back Benches, to be referred to documents to which access is not always all that easy, which in any event are not amendable and which are not themselves under direct debate.
742
I conclude my brief remarks by repeating that I have found the experience of the Bill's passage an unhappy one and a discomforting one so far as the future is concerned. I hope that I am wrong in that forecast, but I do not believe that, in parting with the Bill, we shall have heard the last of the problems with which it presumes to deal.
My final utterance—no word is more abused than "final"—is to say that I hope that we shall shortly be hearing from Professor Littlechild an appreciation of the problems that he will face. At the same time, I should like to express some regrets that your Lordships' House has not had the benefit, during all the debates, of hearing so much as a word of guidance or prophecy from the noble Lord, Lord Marshall of Goring, once a champion of the present system, but who now is venturing out into other and, what seem to be, speculative fields.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I take a different view of the Bill from that expressed by my noble friend Lord Peyton for whom I have had such a high regard for so many years. I should like to congratulate the Government on this historic Bill. The 1947 Act—I see some of us who voted against it in one place or another—was an experiment. It was a brave experiment in nationalisation. It was done monolithically. Ten years later, when I had the privilege of being a junior Minister at the Ministry of Fuel and Power, it was found that it was not working to public satisfaction, and so we embarked upon another experiment—the 1957 Act—which I am glad to say established the area boards for the distribution of electricity. I am glad to say that the functions of those boards will remain somewhat similar under the Bill. We shall still have the grid with an area board responsibility for it.
Now we have the Bill. It is a brave Bill and a progressive Bill. It has, I am glad to endorse, been much improved during its passage through your Lordships' House, especially with regard to the environment and consumer protection. It has been a heavy grind. The Bill is now 164 pages long. The 1947 Act, which is far more comprehensive in a way, was 120 pages of Statutes at Large which do not occupy nearly so much space per page: and the 1957 Act was but 60 pages, also of Statutes at Large. I should say that the Bill will work out at about 200 pages if it were put into Statutes at Large in the same form. So, it has been a heavy grind.
I should like to join those who have paid tribute to the Front Benches on both sides. I should like especially to say how much we welcomed the leadership of my noble friend Lady Hooper. We should admire the financial and accountancy expertise which has been given to us by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. Quite frankly, I found myself blinded by his science at times. He has great experience and seemed to know what he was talking about.
I mentioned the number of pages because my noble friend Lady Hooper mentioned the detail. If I have a criticism of the Bill, it is that it goes into a vast amount of detail. My noble friend Lord Peyton made one or two good suggestions for reducing it a little, but if we had really applied our minds I think

743
that we could have made the proceedings even longer by trying to condense it more.
What about the future? As has been rightly said—and I did not know about the report from the committee of another place until it was mentioned —there is a need for fuel efficiency in this important matter. Clearly, the opportunity to achieve that is in the Bill. Another point that we need to bear in mind for the future is that we must have an extension of nuclear power. Nuclear power does not cause acid rain. It does not attack the ozone layer. Nuclear power has to come in a big way. It is wise that in the Bill we are getting the best of both worlds so far as the experiment with nuclear power is concerned.
We are giving technical genius, whether under private enterprise or using the facilities of the present set-up, a great deal of scope. It is in that way that we shall get nuclear power safely and cheaply. It must be safe and cheap if it is to earn its place in years to come. The Government deserve congratulations, and I wish the Bill well.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, perhaps I may add my good wishes on the passing of the Bill. I agree with what my noble friend Lord Renton has said. I should like to associate myself with all that he said about my noble friend Lady Hooper and her team on the Front Bench. The patience and courtesy which she and her associates showed were commendable at all times. It is also worth saying that the constructive approach of the Official Opposition and the lesser opposition—if I may call them so—was also appreciated on all sides.
It is not unusal for governments to be given a great many suggestions during the passage of a Bill, and this Bill was no exception. However, where the subject of generation is concerned, it would have been unusual had the suggestion not been made that there should be greater competition by the creation of more generating companies. I can assure my noble friend that if the Bill had suggested the formation of four generating companies on the nuclear side and two generating companies without access to nuclear power, the Opposition's reaction would immediately have been, "How ridiculous! Why not just split it down and have one company with access to nuclear generation and one with access to all the other methods of generation?"
It is of course rather more serious for a Minister and a government when they have such a penetrative and inquiring mind as that of my noble friend Lord Peyton casting some doubts upon the decisions that the Government have made. Even in his speeches, although he was extremely forthright and frank, he always tempered his remarks by saying that he hoped that he was wrong. I am sure that we all hope that he is wrong and that the Government have been right, for only one set of conclusions can be included in the Bill, and we all hope sincerely that the Government have chosen the right set.
As regards the Opposition, of course the well-worn phrase, "They would say that, wouldn't they!" might be applied. That in no way casts any doubt upon the sincerity of the suggestions that they made. It is after
744
all the duty of Her Majesty's Opposition to disagree, and they have done it in the nicest possible way. I wish the Bill every success and I congratulate my noble friend the Minister on her success in taking it through the House.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I wish to congratulate my noble friends on the Front Bench and the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, in particular for the way in which she has guided the Bill. It has been an extremely complex and difficult Bill and the grasp that she has of the electricity industry during the time in which she has been with the Department of Energy is quite remarkable. I congratulate her.
I also found the Opposition very practical. That is highly relevant in a Bill of this type; there has obviously been a great deal of experience in the subject which has been useful to the House. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, has caused me to undertake a bit of a teach-in on accounting, since I listened to him the other day talking about appreciation. I am now much better able to deal with the subject the next time it comes up on another Bill.
The biggest change that will come out of the Bill concerns those costs which I, as a member of the London Electricity Board, have always described as "uncontrollable", but I understand are actually called "non-controllable" because they were the costs passed on from the CEGB to the area boards. Those costs should now be within the control of the area boards. I hope that that will mean a better deal for consumers. Only time will tell.
To me there is a litle sadness in passing the Bill in that my own time as a member of the London Electricity Board finishes when the Bill becomes an Act, when the new plc or area board or the new supply company, as it will be called, takes over. When that company comes into being, as it is now shadowed, there will be fewer non-executive directors, of whom I shall not be one. Only two of the existing members will continue and I imagine that everywhere throughout the industry there will be similar non-executive directors like myself who are sorry to be ceasing their direct links with the electricity industry. We have enjoyed those links very much and have learned a great deal from them.
I believe that the Bill is in the public interest, otherwise I should not have supported it. Therefore even though I am regretful at parting company with the electricity industry, I shall be interested to see how it develops. I wish the Bill well.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, it will not surprise some of my noble friends and noble Lords opposite to learn that I take a rather different view from that expressed by my noble friends Lord Renton and Lady Gardner. I am not sure that the Bill has been greatly improved in the course of our debates. It will have occurred to my noble friends on the Front Bench that I am not greatly enamoured of it anyway.
I believe that it is important not to let the Third Reading close without recapitulating one or two points which have not really been answered, at any

