Sitting of 24 July 1989

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

    NEW SOUTHGATE CEMETERY AND CREMATORIUM LIMITED BILL
    Orders read for consideration of Lords amendments.
    To be considered on Thursday 27 July.

    QUEEN MARY AND WESTFIELD COLLEGE BILL [Lords]
    Orders for consideration read.
    To be considered tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions
  ENERGY

    British Coal
    Mr. Andrew Mitchell: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his estimate of the date upon which British Coal will break even.
    The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Cecil Parkinson): I will be reviewing British Coal's financial prospects with the corporation once its current negotiations with the generating companies are concluded. I cannot anticipate the outcome.
    Mr. Mitchell: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the contracts will be inextricably linked to British Coal's ability to break even? Does he agree that it is important to apply both the carrot and the stick to an industry whose productivity has risen by nearly 50 per cent. during the past three years? Did he notice the enthusiasm and dedication of the Nottinghamshire mineworkers when he visited the county last week, and is he aware of the considerable approval of and gratitude for his visit that is felt among mineworkers generally and by the miners of Thoresby?
    Mr. Parkinson: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. I enjoyed my visit to Thoresby. I was impressed with the enthusiasm with which the men there are using the new equipment and the big investment that has been made. They are doing the very thing that is guaranteed to safeguard a good future for them. They are an outstanding example of how the industry can secure its future.
    Mr. Allen McKay: When does the Secretary of State expect to write off the interest charges—before or after privatisation?
    Mr. Parkinson: Of course, one cannot anticipate the Queen's Speech, but I expect proposals to come forward in the very near future—certainly later this year—for the restructuring of British Coal's finances.
    Sir Trevor Skeet: May I re-emphasise to my right hon. Friend the need to have a capital restructuring, which is absolutely vital for the industry? Is my right hon. Friend aware that we have been talking about breaking even for the past 20 years, but that we have never been able to achieve it?
    Mr. Parkinson: One reason for that is the high interest charges borne by the industry. It has received nearly £10 billion in deficit grant and subsidy in recent years. However, its capital structure is not satisfactory. It has no reserves. Every time a pit closes, the cost is added to the negative reserve. The answer is restructuring and, as I have already said, I expect the Government to come forward with proposals.
    Mr. Barron: When the industry is restructured, will the Secretary of State make sure that comparisons of the costs of British coal are not made against the marginal cost of coal on the international markets, in view of the answer that he gave me in 1987—that if the international markets were to supply the Central Electricity Generating Board, it would substantially increase the cost? Will he assure the House that the actual costs of production will not be compared with the marginal costs of international coal?
    Mr. Parkinson: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. It is a mistake to take the lowest price at which one can buy coal on the spot market and say that that is the world price. As he knows, if the CEGB were to go into the market for 80 million tonnes, it would shift the world price considerably. I am glad that on this occasion he and I can agree.

    Renewable Energy
    Mr. McCartney: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his latest estimate of the potential for electricity generation from renewable sources in the north-west of England.
    Mr. George Howarth: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what further studies he expects to authorise on renewable electrical energy potential in the north-west of England or other regions.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement concerning renewable energy sources for electricity generation in the north-west of England.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Michael Spicer): The recent report of the North-Western electricity board and the energy technology support unit estimates the potential for electricity generation from renewable energy sources in the NORWEB area to be equivalent to 400 MW of conventional base load plant at costs up to 3p per kWh, excluding connection costs. The board is currently considering the next steps.
    Mr. McCartney: I welcome the NORWEB initiative and report. Is it not astonishing that after privatisation, by the year 2000, only 1 per cent. of capacity will come from renewables, yet the report shows that 10 to 12 per cent. of NORWEB's capacity could come from renewables? As methane gas has one of the worst effects on the greenhouse problem, should not the Department of Energy be promoting a nationwide programme for using rubbish tips and harnessing methane gas as an alternative to the nuclear industry, which is expected to produce 15 to 20 per cent. of electricity. We could then ensure that methane gas was used by NORWEB and other companies so as not to destroy the atmosphere.
    Mr. Spicer: I do not know where the hon. Gentleman gets his figure of 1 per cent., but I can tell him that no Government have done as much as this one for renewable energy, not only in sponsoring research, but in providing for the non-fossil fuel obligation, which will give a special chance for renewable energy. Renewable energy has never been so protected as it will be in the future. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome that.

    Energy Saving
    Mr. Jack: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what private sector initiatives there are in the field of energy saving.
    The Minister of State, Department of Energy (Mr. Peter Morrison): There is now a well-established energy efficiency industry operating and taking initiatives in the private sector.
    Mr. Jack: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating a company in my constituency, Inenco, which for the past 21 years has been investing in energy management, to the extent of £2·3 million in saving systems, which in turn have saved £1 million worth of energy? Does he agree that that excellent example of a private sector initiative shows what can be done in energy savings?
    Mr. Morrison: I agree with my hon. Friend that Inenco deserves a very good 21st birthday present. I am glad to say that where that company has gone, so have many others.
    Mrs. Roe: Is my right hon. Friend aware that horticulturists are among the most efficient users of energy, yet their operations are threatened by the large increase in gas prices?
    Mr. Morrison: I am aware of that, not least because my hon. Friend, with another of my hon. Friends, discussed with me the position of the glasshouse industry. She knows that Ofgas is in discussion with British Gas at present about the predicament that she mentioned.

    Insulation
    Ms. Quin: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what discussions he has had on the desirability of setting a minimum target for the number of low-income households to be insulated in the current year and next year.
    Mr. Peter Morrison: The number of low-income households insulated is largely determined by the
    718
    availability locally of unemployed people requiring training in those occupational or skill areas which the projects can provide. Against that background, it would not be appropriate to set a minimum target.
    Ms. Quin: Will the Minister confirm that there has been a 50 per cent. reduction in the number of low-income households that have been insulated during the past year since the introduction of employment training? Will he urgently consider ways of expanding such schemes and urge his colleagues to increase the funding to local authorities, so that they can increase the number of schemes that they operate?
    Mr. Morrison: I confirm that there was a reduction during the transition from the community programme to employment training. However, the hon. Lady will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment considered this matter carefully and increased the grant by £40. Since that time it appears that the take-up of the scheme under employment training has been good, and I know that my right hon. Friend is looking carefully at continuing that grant.
    Mr. Morgan: May I re-emphasise to the Minister how important it is to insulate low-income households because of the likelihood that, during the period before privatisation and afterwards, their electricity bills will increase by about 50 per cent. or more? I draw to the Minister's attention the case of my constituent, Mr. John O'Connor of Ashcroft crescent, Fairwater, Cardiff, which was brought to my attention on Saturday. He was told in his most recent electricity bill that his monthly payment on or after 25 September will be £27·50. That is a 55 per cent. increase on Mr. O'Connor's previous quarterly bill and on the average of the four previous quarterly bills that he has received.
    When I received my quarterly bill at the same time I was told that if I changed to a monthly budget account my bill "would be" £91·50 per month. That is a larger increase than that faced by Mr. O'Connor, but at least I was given the option by being told what my bill "would be" if I switched to a monthly budget account, whereas pensioner households on council estates are being told, "Your bill will be going up by 55 per cent. from September". Does the Minister agree that it is absolutely urgent that low-income households are fully insulated and that the practices of the South Wales electricity board are reviewed?
    Mr. Morrison: First, I am glad that the hon. Gentleman agrees with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment on his insulation initiative.
    The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that this is the first time that he has mentioned the case of his constituent, Mr. O'Connor, but I shall be perfectly happy to look into the matter. Perhaps he would like to write to me or come to see me about it. He will appreciate, however, that electricity bills have not increased by anything like 50 per cent.