745
rate to my understanding; we all know that I have a very low threshold in that regard!
Even now I do not understand why the vertical integration which is good for Scotland is bad for the poor English and Welsh. I am not satisfied that the vertical and horizontal disintegration of distribution and generation is suitable for a tightly packed little island like ours. My mind is still obscure about the management of the grid. When we are told that the same people will do the same job as they have done before, I have to say that there still remains a crucial difference between price and marginal cost.
I and others have been accused of not having read the papers. There is a limit to what I can absorb, especially if one does not receive the documentation in good time. I obtained what was available in the Library and went through it but there was always more to come.
If there are any future Bills of such complexity (and no doubt there will be) I hope that the Government will take on board that it makes a great difference if a government can make some sort of presentation both to their supporters and, for that matter, their critics of what it is all about before the Bill reaches the Floor of the House, In business it is quite common for a company to make what is known as a presentation of its problems to another company which may be dealing with them. It may take an hour or two and require the use of videos, designs and so on. But so far as I know there was no great teach-in on this Bill before we received it. Or it may be that there was and I perhaps missed my invitation to it. At any rate, I hope that in the future, when a complicated Bill comes before the House, the Government will provide some sort of teach-in beforehand on a friendly basis for those peers who are likely to be interested.
We have been told many times that the top people in the industry are all in favour of the Bill. Those who have been cited in my hearing are people who were originally appointed by the Government. To that extent, they are still Government place-men. I happen to know several of them personally and what one hears in private does not always accord with what one is told in public. A number of those people describe themselves as still being agnostic about the idea that the Bill will lead to a reduction in energy prices.
I was sorry, and I think that time will probably cause others to share my sorrow, that a very constructive proposal to put nuclear power separately in the hands of a different company modelled on the BP structure did not succeed. I believe that that would have given the Government and the industry a better chance than they will have, both of raising funds on the one hand and of reassuring public opinion on the other. However, all we can say is that that did not go through.
For myself, I do not think that we ever received a proper answer to the questions we asked about long-term research, either as regards the fast reactor or fusion. We were perhaps told what we already knew. It was because what we already knew was unsatisfactory that we asked our questions.
746
My noble friend on the Front Bench has maintained the most marvellous, agreeable and charming composure throughout all the proceedings. Talk about,
"The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune"—
she has taken a lot and has still smiled. I do not know how she does it. However, I think that the department might take on board that it is no good producing briefs of Ciceronian prose—Ciceronian in their density—without Ciceronian clarity as well. Sometimes one felt that the briefs were read, not very comprehendingly and certainly not very comprehensibly.
Having said all that, one does not wish to spoil the summer holiday. I think that my noble friend on the Front Bench should be congratulated certainly on her stamina, if not on the Irlovernment's inflexibility. I hope that the summer holidays, when they come, will bring my noble friend the relief that she deserves and to which we all look forward. So on a personal basis I wish her the best of British luck.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, I had not intended to speak but there have been so many speakers from the other side that I felt I ought to say a few words. The House must congratulate itself on its patience and energy in trying to produce a better Bill. I feel that it has done that. However, we must remember what many of us said at Second Reading, that we heartily disliked the Bill. We believe that to upset the industry at the moment is a disaster and that it cannot possibly lead to cheaper electricity or be in the consumers' interests.
I mentioned the reasons why the Government did this at Second Reading. I hope that I am wrong. I wish the Bill every success but I think that what I said should be said, after all the rather congratulatory remarks made on the other side about the merits of privatising electricity. I end by thanking everybody and saying how well I believe the Government and everybody else have done on the Bill. I hope that I am wrong.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, perhaps I may say a few words on the Scottish attitude to the Bill. I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, who played a big part during the passage of the Bill, will wind up.
In the Bill the specific Scottish dimensions have been changed very little in either House. I think that is because it was recognised from the very beginning that Scottish electricity generation and supply was on a quite different footing from that of the rest of the country. We in Scotland, between the HIDB and the SSEB, have socially conscious service boards. That was shown particularly at the time of the great storm in 1968. The boards had to cope with an extremely difficult territory, particularly in the West of Scotland, the islands and some of the wilder parts of Argyll. The SSEB and the hydro board combined extremely well without worrying, certainly at the time, about how the cost was to be divided. The important consideration was service.
In Scotland we tend to moan, or as we would say, gurn, about our public services rather than praise