    Fossil Fuels (Pollution)
    Mr. Lofthouse: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what discussions he has had regarding means to offset the cost of air pollution from the burning of fossil fuel.
    Mr. Parkinson: I regularly receive representations on environmental questions and discuss them with a wide range of interests.
    The Government are committed to reducing acid emissions from the burning of fossil fuel and, for example, a £2 billion investment programme is planned by the electricity supply industry to meet new standards agreed with the European Community.
    Mr. Lofthouse: Does the Secretary of State agree with the recent report of the Select Committee on Energy on the greenhouse effect which concluded that the nuclear industry would not have the advantage in reducing the greenhouse effect and that the Government should not overstate the nuclear argument? Does he agree that the best way forward is to find the most efficient method of burning fossil fuel? Methods are being investigated, but because of the underfunding of plants such as Grimethorpe, that investigation is unable to progress. On Thursday, the Under-Secretary of State refused to give a definite assurance that that plant would be financed. Will the Secretary of State assure the House that Grimethorpe will continue to be funded by Government money?
    Mr. Parkinson: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are trying to put together a package—I am extremely optimistic that we will succeed—of finance to keep the project active and to bring it to a successful conclusion. I cannot anticipate the outcome of my arguments and discussions with the Treasury, but I am optimistic.
    We will, of course, reply to the Select Committee report, but we do not take the view that there is one answer to the greenhouse effect. We believe that the answer will be found in a variety of ways through cleaner coal burn, nuclear power and the extension of renewables—the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) mentioned the burning of waste gas. We have 45 projects on the stocks and we should be producing nearly 50 MW of electricity from waste gas next year. In a variety of ways, therefore, we shall tackle the problem of the greenhouse effect. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that one such solution is cleaner coal burn.
    Mr. Hannam: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the important future methods of reducing pollution from coal burn will be gasification? How is gasification developing and how near are we to its use?
    Mr. Parkinson: We are backing research into this matter because my Department takes the view—I have said this many times—that coal is one of our most important indigenous resources. We must find cleaner ways in which to use it, and gasification is one of them.
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Does the Secretary of State accept that when more stringent sulphur controls are imposed on nuclear power stations—the sooner it happens the better—that will encourage the burning of low sulphur coal? In those circumstances, and given the pressure on British Coal as the Minister pushes it towards privatisation, does he agree that the forced closure of many coalfields in Scotland that produced low sulphur coal has been a mistake? Will he respond, even now, to my suggestion that he should review the likely premium for low sulphur coal when full restrictions are in force? That review might, at least, salvage some of the Scottish coalfields.
    Mr. Parkinson: As the hon. Gentleman knows, closures are a matter for British Coal, which examines each case in detail before arriving at its decision whether to close. I agree that low sulphur coal has a role to play, but since the vast majority of our reserves are high sulphur coal we see the flue gas desulphurisation equipment as a way of guaranteeing a continuing market for the main body of British coal.
    Mr. Redmond: The Secretary of State mentioned the financial package for Grimethorpe. If that package fails, will he stand guarantor so that, irrespective of whether the package is put together, the Government will continue to ensure adequate finance?
    Mr. Parkinson: I do not personally have the means to stand guarantor, but I am extremely optimistic: I find that the Treasury is inclined to listen if one has a good case and puts it sensibly. I am extremely optimistic that we shall be successful in our negotiations.
    Mr. Dickens: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the power of the wind is perhaps that most ozone-friendly of all means of creating power? Although wind farms and large offshore windmills may seem commercially very unattractive at the moment, in years to come when the coal has run out, and gas oil wells have dried up, windmills may prove one of the big sources for the future.
    Mr. Parkinson: My hon. Friend makes an important point. The problem with windmills is that people who are enthusiastic about the prospects of producing electricity from them hate having them anywhere near their homes. One reason why we are sponsoring three projects with the CEGB is to find out whether the public will accept large wind farms, because they are undoubtedly environmentally intrusive, even though the electricity that they produce is welcome.
    Mr. Blair: Will the Secretary of State comment on the reported collapse of the Leicester combined heat and power scheme because, as the chairman of the consortium said, there would be no effective competition in electricity generation after privatisation? If that is right, is it not a fairly damning indictment not merely of the Government's environmental policy but of their privatisation proposals.?
    Mr. Parkinson: It looks as though the Leicester project is not going to happen, simply because of the economics. The plain fact is that it cannot produce a project that will provide electricity at any sort of economic price. But there are many other projects with good economic prospects. I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman: there will be substantial independent generation in the future.

    Energy Efficiency
    Mr. Speller: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list those forms of additional assistance with energy efficiency work made available since 1 July 1988, listing those which have been discontinued since that date.
    Mr. Peter Morrison: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 7 March a new best practice programme which aims to spread and advance best practice in energy efficiency. This programme began on 1 April and replaced the energy efficiency demonstration and research and development schemes.
    Mr. Speller: My right hon. Friend has not precisely answered the question, which was whether he would list forms of additional assistance. I am well aware of the packages. Does he accept that there are two predominant forms of energy efficiency which we should seek to encourage: first, energy audit in the home and the workplace, to save some fuel; and, secondly, energy labelling on all machinery and appliances, to save energy and costs and, in the long term, to reduce the need for new generation?
    Mr. Morrison: I agree with my hon. Friend in this respect: it is up to the individual, company or commercial organisation to see to their own energy efficiency, and that is where our programmes are directed. However, I would not go the whole way with my hon. Friend's suggestion. It would entail unnecessary bureaucracy which could prove tedious and turn people against energy efficiency.
    Mr. Gow: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the public sector is setting the most appalling example of the economic use of energy? If he will look above him, he will see 150 powerful lights burning to keep this Chamber illuminated to a degree which is quite unnecessary. If my right hon. Friend goes round Government Departments in London and outside it, he will find, on the brightest day of the year at 12 noon, lights on in almost every building. Will he do something serious about this appalling waste?
    Mr. Morrison: I always try to follow my hon. Friend's example. I know that when he was a Minister he assiduously used to go round his Department turning out unnecessary lights. We should all follow that example. I hope that he was pleased with the announcement on 20 July by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy. In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam), who asked whether he would make a statement on the campaign to promote energy efficiency in the public sector, my right hon. Friend gave a long answer which promoted precisely what he, I and my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) would want.