747
them. However, I am sure that the general conception of Scots is that both the boards have, by and large, given a very good service. The use of the water resources of Scotland, nuclear power, coal, then later oil for our power stations, has given the people of Scotland a real sense of independence in the supply of power. I believe that, because of the structure of the industry in Scotland, the people of Scotland have received a very large measure of public accountability.
Profits and the need for profits were always recognised by the boards. I have met representatives of the various boards in Scotland on different occasions, and I can confirm that profit was not sought at the expense of the consumer in order to pay dividends to shareholders. According to various company reports that have been issued recently, extremely large remunerations have been paid to board members. However, profits in the Scottish electricity industry were used for the benefit of the people, either directly by investment in the industry or as a direct return to the Treasury. For the sake of the consumer, we on this side of the House hope, particularly in Scotland, that the tradition of the provision of services and the supply of electricity at reasonable cost will be maintained.
However, the experience of other industries does not show that that is always the case. The jury is still out on the bus industry. I think it has almost come in on the telephone industry, and it has not been all that positively in favour of the privatisation of that industry. We hope that the hopes of the Government will be fulfilled because at the end of the day we want the best possible service for people at the lowest cost. We also want accountability to the people as regards the industry and the suppliers, however it is operated.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I shall begin by taking up the words of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, who asked on Second Reading: "Will it work in favour of the consumer? Will it benefit the environment? Will anyone invest in the industry at a fair price?" He then said "I have no doubt that the answer is a resounding no".
I am very glad that in the speech we have just heard, the noble Lord has given the Government some credit for listening in this House and for moving and accepting amendments involving the consumer. I hope that what the noble Lord said on Second Reading has, to a certain extent, been modified as regards the consumer, and that perhaps the same applies as regards the environment.
When it comes to the investor, the noble Lord said there was no reason to suppose that the investor would benefit and that the investor would be pleased when the flotation took place. I believe it was the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, who said that the jury was out. The words of Mr. Asquith will be familiar to noble Lords on those Benches. He said, "we shall have to wait and see". Indeed the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said he had doubts on competition grounds. In that regard, we shall also have to wait and see.
I say to my noble friend Lord Peyton that I hope in time he will come to realise that there are some
748
benefits to the privatisation of this industry. I am afraid I have to say to him in particular in relation to Clause 61(3), vive la différence! However, I wish to thank my noble friends Lord Renton, Lord Gray of Contin and the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, for their contributions during the passage of the Bill through your Lordships' House. To my noble friend Lord Lauderdale I should say that I had noticed that he, in his own words, has not been agnostic during the course of this Bill.
In conclusion, I wish to say a few words about Scotland and take up what the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, has said. We, too, wish to see privatisation go ahead in Scotland on a sound basis. We who live north of the Border are always very pleased to see ownership move from Whitehall to north of the Border. That will indeed happen. The strings that have been attached up to now will exist no longer. The two plcs which will be created, with their nuclear subsidiary will be sizeable companies in Scottish terms. We hope that they will succeed and that many Scots will take shares in those companies. I wish to say how much I am indebted to the work and the patience that my noble friend Lady Hooper has shown during the course of this Bill, and for the amusing references that my noble friend Lord Dundee has at times been able to contribute.
On that note, I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, in the phrase that was used in another context by my noble friend Lord Dundee, that I very much hope that in his remarks about the passing of the Bill and the privatisation of the electricity industry in the United Kingdom he will prove to have been barking up the wrong pylon.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Road Traffic (Driver Licensing and Information Systems) Bill [H.L.]
6.37 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
Moved, that the Commons amendments be now considered.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[References are to Bill 103 as first printed by the Commons.]
1 Clause 1, page 1, line 22, after 'drive' insert 'or a goods vehicle of any class or as the case may be, a passenger-carrying vehicle of any class prescribed for the purposes of this subsection'.
2 Page 2, line 35, at end insert 'and the reference to prescribed classes of goods vehicles or passenger-carrying vehicles is a reference to classes of goods vehicles or passenger-carrying vehicles (within the meaning of the 1988 Act) prescribed under that paragraph.'
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 en bloc. At the same time, I wish to speak to Amendment No. 14.

749
These amendments are to remove anomalies that would otherwise exist between new and existing vocational driving entitlement during the transition to the new system. The EC categories we are adopting do not provide as many classes of vocational entitlement as the present licensing system. This would mean that some drivers who obtain the new licences would be able to drive a wider range of vehicles than when they held the existing version. To avoid any unfair advantages being created during the transitional period, it is proposed to bring the existing and new categories into line. The amendments will allow the necessary regulations to be made. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 en bloc. (Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
Lord Underhill: My Lords, am I correct in assuming that this matter arises from an EC directive, but that it will make no difference at all to any tests that may be necessary for drivers who may wish to go into higher classifications? I wish to say how grateful I am that the Minister has made available some notes on the amendments, because when many of these amendments were introduced in another place, either in Standing Committee or on the Floor of the House, not a word of introduction was given. Therefore, these notes were extremely helpful.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his kind remarks. The amendment is concerned with the transition to the new EC categories. It will not make any difference to the testing arrangements. The number of classes of HGV licence will be reduced from three to two and PSV licence from four to two, so that there is a net reduction in two groups.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
3 Clause 5, page 10, line 9, after 'disability)'. insert—
'(a) after the word "If" there shall be inserted the words "the prescribed circumstances obtain in relation to a person who is an applicant for, or the holder of, a licence or if', and
(b)'.
4 Page 10, line 17, at end insert—
'( ) In section 94(9) of the 1988 Act (payment of doctor's fees), for the words "The Secretary of State must" there shall be substituted the words "Except where the requirement is made in the circumstances prescribed for the purpose of subsection (5) above, it shall be for the Secretary of State (and not for any other person) to".'.
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 en bloc.
The purpose of the amendments is to extend the scope of the high risk offenders scheme which deals with drivers whose drinking habits present a serious threat to road safety. At present the high risk offenders scheme covers offenders disqualified from driving twice within 10 years because the level of alcohol in their bodies was on each occasion two and half times or more above the legal limit, or for twice
750
refusing to supply a specimen for analysis, or for separate disqualifications for each offence. They are required to satisfy the medical branch of the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre that they do not have a drink problem and are otherwise fit to drive before their licences are returned after the period of disqualification.
My right honourable friend the Lord President announced in November 1988 our intention to move the threshold for the high risk offenders scheme to the level recommended by the Blennerhassett Committee on Drinking and Driving in 1976.
The first amendment will enable the Secretary of State to prescribe in regulations the circumstances in which the high risk offenders scheme will apply to drivers seeking to obtain a new licence after a period of disqualification for a drink-drive offence. Regulations will be brought forward in due course. The intention is that the extended scheme will cover the following categories: first, those disqualified once from driving while two and half times or more over the legal limit; secondly, those disqualified twice within a 10-year period for drink-drive offences and, thirdly, those disqualified for failing without reasonable cause to supply a specimen for analysis.
The second amendment removes the requirement for the Secretary of State to meet the cost of medical examinations in those prescribed circumstances.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 en bloc.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara).
Lord Underhill: My Lords, the Minister will no doubt have noticed that during the consideration of the amendments in Standing Commit tee in another place my honourable friend Mrs. Joan Ruddock said that the high risk scheme covered only a few of the people involved in drink-drive accidents. Although she supported the amendment she thought that a great deal more counselling help should be given. I was pleased to note that, in commenting on Mrs. Ruddock's remarks, the Minister's ministerial colleague, Mr. Peter Bottomley, Minister for Roads and Traffic, agreed that the main thrust should be education and rehabilitation rather than the law. Can the Minister say when steps will be taken to follow up Mr. Bottomley's statement, or whether that will be covered during the consideration of certain proposals in the North Report?
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for introducing the amendments. Any recommendation of the Blennerhassett Report that passes into law is to be welcomed.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for their reception of the amendments. As my honourable friend has said, education and rehabilitation are important factors. Indeed, the department's main publicity campaign in relation to driving concerns drink driving. We take the matter very seriously. In making the regulations we shall consult the motoring associations, the police, the courts etc. This was one of the points which we mentioned in our response