    Toilets (Pits)
    Mr. Harry Barnes: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the total increase in underground toilet facilities in British Coal pits in the last year.
    Mr. Michael Spicer: This is a matter for British Coal, which has between two and six lavatories in each of its collieries.
    Mr. Barnes: The Minister will be aware that the Employment Act 1989 means that many women may be obliged to work down the pit or lose benefit. In that event, should there not be adequate toilet facilities in the pits? It is clear from the Minister's answer that such facilities are often primitive, inadequate or some considerable distance from the work face.
    Mr. Spicer: I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's interest in this matter because of his membership of the Standing Committee that discussed the Employment Bill. I have read the Committee's reports. I assure him that the two to six lavatories per pit could easily be converted for use by women. As to why existing ones are not used, I invite the
    722
    hon. Gentleman to accompany me on my next visit to the pits and we can endeavour to find out why more miners do not use the lavatories that are provided for them.

    Electricity Privatisation (Advisers)
    Mr. Sedgemore: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will accept the recommendation of the Energy Select Committee that the terms of remuneration of each adviser he has employed on electricity privatisation should be provided to the Select Committee.
    Mrs. Clwyd: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he will publish a statement on the responsibilities, selection, basis of remuneration and method of contract appraisal of the advisers he is currently employing on work related to the privatisation of the electricity supply industry.
    Mr. Parkinson: As the hon. Member knows, we give careful consideration to all recommendations made by the Select Committee on Energy. The Government will give their considered response in due course.
    Mr. Sedgemore: Bearing in mind the fact that last year the Government spent £6 million on advisers' fees—the equivalent of employing 220 people—and that this year they intend to spend the equivalent of employing 870 advisers, it is not scandalous that Parliament is not given the information that it needs to decide whether it is getting value for money? Vast sums are being paid to Kleinwort Benson and Slaughter and May for doing God knows what and for God knows how much.
    Mr. Parkinson: We are embarking on the huge enterprise of privatising and restructuring this massive industry. Although that information is not made available in detail to the Select Committee on Energy, it is of course available in total to the National Audit Office, which has the right and the duty to examine every item of public expenditure and say whether the Government are getting good value for money. Parliament is being accounted to, in the way that it requests, through the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee.

    Carbon Fuels (Tax)
    Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he has received any recent representations about a tax on carbon fuels.
    Mr. Parkinson: I have received several letters from hon. Members, on behalf of their constituents, on this matter. In my replies, I have assured them that the Government have no plans for such a tax.
    Mr. Thurnham: Has my right hon. Friend had any discussions with other countries? Clearly it would be uncompetitive for our energy-using industries to pay a tax on carbon fuels if industries in competitor countries did not do the same.
    Mr. Parkinson: We are active members of the intergovernmental panel on climate change which is due to report on these matters by the middle of next year and will be taking a view about whether international initiatives can be taken. My hon. Friend is right; for us to put ourselves at a disadvantage by making a totally individual

    723
    gesture would be pointless. We are active supporters of the IPCC and will work hard to make sure that it comes up with some worthwhile schemes.
    Mr. Ashby: There is a local tax in the form of a tonnage extraction rate. Will my right hon. Friend undertake to publish, for each coalfield and each opencast mining operation, the amount of tonnage rate that is paid?
    Mr. Parkinson: I shall write to my hon. Friend about that matter.