751
to the North Report, and this represents a good opportunity to bring the measures into effect.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
5 Clause 6, page 10, line 33, leave out 'two-wheeled motor cycle' and insert 'motor bicycle'.
6 Page 11, line 10, leave out 'two-wheeled motor cycle' and insert 'motor bicycle'.
7 Page 11, line 18, leave out 'two-wheeled cycles' and insert 'motorbicycles'.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 5 to 7 en bloc. At the same time I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 16 to 20.
These are drafting amendments to make it clear that compulsory basic training will apply to riders of motorcycle and side-car combinations as well as solo machines. All the amendments seek to clarify the law relating to combinations.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 5 to 7 en bloc.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
6.45 p.m.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
8 Clause 10, page 14, line 44, after 'individual', insert 'owners or'.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 8.
Your Lordships will recall that this House usefully amended Clause 10 at the instigation of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, to make it clear that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State could not use his licensing powers to obtain information from a driver information system which could identify individual drivers. During Committee in another place, the Government accepted a further amendment to Clause 10 to make it clear that nor could information be obtained which could identify the owners of vehicles using a driver information system.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 8.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I should like to say how much I appreciate the fact that the Government have added this further point to the amendment passed in your Lordships' House. We overlooked the point at the time and I am grateful that it has now been added.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
9 Clause 12, page 16, line 5, leave out subsection (3).
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 9.
752
This is purely a drafting amendment to remove a superfluous provision from Clause 12 of the Bill. The powers given by subsection (3) are already given by subsection (2).
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 9.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
10 Schedule 1, page 19, line 22, after 'revoked' insert—

'(i) if its holder develops such physical disability as may be prescribed, or

(ii)'.

11 Page 19, line 24, after 'conduct', insert 'or physical disability'.
12 Page 19, line 28, after 'conduct', insert 'or physical disability'.
13 Page 20, line 44, leave out '(5)(1)(a)' and insert '(5)(1)(a)(ii)'.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 10 to 13 en bloc.
The amendments ensure that existing vocational licence holders who develop physical disabilities can be dealt with effectively during the period of transition to the new licensing system. The Secretary of State will be allowed to prescribe particular disabilities where mandatory revocation is called for. In other cases where a person becomes unfit to hold a licence on health grounds the Secretary of State will be able to revoke or suspend the licence.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 10 to 13 en bloc.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara).
Lord Underhill: My Lords, this is quite an important amendment. I assume that consultation will take place before the regulations are issued. Can the Minister say which bodies and organisations will be consulted, because the wording of the regulations is of great importance?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am afraid that I am not in a position to tell the noble Lord who will be consulted. However, I should point out that the Secretary of State at present has power under the existing licensing system and he will continue to have the same power under the new licensing system. The amendment relates only to the transitional period between the two licensing systems. I can assure the noble Lord that there will not be very much change from what happens at the moment.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
14 Schedule 1, page 23, line 25, at end insert—
'12. The power to make regulations under paragraph 8 above includes power to prescribe the classes of goods vehicle or passenger-carrying vehicle which, by virtue of section 1(2) of this Act, the holder of existing licence is authorised to drive during the currency of his existing licence.'.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 14, to which I spoke earlier.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 14.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
15 Schedule 2, page 29, line 32, at end insert—
"'provisional licence" means a licence granted by virtue of section 97(2) of this Act;'.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with Commons in their Amendment No. 15.
This is a drafting amendment to remove any doubt as to the meaning of "provisional licence" so far as concerns vocational driving entitlement.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 15.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
16 Schedule 3, page 31, line 2, at beginning insert—
' In section 23 of the 1988 Act (restriction on carriage of persons on motor cycles), for the words "two-wheeled motor cycle" in both places where they occur, there shall be substituted the words "motor bicycle".'.
17 Page 32, line 36, leave out 'two-wheeled motor cycle' and insert 'motor bicycle without a side-car'. .
18 Page 32, line 45, after 'subsection (3)', insert—

'(i) in paragraph (b), for the words "motor cycle" there shall be substituted the words "motor bicycle without a side-car," and

(ii)'. .

19 Page 32, line 47, leave out 'two-wheeled motor cycle' and insert 'motor bicycle'. .
20 Page 34, line 42, leave out 'two-wheeled motor cycle' and insert 'motor bicycle'. .
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 16 to 20 en bloc. I have already spoken to the amendments with Amendment No. 5.
Moved, That the house do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 16 to 20 en bloc.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
21 Schedule 4, page 39, line 8, at end insert—
"( ) In section 116 (Power of magistrates' court to authorise stopping up or diversion of highway subject to arrangements for apparatus of statutory undertakers), at the end there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(11) In this section "statutory undertakers" includes operators of driver information systems." '.
22 Page 39, line 36, at end insert—
"( ) In section 256 (Power of highway authority to exchange land to adjust boundaries of highways subject to arrangements for apparatus of statutory undertakers), after subsection (6) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(6A) In this section "statutory undertakers" includes operators of driver information systems." '.
23 Page 39, line 42 at end insert—
"( ) In Schedule 12 (Provisions as to orders under s.116 and conveyances under s.256), at the end there shall be inserted the following—

PART III INTERPRETATION
11. In this Schedule, "statutory undertakers" includes operators of driver information systems." '.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 21 to 23 en bloc.
This Group of amendments would give operators licensed under Part II of the Bill the same rights regarding their apparatus as statutory undertakers in the event of the closure or re-routing of an existing highway.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 21 to 23 en bloc.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
24 Page 39, line 42, at end insert—
'. Paragraph 23 of Schedule 2 to the Telecommunications Act 1984 (application of telecommunications code) shall apply to the holders of operators' licences under Part II of this Act for the purposes of the operations authorised by their licences.'.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 24.
This is a technical amendment to Schedule 4 to the Bill. It would require driver information system operators to follow the procedures laid down in the telecommunications code where proposed installation or maintenance works are likely to affect apparatus belonging to telecommunications operators.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 24.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
25 Schedule 5, page 41, line 37, leave out from beginning to end of line 13 on page 42 and insert—
'"relevant undertaker" means—

(a) any person or authority authorised by or under any Act (whether public general or local) to carry on any railway, tramway, road transport, water transport, canal, inland navigation, dock, harbour, pier or lighthouse undertaking;

(b) any person to whom the telecommunications code is applied by a licence under section 7 of the Telecommunications Act 1984 authorising him to run a telecommunications system;

(c) any public gas supplier (within the meaning of Part I of the Gas Act 1986);

(d) any holder of a licence under Part I of the Electricity Act 1989 who is entitled to exercise any power conferred by paragraph 1 or 2 of Schedule 4 to that Act;

(e) the National Rivers Authority or any water undertaker or sewerage undertaker;

(f) any other licensed operator of a driver information system; or

(g) any person to whom this Schedule is applied by any Act passed after this Act;

755
"undertaker's works" means—

(a) in relation to a relevant undertaker falling within paragraph (a) above, any works which he is authorised to execute for the purpose of, or in connection with, the carrying on by him of the undertaking mentioned in that paragraph;

(b) in relation to a relevant undertaker falling within paragraph (b) above, any works which he is authorised to execute for the purposes of, or in connection with, a telecommunication system run by him;

(c) in relation to a relevant undertaker falling within paragraph (c) above, any works which he is authorised to execute for the purposes of, or in connection with, his supplying gas as a public gas supplier;

(d) in relation to a relevant undertaker falling within paragraph (d) above, any works which he is authorised to execute for any purpose connected with the carrying on of the activities which he is authorised by his licence to carry on;

(e) in relation to a relevant undertaker falling wihin paragraph (e) above, any works which that Authority or undertaker has power to execute for purposes connected with the carrying on of its functions;

(f) in relation to a relevant undertaker falling within paragraph (f) above, any works which he is authorised to execute for the purposes of, or in connection with, a driver information system operated by him; and

(g) in relation to a relevant undertaker falling within paragraph (g) above, the works for the purposes of which this Schedule is applied to him.".'.