    Carbon Dioxide Emissions
    Ms. Mowlam: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will publish the most up-to-date figures available from the United States Department of Energy Oak Ridge laboratories on carbon dioxide emission levels in the United Kingdom, France and West Germany for the two most recent years available.
    Mr. Michael Spicer: According to the Oak Ridge laboratory report the United Kingdom, West Germany and France are responsible for about 2·8 per cent., 3·3 per cent. and 1·7 per cent. respectively of the world's non-biogenic emissions of CO2. I will circulate a fuller answer, including a table of figures, in the Official Report.
    Ms. Mowlam: That selective use of the figures does not give us a true picture of the comparative level of carbon dioxide emissions by Britain, France and West Germany. Will the Minister tell us clearly whether Britain's emissions of carbon dioxide are higher than those of West Germany or France? A straight yes or no answer will be sufficient.
    Mr. Spicer: No, Sir.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my hon. Friend believe that his Department has responsibility for collaborating with other Departments to plant more trees, which alone can take in carbon dioxide and breath out oxygen, and so overcome the problem that we all fear so much?
    Mr. Spicer: As my hon. Friend has implied, my Department is not responsible for planting trees, but various aspects of our policies are aimed at reducing the increase in CO2 emissions, in particular our policy on the nuclear power industry. Some arguments suggest that the nuclear industry produces some CO2, but even the Friends of the Earth cannot present figures that show that it produces more than 4 per cent., far less than that produced by the coal industry.
    The following is the information: The Oak Ridge national laboratory maintains a computer database of global CO2 emissions, including estimates for individual countries, covering the period from 1950 onward. A report on this database was published earlier this year and I will arrange for a copy to be deposited in the Library of the House. Since publication of the report, however, the database has been updated to include 1987 data and revisions to earlier data.
    The latest estimates of carbon dioxide emissions in France (including Monaco), West Germany, the United Kingdom and the world as a whole, produced by Oak Ridge national laboratory, are given in the table for the two most recent years available. These emissions relate only to the combustion of fossil fuels and to emissions
    724
    from cement manufacture and are expressed in million tonnes of carbon. The individual country estimates also exclude some emission sources such as bunker fuels.
    All such estimates are of course subject to some uncertainty and Oak Ridge has estimated that even the global annual totals are subject to an uncertainty of 6 to 10 per cent. Figures for individual countries will be subject to even greater uncertainty because, for example, the estimates are based on global average carbon emission factors.
    I have therefore provided a table giving the latest official estimates of United Kingdom emissions which are compiled by Warren Spring laboratory. These are compiled using a more detailed methodology and should therefore provide a truer picture of the United Kingdom situation. They also include emissions due to gas flaring at oilfields and other sources such as bunker fuels and incineration, which are not included in the Oak Ridge data.

    CO2 Emission estimates compiled by Oak Ridge laboratory

    1986

    1987

    West Germany

    184·9

    181·5

    France

    98·2

    94·7

    United Kingdom

    152·5

    156·1

    Global Total

    5512

    5599

    United Kingdom CO2 Emission estimates compiled by Warren Spring laboratory

    1986

    1987

    Total United Kingdom

    165·5

    166·3

    Notes:
    1. All figures expressed as million tonnes of carbon.
    2. All figures for individual countries rounded to one decimal place and the global total rounded to the nearest million tonnes but this does not necessarily reflect the precision of the data.
    3. Oak Ridge figures include emissions from fossil fuels and cement manufacture only and individual country estimates exclude bunker fuels. Warren Spring figures include emissions from additional sources such as gas flaring at oil fields, incineration and bunker fuels.
    4. Figures for France include Monaco.

    Regional Electricity Boards
    Mr. Pike: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what matters he proposes to discuss with the chairs of the regional electricty boards when he next meets them.
    Mr. Parkinson: I regularly meet the area board chairmen to discuss various matters of mutual interest.
    Mr. Pike: When the Secretary of State next meets the chairmen of regional boards, will he discuss why boards such as NORWEB have reduced the number of inspectors that they employ and, for example, no longer inspect empty properties before they are reconnected to the electricity supply? Is that not an example of how, as the industry moves towards privatisation, profit becomes more important than safety?
    Mr. Parkinson: I do not accept that. I have visited NORWEB on a number of occasions and I think that the improvement in its standards of service to its customers is remarkable. For instance, it has improved the level of disconnections, and that is again remarkable. It is preparing itself to give better service and is not doing so by taking any risks with safety.
    Mr. Favell: When my right hon. Friend next meets the chairman of NORWEB, will he discuss the proposal to phase out Europa house in Stockport, where 600 or 700 people are employed? Does this new proposal arise out of privatisation? Are the rumours true that jobs are to be moved from Stockport, where unemployment is relatively high, to Swindon, where there is virtually none?
    Mr. Parkinson: I cannot give my hon. Friend an answer to that. It has not been raised with me before and as he knows, I am not responsible for the day-to-day running of area boards. That is why there are boards of directors. However, I shall find out the answer and write to my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Hardy: Will the Secretary of State discuss with the chairman of regional boards who is to pay for the scandalous waste that is about to be experienced, as all Wellington boots, donkey jackets, overalls, crockery, crested paper and so on bearing the emblem of the CEGB are replaced by goods bearing the logo of the new companies? Does the Secretary of State expect the customer to pay for that in advance of privatisation?
    Mr. Parkinson: It has always been the practice in the electricity industry to promote the corporate identity of the industry. The idea that something new is being done is wrong. As a small example, in the last year of Labour Government, the equivalent of £57 million was spent on advertising, the object of which was to steal business from another national industry, the gas industry.
    Mr. Douglas: Does the Secretary of State concede that when he can meet the chairmen of the electricity boards of England and Wales, he can discuss problems of mutual interest between them and British Coal? That, however, does not apply to Scotland. Nonetheless, there is a matter of considerable interest involving the South of Scotland electricity board and British Coal. When will the Secretary of State be able to resolve the important coal contract between that board and British Coal?
    Mr. Parkinson: As the hon. Gentleman knows, that is very much a matter for the two parties. The Government have used their good offices to some effect—I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree with that—to maintain coal production in Scotland. We hope to see an agreement between the two parties in the near future.