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 25.
Before speaking to this amendment I should like to draw noble Lords' attention to an error on the Marshalled List. The amendment should refer to page 41, line 37 and not line 36 as printed.
The amendment introduces a replacement for paragraph 8 of Schedule 5 to the Bill which provides definitions of "relevant undertaker" and "undertakers works" for the purposes of that schedule. The new paragraph consists only of drafting amendments.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 25.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Modification) Order 1989
6.52 p.m.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 26th June be approved [24th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the purpose of this order is to add two substances—namely, buprenorphine and pemoline—to the drugs controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.
The order follows a decision taken last February by the United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs to bring buprenorphine and pemoline under the control of the 1971 United Nations Convention on Psychotropic Substances. As a party to that convention, we are required to bring the drugs under the control of our domestic legislation.
Buprenorphine is an analgesic drug prescribed by doctors to alleviate moderate to severe pain and is marketed in the United Kingdom under the brand name of Temgesic. Pemoline is a weak central nervous system stimulant which is used mainly in the treatment of hyperactive children. Its brand name is Volital.
At the present time we have no evidence that pemoline is being abused to any extent in the United Kingdom, and to that extent the order is a contingency measure. But we are worried by the increasing illicit use of buprenorphine. This has been most prevalent in Scotland and in other areas where, because of police activity, heroin has been in short supply. This has led to a disturbing incidence of thefts from chemists' shops and pharmaceutical warehouses.
To comply with the requirements of Section 2 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has consulted the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs about the proposal. The council is content that both substances should be controlled.
The effect of the order is to include both drugs in the list specified in Class C of Schedule 2 to the 1971 Act. This is the lowest tier and its effect inter alia will be to make the unlawful possession and supply of the drugs punishable by maximum penalties of two and five years' imprisonment respectively and/or an unlimited fine.
If the order is approved tonight, my right honourable friend will submit amendment regulations to bring both drugs under the control of the misuse of drugs regulations. I can provide details of these controls if your Lordships wish, but in broad terms they will be similar to those that apply to other drugs which have the same potential for abuse. The regulatory proposals, which have been recommended by the advisory council, will comply with the obligations of the United Nations convention.
My right honourable friend has also consulted the medical professions and the pharmaceutical industry and I am glad to say that the proposals have their support.
If the order is approved, my right honourable friend will aim to bring it and the relevant regulations into force by the end of September. I therefore commend it to your Lordships.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 26th June be approved [24th Report from the Joint Committee]. —(The Earl of Arran.)
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Earl for his clear explanation of the purpose of the order. We note that its provisions are needed in order that Britain may comply with a decision made, I think, last February by the United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs which decided to add the two substances to the 1971 convention. It is clear that these drugs, if misused, can cause harm.
Perhaps I may put two points to the noble Earl to improve my understanding of the use and abuse of the two drugs. First I understand from what he

757
said that buprenorphine, if I have pronounced it correctly, is a painkiller and issued for opiate addiction. Will he give us some idea of how many incidents of abuse there have been in the United Kingdom through prescribing and the failure to keep the drugs in safe conditons and how many cases there have been of addiction?
Secondly, will the Minister say what problems we have encountered in the United Kingdom as a result of the use of the drug? I believe that he said that there had been no evidence of abuse, so perhaps he will confirm that we are relying on the statement of the United Nations Commission in order to add the substance to the list. My final point concerns the list of substances controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. Will the noble Earl say whether he is satisfied that the system which requires specific drugs to be added to the list works properly?
In the light of the awful drug problem in this country which has escalated so seriously since 1980, we should like confirmation that the Minister is satisfied that the powers under the Act are sufficient to deal with the deteriorating situation and apparently hopeless problem. Given his assurance on those points, I certainly support the measure and agree that those two substances are dangerous and should therefore be added to the list of substances controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Earl for giving such a clear exposition of the order. I found that there had been no discussion on it in the other place, so there was no help or guidance there. I found it difficult to obtain from the drug agencies any guidance on the drug pemoline whose use as a stimulant has been well explained by the noble Earl.
There are two points that strike me. First, the Government are alert to the danger of drugs which are available to the general public. It is heartening to see that orders such as this put those drugs out of reach of the unauthorised user. It seems to me from the noble Earl's remarks, particularly with regard to Scotland and the police actions against heroin, that there is an enormous overlap between drugs, prescription drugs, alcohol and so on. Thus, if there is an effective drive against heroin, it is more than likely that users will be channelled into using other substances. Since I have been interested and involved in alcohol and drug addiction, I have always felt it a pity that we look upon alcohol and drug addiction and the misuse of prescription drugs as separate issues. They are all part of one worrying problem, but it is heartening to see that the Government are on top of it in that way. I thoroughly support the contents of the order.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, naturally I welcome the broad agreement that both the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, and the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, have expressed on the measure. Perhaps I may answer the two or three questions that the noble Baroness put to me. First, the misuse of buprenorphine is not quantifiable because the drug is not yet controlled but our contacts with the medical
758
profession indicate that buprenorphine is increasingly being demanded by drug misusers.
On the noble Baroness's second question which concerns addiction, as yet this information is not available because the drug is not one which is specified in the notification of addicts regulations. However, essentially addicts generally use only buprenorphine when they are unable to obtain drugs such as heroin and methadone, addiction to which is notifiable.
The second drug to which the noble Baroness referred was pemoline. I understand that pemoline is misused in Africa in particular, in the Middle East and in Asia, but not so far in the United Kingdom. We have an international obligation under the United Nations convention to contribute to worldwide controls. This is a contingency measure.
In reply to the final point of the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, about whether we were satisfied that the power in the Act achieves satisfactory controls, inasmuch as there can be satisfactory controls, we have satisfaction at the moment. I am obviously grateful for the remarks made by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland.
In summarising this order, as noble Lords have heard, it is essentially a technical measure to limit the scope for misuse of certain drugs, in this instance buprenorphine and pemoline, which make a contribution to the illicit drugs markets either in this country or abroad. That contribution is small in comparison with the major problems presented by heroin and cocaine. However, we must ensure that any drug which has potential for causing harm sufficient to contribute a social problem is effectively controlled. I commend the order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Dangerous Dogs Bill
7.2 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
I am very happy indeed that the noble Earl, Lord Arran, is responding for the Government because the Bill owes its origin to his department. I am glad of his support in carrying out a task which is not a very happy one or on a very happy subject.
The Bill is about dogs given a very bad name. In fact it is about dogs that have been convicted by magistrates' courts in England or a court of summary jurisdiction in Scotland of being dangerous. It deals solely with dangerous dogs and tightens up a law which for some reason that I cannot explain has been unamended since 1871.
While capital punishment has been abolished for dangerous people, it has not been abolished for dangerous dogs. This Bill makes more certain that a dog sentenced to death suffers the extreme penalty. It is as doom-laden as that. At present a sentence of death on a dog may not be carried out due to some stratagem or evasion undertaken by its owner or, in some cases, by the willingness of the owner to pay the fine laid down in 1871 of £1 per clay for each day that he fails to carry out the execut ion ordered

759
by the court. I confess that if I had a dog of which I was very fond, and I did not believe that it was a bad dog, I would willingly pay £1 a day to keep my dog alive. Some owners probably do so. However, the Bill will now tighten up that part of the existing legislation.
Before I go any further with the gloomy subject of dangerous dogs—which in this Bill must be convicted and sentenced to one of two penalties: either to be kept under proper control or destroyed—I should like to say a few words about good dogs to get the subject in proportion. There are far more good dogs than bad dogs. Noble Lords will not deny that dogs are the most popular companion animals in our domestic life today. I am firmly of the opinion that dogs bring more happiness to more households than children. They are nothing like so much trouble, they are usually more obedient and they do not leave one as they grow up. Many pensioners and lonely people find their dog their lifeline and a relief from feelings of isolation and neglect. We must not minimise the therapeutic value of dogs for human beings.
On the whole I believe that we treat our dogs well and they deal with their owners pretty well too. We find it difficult to express sometimes the affection that we feel for our companion animals. I must express a word or two of sympathy for some dogs who are so ill-treated and neglected that it is difficult for them to remain good. The owners of dogs must take more responsibility in many cases for their animals. On the whole too I believe that the instinct of most dogs is one of friendliness, cheerfulness and a desire to serve their owners. We have many strays which are leading a very unhappy life. It is difficult for them to remain good when they are in extremities through lack of either food or care.
That is all that I wish to say about good dogs. I also wish to make clear that the Bill has nothing to do with the campaign for registration. It has nothing do with anything but dangerous dogs. The law regarding them is brief and explicit, and is to be amended in this Bill, and nothing else.
The Bill has no doubt been sparked off by recent publicity given to a few occasions when dogs of comparatively new entry into our realms of canine fear have been misbehaving and have done serious injury to children and others. Otherwise, the 1871 Act would probably have been left where it was. Since 1871 we have managed without bringing the law on dangerous dogs up to date or increasing the penalties in it. However, that certainly needed to be done. If noble Lords were to ask me what has happened to dangerous dogs in the past 100 years under the weakened law, at the present time my answer would be simply that I do not know. I am prepared to let sleeping dogs lie.
The Bill has a most respectable pedigree. It was sired by the Secretary of State and mothered by Dame Janet Fookes MP, a member of the council of the RSPCA. She has an enviable track record for end of Session successes with short, useful but non-contentious Bills of which this is one.
Another thing about the Bill is that it comes from the Commons on conditions which one might say
760
reveal Parliament at its best: few Members in the Chamber, very little said about it, no noisy scenes, no controversy, a few nods round and about, and the Bill goes on its way—just like the House of Lords. We are repeating the best in our parliamentary practice again this evening.
I must obviously say something more about the Bill, although I hope that we shall refrain from moving amendments. There is no more private time available down the corridor and we now want the Bill to reach the statute book expeditiously. I hope that we can let it go as it is.
As regards the detail, the Bill enables a court to take a dog away from its owner so that it can be destroyed. That is not possible at present. The magistrates' court when sentencing a dog to be destroyed can appoint a person to receive the dog to kill it. It places an obligation upon the owner of the dog to deliver it up to the person who is nominated as the executioner. The penalty for failing to keep a dog under control, which is the more lenient sentence that can be passed on a dangerous animal, is stepped up. There is a pretty heavy fine and new power in the hands of the court to punish an owner who fails to deliver up his dog for the destruction that the court has decided that it should suffer. The fine for failure to deliver up is not a £1 a day but £400. Clearly that could amount to a very large sum for repeated failures to hand over.
Another provision that the Bill contains which is not part of the existing law is to ban an owner from keeping a dog after the court has dealt with the dog which he owned. At present an owner of a dangerous dog cannot be banned from keeping another dog unless the dangerous dog has been the subject of cruelty. The owner must have been guilty of cruelty to a dog. It seems as though a double penalty rests upon some of these dogs. First, the owner is cruel to them and they suffer a sentence of the court for being dangerous. However, the Bill provides that the court can ban an owner from keeping another dog. That provision is specifically aimed at the suspicion that some people are keeping highly dangerous animals so that they can use them for unlawful purposes. It concerns the marginal range of fighting dogs.
If the court is of the opinion that an owner is keeping animals which he ought not to have for any lawful or approved purpose it can ban him from keeping another dog for any period that the court may direct. However, the Bill provides that if the owner is banned from keeping another dog for a stipulated period he may appeal to the court to have the disqualification removed after a year.
The Bill contains a right of appeal to the Crown Court by the owner of a dog who wishes to contest what the magistrates court decides in England and Wales. The Bill does not apply to Northern Ireland and, as I have said, it is to be administered by a court of summary jurisdiction in Scotland.
This is what the Bill amounts to. In reading the Bill, I discovered how lucid it was; one can follow the detail of it easily. It is a short Bill and in some respects a small one, but it ties up the weaknesses of the existing legislation. It only takes a case or two