    United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority
    Mr. Butler: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what scope he envisages for the diversification of the business of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority.
    Mr. Michael Spicer: The Atomic Energy Authority has decided to restructure its activities into a series of distinct businesses under the new corporate identity of AEA Technology. The businesses will be focused on the areas of work with the best commercial prospects. I welcome these developments.
    Mr. Butler: Will my hon. Friend confirm that with the downgrading of the fast breeder reactor programme all is not doom and gloom with the AEA, and that its prospects could be extremely positive in the near future?
    Mr. Spicer: I can confirm, as I said in my main answr, that there are prospects that the AEA is exploring assiduously which would restructure its business to make it extremely commercial.
    Mr. Allan W. Williams: We know how desperate the AEA is to try to diversify its business and to try to improve its public image, but will the Minister dissuade it from entering the business of food irradiation? I understand that the Government are thinking of lifting the ban on food irradiation although there is serious public concern about the safety of irradiated food products. The British Medical Association opposes the irradiation of food.
    Mr. Spicer: I cannot at this moment give any commitments to that effect to the hon. Gentleman, but I have listened to what he has said.

    Nuclear Power Stations (Valuation)
    Mr. John P. Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his most up-to-date valuation of the nuclear power stations of England and Wales.
    Mr. Michael Spicer: The market value of the electricity supply industry will depend on a number of factors such as market conditions at the time of the sale, the profitability of the companies and their prospects. It is premature to speculate on the likely level of proceeds.
    Mr. Smith: Will the Minister kindly explain to my constituents who work at the coal-fired power station at Aberthaw how they can be expected to compete equally and fairly with nuclear power stations when so much has to be written off from the value of power stations when they are transferred and sold off to the private sector? Surely my constituents at Aberthaw will be competing with one hand tied behind their backs?
    Mr. Spicer: The hon. Gentleman prejudges how the balance sheet will be structured for the privatised companies. We have not said how we shall restructure them. We do not know yet what the state of the market will be when we come to privatise the companies. I can tell the hon. Gentleman in direct answer to his supplementary question, which related to the protection of the coal industry as against the nuclear industry, that we spend £2 million every working day on investment—a large chunk of that is from the public sector in the form of taxpayers' money—on the coal industry. If that is not a protected industry, I do not know what is. We are getting slowly to a position where it will be able to stand on its own feet.

    Greenhouse Effect
    Mr. Barron: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what steps he is taking to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the generation of electricity.
    Mr. Michael Spicer: Current policies and initiatives are intended to limit the emission of greenhouse gases. The encouragement of cost-effective energy efficiency measures, the development of renewable energy resources, our support for nuclear power, and the diversified and efficient supply options in the Electricity Bill are a firm basis for any future action.
    Mr. Barron: Without repeating what has been said already, is not the hon. Gentleman's answer unconvincing

    727
    when we recall that on Thursday the Government removed from the Electricity Bill the only real teeth in that measure for ensuring that there is energy efficiency and conservation?
    Mr. Spicer: The hon. Gentleman knows that the Electricity Bill, which we shall be debating further later this afternoon, has two major features connected with energy efficiency. The first feature is that the entire industry is to be restructured to bring forward the most efficient forms of energy production. Secondly, for the first time in the United Kingdom's history, we shall have built into legislation requirements on the regulator to promote the interests of energy efficiency. That is a major step forward. It is extraordinary that the Opposition still fail to understand that important point.
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what research has been conducted into British public attitudes towards the role of nuclear power in tackling the greenhouse effect; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Michael Spicer: No such research has been carried out on behalf of my Department.
    Mr. Williams: Does the Minister recognise that no matter how often he, the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for the Environment—or perhaps the ex-Secretary of State—repeat the nonsense that nuclear power is the solution to the greenhouse effect, the general public have rumbled them and believe that spending money on energy conservation rather than nuclear power makes much better economic sense and plays a much greater part in tackling the greenhouse effect?
    Mr. Spicer: The Government agree that energy efficiency has its part to play, which is precisely why I gave the answer that I did to the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron). The hon. Gentleman, for various reasons, may not like the nuclear industry, but I am surprised that he is not prepared to accept the facts. Electricity produced through the nuclear industry accounts for only 4 per cent. of CO2 emissions even taking into account the Friends of the Earth figures. That is far less than the level produced by the coal industry. If the hon. Gentleman cannot understand that fact, I cannot understand how he can raise such a question.

  ATTORNEY-GENERAL

    Mr. Colin Wallace
    Mr. Livingstone: To ask the Attorney-General, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Brent, East of 29 June, Official Report, column 507, if he will make a statement on the contents of the letter to the Director of Public Prosecutions dated 7 March from the chief constable of the Sussex police concerning the circumstances surrounding Mr. Colin Wallace's conviction for manslaughter.
    The Attorney-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): No, Sir.
    Mr. Livingstone: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman's refusal to make a statement mean that he is satisfied with the 10 questions that I put to the chief constable of Sussex about collusion to create identical police statements, police interference during the trial and
    728
    police withholding of evidence? Is he personally satisfied that all those fears are groundless and unfounded? Will he give the House that assurance?
    The Attorney-General: All such questions are not for me but for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

    Director of Public Prosecutions
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Attorney-General when he next expects to meet the Director of Public Prosecutions about fraud; and if he will make a statement.
    The Attorney-General: Tomorrow. No.
    Mr. Skinner: When the right hon. and learned Gentleman finally meets the Director of Public Prosecutions—[HON. MEMBERS: "Tomorrow."]—yes, tomorrow, does he expect to discuss the scandal at NatWest, County NatWest, Phillips and Drew and the way in which the crooks in Tory-dominated firms are getting away with blue murder? Will he tell the DPP that it is no excuse for business men, often earning more than £100,000 a year, to say, "We do not understand the niceties of the law"? Will he also tell the DPP that he should act extremely quickly because those well-paid men may follow the example of Cameron-Webb and Dixon of the PCW syndicate, fly the coop and end up in America? Under this Tory Government is there not one law for the directors who support the Tory party and another for the old lady who has a tin of pilchards out of Marks and Spencer?
    The Attorney-General: The County NatWest papers have been referred not to the DPP but to the director of the serious fraud office because he is the appropriate official to consider them. That is all that it is proper for me to say at this stage, other than to suggest that it does not assist the course of justice to shout, or even to say quietly, the sort of remarks that the hon. Gentleman made. Such matters must be dealt with in a sensible, ordered and balanced way, because that is the way that justice is done in this country.
    Sir John Stokes: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that most right and hon. Members appreciate his comments? However, ordinary people look to him and others to ensure that where fraud is found in an organisation, those at the top do not escape the penalty.
    The Attorney-General: Fraud is an extremely serious criminal offence, wherever it is found. That is why a great deal of trouble is taken to investigate proper allegations, to establish whether criminal proceedings are justified, and to ensure that prosecutions are properly prepared before they begin. I agree very much with my hon. Friend's comments, and I am grateful to him for them.
    Mr. Fraser: Despite the Attorney-General's dismissal of the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), is not the right hon. and learned Gentleman concerned that the Tory enterprise culture seems to have spawned a few mulit-million pound viruses in the City? The real problem is that such incidents are not occurring at the fringes of the City but at its very centre. Will the Attorney-General confirm that decisions about investigations and prosecutions are consistent and made without partiality or prejudice as to the rank, title, seniority or antecedents of the individuals concerned?
    The Attorney-General: Certainly they will be. Whether it is congenial to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) that such decisions will be taken without concern to rank, title, status or anything else, I rather doubt. Of course it is right that all prosecution decisions are taken by reference to the Attorney-General's guidelines, laid down by my predecessor and now incorporated in the code for Crown prosecutors, a copy of which is in the Library, under the statutory authority of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985. It is extremely important that such matters are examined absolutely impartially and fairly, and without regard to extraneous considerations.
    Mr. Dykes: I appreciate that my right hon. and learned Friend cannot say much about County NatWest because a report has gone to the serious fraud office. While dissociating myself from the hysterical remarks of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), further to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Sir J. Stokes), does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that there is widespread consternation about the report's suggestions and allegations of bad handling and of dishonest behaviour in the City? There may be suggestions that that behaviour is tantamount to fraud or is fraud, and does my right hon. and learned Friend appreciate that it would not be enough for the House, and that it would be outraged, if just a small number of lower level executives were to be the scapegoats for what happened and there were no resignations at the higher level?
    The Attorney-General: I repeat, misconduct of any kind connected with a breach of trust, and particularly in respect of the affairs of the City of London, is very serious. Whether or not it amounts to fraud is a matter for the director of the serious fraud office to consider in due course. However, no one who has paid attention to the comments of my noble Friend Lord Young of Graffham when he was Secretary of State for Trade and Industry can be under the slightest illusion as to the high degree of gravity that he and the Government he represented attach to such misconduct. The matter was referred by the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to two inspectors, and a very thorough report was prepared and published, which has been sent to the director of the serious fraud office. The gravity that right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House attach to the matter is entirely understandable, but the proper authorities must be allowed to do their job.