761
which expose the weakness in our laws for the media soon to open up a huge campaign clamouring for something to be done. I believe that the recent publicity given to dangerous dogs and the haste with which the Bill has been prepared is due to some exaggeration of the real danger, grievous though the risk may be in some individual cases. I am not complaining but merely asking that we keep it in proportion.
There are about 6 or 7 million dogs and 99 per cent. of those are good dogs, so we must not get the whole thing out of proportion. There are some people with a macho disposition or outlook on life who must have a big dog walking at their side wearing a heavy collar; a dog from which passers by shrink from contact in case it is dangerous. What those people would really like to carry is a gun. They are not the kind of people who use a dog for ordinary purposes. Nevertheless, they have to be stopped if they are harbouring a dangerous dog.
There we are. I sincerely hope that my appeal for a swift passage for the Bill will be observed and that we can get this little Bill on the statute book. I am very happy to do something more for animals, even though it is on this unhappy subject. I am glad that I have been trusted with this task in your Lordships' House. Linked with two similar Bills last year—one on cruel tethering and the other dealing with the weaknesses in the law on dog fighting and now this one on dangerous dogs—I hope that I am not getting the wrong kind of reputation, but they all probably amount to animal welfare. I hope that one day soon the wider issue of the dog problem in Britain will be considered sympathetically and comprehensively by your Lordships' House. In the meantime, the target is small and clear and it is not likely to be improved by bringing in matters which are not relevant to it.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Lord Houghton of Sowerby.)
7.18 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I rise with diffidence after an expert such as the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. Indeed my experiences with dogs have been somewhat mixed. My experience with children is unlike that of the noble Lord, although he made his remarks somewhat jocularly. I was bitten by dogs several times up to the age of 10. I do not think any dog bit me after the age of 10, but I was extremely nervous up to that age. I do not think I have been bitten by any child, certainly not by my own children. I have treated dogs with enormous respect. I love dogs. I do not have one myself but I have many friends who have dogs and most of them are extremely likeable. To my knowledge none of them is dangerous.
I accept the fact that 99 per cent. of dogs are perfectly well behaved, as the noble Lord said. I find no evidence to the contrary. I have heard that there are approximately 7·5 million dogs in this country. If only 1 per cent. are not well behaved that is still a lot of dogs.
I accept the provisions laid out in the Bill and I agree that we should not delay its passage through
762
this House. It answers the development in this country of the breeding of dogs whose characteristics Members of your Lordships' House would not wish to see. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, covered that point very well. Some people in our community desire to reflect their own aggressive instincts and behaviour in their dog ownership. There are breeders who can satisfy that demand and we have seen the result of that. Recently there have been upsetting and tragic cases involving breeds of dog which have a reputation for instability and which can become fierce. I accept the noble Lord's comment that dogs generally behave in acccordance with the treatment given by their owners. Therefore we are dealing with the owners of a small percentage of the dog population.
The Bill covers all the points. Society has been greatly worried about the difficulty experienced by the courts in ensuring that owners destroy uncontrollable and dangerous dogs. The Bill not only makes possible a direct destruction order, rather than requiring the owner to comply with a court order; it also makes possible the banning of owners who have a bad record, which is all to the good.
It must be understood by members of the public, as it is understood in your Lordships' House, that dogs should not be subject to such legislation until there has been a proper court case. Therefore the Bill creates a proper safeguard: the owner of a dog which has savaged a child, or any other person, must go through the court.
The Bill reflects the Government's views. It has nothing to do with a dog registration scheme; it is about dangerous dogs. It separates them from other dogs, and that again is all for the good. The Bill is set against the background of a small country with 7 million or 8 million dogs. It is impossible to be precise because we do not have a dog registration scheme.
Most members of the public and most people in parliament would agree that it is time that we had such a registration scheme into which this legislation would properly fit. We hope that in the next Session of Parliament the Government will reel that it is time for a move in that direction. That has been stated many times in your Lordships' House, but the Government's attitude towards the difficulties of a dog registration scheme are not clear. I have always understood Ministers who have answered Questions about the matter to say that the problem lies in enforcing the legislation on owners. Experience in other countries shows that that is possible. It can be made cost-effective by introducing a proper scheme.
I shall say no more about that, because, as the noble Lord said, it is not part of the Bill.
I welcome the Bill, as will all noble Lords. I hope that it has a speedy process through Parliament and that it will form an important part of the move towards dog registration which in time must be introduced. I hope that as a result of the Bill there will be a reduction in the number of tragic events, which have escalated over the past year, in which dogs have caused injury and sometimes death to young children.
7.25 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I should also like to thank my noble friend Lord Houghton for again bringing forward an important measure. In this case it relates to the problem of dangerous dogs. The Bill goes some way towards strengthening controls over such dogs. It allays the fears of some members of the public who are anxious about the more combative breeds of dog.
I am glad that my noble friend put forward the case that dogs are companionable animals and a great solace to many families, particularly to the elderly to whom they bring an escape from loneliness. It is important to say that at the beginning of a debate which is about the darker side of dogs. We must remember that in many cases they are regarded as part of the family and of great use.
I support my noble friend when he said that the Bill is a useful addition to the law. He has put forward all the points contained in the Bill and there is nothing else that I can add. There is a need for tougher controls following the recent tragedies concerning attacks on young children and adults by vicious animals which have received a great deal of publicity.
No doubt noble Lords read an account in the Sunday Times magazine of June 1989. The account may have been exaggerated but it gave some worrying statistics. It showed that recently the number of stray dogs has risen enormously, and a multitude of problems have arisen as a result. I was horrified to read the following statistics: stray dogs cause approximately 50,000 road accidents per year. Since the abolition of the dog licence last year the RSPCA estimates that as many as 1,000 dogs are destroyed each day. Illnesses caused by the fouling of parks and pavements are constantly increasing, as are attacks on livestock and people. It is clear that something must be done to make owners responsible for their dogs in order to control them and diminish the growing number of strays. That is an important purpose of the Bill.
There is an urgent need to bring forward the controls. According to the latest estimates, there were more than 7 million dogs in the United Kingdom in 1988. That was 500,000 more than in the previous year, so clearly the dog population is rising although care for them is not increasing. The increase in the number of dogs is forecast to continue, and no doubt the problems will continue to grow.
However, as the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, said, although I know that it is outside this Bill, nevertheless I think it is important to say this —we hope that there may be some movement made on the national dog registration scheme which has been asked for for so long from so many different quarters. It is quite clear that it would run very well in conjunction with the Bill. I shall not go on about the scheme because a great deal has already been said, and a great deal may well be said on the discussion of the Local Government and Housing Bill. Therefore, we must keep to the strict and narrow point of this Bill, as my noble friend said, and welcome what it is bringing us.
764
As my noble friend said, this Bill aims to make the owners of dangerous dogs more accountable. I should like to ask my noble friend about this. A matter of concern is that in the Bill if a person is found not to have handed over his dog then, as a consequence, he is banned from owning a dog. I should like to know who will monitor such people to check that they do not subsequently keep dogs as pets. I know that this Bill will not be amended, but I should like to ask my noble friend how he feels that that will work out and whether somebody will monitor those people in order to ensure that they do not keep dogs as pets in the future.
I support my noble friend's Bill and I wish it a speedy passage through your Lordships' House. I hope that in the future there will be further progress made towards a registration scheme which, as I say, would work in conjunction with the provisions of this Bill and make a big step forward in dealing with the problems which undoubtedly arise through stray dogs and the effects of them.
7.31 p.m.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I welcome the initiative of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, in introducing this Bill this evening. This is a measure which has all-party support. The Government certainly unreservedly welcome it. In our view, it is a well-aimed measure to greatly increase the effectiveness of the sanctions which are available to courts to control dangerous dogs and to respond to public concern—a point mentioned by many noble Lords this evening. Your Lordships will need no reminding of Lord Houghton's expertise in this field and he introduced the Bill this evening in a characteristically eloquent way.
Your Lordships have heard how this Bill has three important elements, and I wish to underline those. The first is that it increases the penalty, which is on the face of the Dogs Act 1871, from £1 a day to Level 3, which is currently £400. That will bring the penalty back to a realistic level. In order to achieve this, the Bill makes failure to comply with a court order an offence, and this is a small but important change.
The second major element is that the Bill seeks to remedy the deficiencies in the 1871 Act which relies solely on the owner to destroy the dog. Under Clause 1(1)(a) the court can appoint someone else to take custody of the dog and have it destroyed. That closes a loophole in the present legislation.
The third major element is that the Bill, for the first time, enables courts to disqualify someone who owns a dangerous dog from being able to have custody of a dog in future. That is an important power. The ban can be brought in either on first complaint, under Clause 1(1)(b), or if the person against whom the order is made fails to hand over the dog subsequently. It is an offence to have a dog when you are disqualified by the court and the penalty for that offence has been set at Level 5, the maximum available, and this is currently £2,000.
The effect of the ban is twofold. First, it is an important sanction and deterrent. People who own dogs which are dangerous can be denied the right to

765
have a dog of any sort. The dog may have become dangerous because the owner neglected or trained it that way. It may have become dangerous because the owner failed to take proper control in its training. It is right that people who cannot keep dogs, control them and stop them being dangerous should be banned from having a dog.
But the ban can also be used to reinforce the court's powers in enforcing its order. When it is imposed under Clause 1(3) because someone has failed for instance to hand over a dog for destruction, that person will be holding on to a dog while banned from doing so. That immediately renders him liable to the higher level of penalty.
I should perhaps explain to the House a small technicality in this Bill. The Dogs Act 1871 is an example of 19th century administrative legislation. It does not create an offence. It simply prescribes a penalty for failure to comply with an order from the court.
This means that the initial test as to whether a dog is dangerous and not kept under proper control is not the test used in the criminal case of "beyond reasonable doubt" but the test more commonly used in civil cases of "balance of probabilities". Someone who fails to keep a dog under proper control, on first complaint, will not be convicted, under the Dogs Act 1871 or the Dangerous Dogs Bill which we are discussing tonight, of a criminal offence. This Bill does not seek to vary that, and there are some advantages in this position.
What this Bill says is that, after it has been established by a court that a dog is dangerous and not kept under proper control, it should be an offence not to obey the order of the court. Anyone who seeks to defy the court will be guilty of an offence and will attract a criminal conviction. It is at that stage that the criminal law starts to take effect, naturally with the test of "beyond reasonable doubt". Your Lordships will see that the Bill contains strong sanctions for those who seek to defy the orders of the court. And, because failure to comply with the court order is an offence, we can use the formula of Level 3 and Level 5 penalties. We can inflation-proof the Bill for another 110 years or more.
It follows from the structure of this Bill that it needs subsections to deal with appeals. Appeals against conviction by a magistrates' court of an offence are of course routinely to the Crown Court, and there is no need to specify that. But there is a need to provide for appeals against an order made where no offence has been committed. At the moment, this is provided by the Dogs (Amendment) Act 1938 and it has been reprovided in an extended form in this Bill so that someone can appeal against an order not only for the dog's destruction but also against having to keep it under proper control or, more importantly, a ban.
These appeal procedures are required not merely for fairness but to ensure the courts do not hesitate in imposing a ban where they consider it necessary in all the circumstances. The Bill also contains a provision for an applicant to go back to the court, if necessary years later, to ask for a ban against him to
766
be lifted. These provisions will ensure that the Bill is applied fairly but firmly.
I end as I began. The Government welcome the measure of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, and congratulate him on introducing it to the House tonight. We share your Lordships' desire to see this measure become law. We share your Lordships' keenness to see this measure enacted. The Bill introduces a new way of addressing the problem of dangerous dogs. I share the view of noble Lords that this is an effective way. But we should perhaps recognise that this is an area in which legislation is not the answer by itself. Legislation helps to create the climate of opinion which persuades people not to go in for the kind of misbehaviour it is aimed at, as well as providing sanctions against people who remain unpersuaded.
As I have said, I think the noble Lord's Bill stands a very good chance of making a significant change in the law, and its novel provisions will certainly change the way which courts and the police approach these problems. I am glad that the House has given it such a warm welcome. And I am glad to be able to say that the Government unreservedly add their support to this measure.
7.38 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, to my noble friend and to the Minister for the remarks they have made about this Bill. I am glad that I left the noble Earl plenty of scope to describe this Bill with greater clarity and precision; and to give an edge to it which, with my softer approach to these animal matters, I probably did not do. The noble Earl is absolutely right about the powers in the Bill and how important they will be if applied to cases which otherwise would be regarded as a scandal or a danger to public welfare.
This is an important Bill. Although it may deal with a very small number of grievous cases, it will be enough to prevent public concern about the effectiveness of the protective measures taken.
There is nothing that I can add; and if my noble friend does not so far have everything that she wants, a brief Committee stage will enable us to clear up any remaining doubt. I do not think that we need to hold up the proceedings tonight. I hope that the Committee stage can be a very brief one. We must do something about this matter. I leave it there. I am grateful to all noble Lords. I hope that this Bill will receive a very speedy passage.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

London Docklands Railway (Beckton) Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.

Antarctic Minerals Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons with a privilege amendment; the amendment was considered and agreed to.
House adjourned at nineteen minutes before eight o'clock.

  RESTRICTIVE TRADE PRACTICES WHITE PAPER
  RESTRICTIVE TRADE PRACTICES WHITE PAPER