    Advice to Ministers
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Attorney-General what steps he takes to ensure the secure storage of documents relating to his legal advice to Ministers.
    The Attorney-General: My Department follows established procedures.
    Mr. Dalyell: On the subject of misconduct, may I ask, in a quiet and sensible way, whether Mr. Ingham did not get hold of legal advice and approve its quite improper disclosure in relation to the Solicitor-General's own letter on Westlands? Also on the question of misconduct, was not Sir Michael Havers so angry when he returned from his sick bed that he threatened to have Scotland Yard at the door of No. 10 Downing street if an inquiry was not set up? Equally, on the question of misconduct—gross
    730
    misconduct—did not the Prime Minister, when cornered and in difficulty—she is now forming another Cabinet—resort, at column 657 of the Official Report for 27 January 1986, to telling Parliament, in order to get out of her difficulty, a self-preserving and self-seeking lie?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows far better than that. Will he please withdraw that last comment?
    Mr. Dalyell: You see, Mr. Speaker—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman please withdraw that comment?
    Mr. Dalyell: No—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I would be deeply reluctant to have to take action on this. Will the hon. Gentleman withdraw that final remark?
    Mr. Skinner: He said it last week and nobody pulled him up.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I am dealing with this. Will the hon. Gentleman withdraw that comment?
    Mr. Dalyell: Who does a greater injury to Parliament, a Prime Minister who lies—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not concerned with that matter. The hon. Gentleman must now obey my request or take the consequences.
    Mr. Dalyell: We have to be quite clear—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is putting in jeopardy the questions of other Members of Parliament. I will give him one more chance. Will he withdraw that comment, please?
    Mr. Dalyell: This is too serious a matter. It is dragging on and on. As you know, Mr. Speaker I have been to see you about this issue. It is a serious matter. Our questions have been pushed aside. Question after question has not been answered. What does the House expect—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I have already said this and I am deeply reluctant to say it again. Is the hon. Gentleman refusing to withdraw that word?
    Mr. Dalyell: If I had wanted to withdraw it I would not have said it. It is the truth.
    Mr. Speaker: I name Mr. Tam Dalyell.
    The Attorney-General: To my great personal regret, it falls to me to move,
    That Mr. Tam Dalyell be suspended from the service of the House.
    Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 43 (Order in debate):—
    The House proceeded to a division—
    Mr. Ian Taylor (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order that we are about to lose Overseas Development questions, particularly those on Brazilian rain forests which were tabled by several Conservative Members, because of the disgraceful behaviour of Labour Members?
    Mr. Speaker: It is not a question of order; it is a question of fact.
    The House having divided: Ayes 188, Noes 28.

    Division No. 315]

    [3.21 pm

    AYES

    Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

    Garel-Jones, Tristan

    Adley, Robert

    Glyn, Dr Alan

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Allason, Rupert

    Gorst, John

    Anderson, Donald

    Gow, Ian

    Arbuthnot, James

    Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Ashby, David

    Gregory, Conal

    Atkinson, David

    Ground, Patrick

    Batiste, Spencer

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Beith, A. J.

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Hannam, John

    Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Boscawen, Hon Robert

    Heddle, John

    Boswell, Tim

    Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

    Bottomley, Peter

    Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

    Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

    Hill, James

    Bowis, John

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

    Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

    Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

    Brandon-Bravo, Martin

    Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

    Brazier, Julian

    Hunt, David (Wirral W)

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

    Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

    Hunter, Andrew

    Buck, Sir Antony

    Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

    Butler, Chris

    Ingram, Adam

    Butterfill, John

    Irvine, Michael

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Jack, Michael

    Carrington, Matthew

    Janman, Tim

    Cartwright, John

    Jessel, Toby

    Cash, William

    Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

    Chapman, Sydney

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Conway, Derek

    Kennedy, Charles

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

    Key, Robert

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

    Cormack, Patrick

    Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

    Cran, James

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Currie, Mrs Edwina

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Curry, David

    Knapman, Roger

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

    Day, Stephen

    Lang, Ian

    Devlin, Tim

    Latham, Michael

    Dickens, Geoffrey

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Lightbown, David

    Dover, Den

    Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

    Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Durant, Tony

    Lord, Michael

    Dykes, Hugh

    Lyell, Sir Nicholas

    Eggar, Tim

    McCrindle, Robert

    Fallon, Michael

    McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Maclean, David

    Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

    Maclennan, Robert

    Forman, Nigel

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Forth, Eric

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    Foster, Derek

    Malins, Humfrey

    Fox, Sir Marcus

    Maples, John

    Gardiner, George

    Marlow, Tony

    732

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Speed, Keith

    Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

    Speller, Tony

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

    Mates, Michael

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Maude, Hon Francis

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Mawhinney, Dr Brian

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

    Steel, Rt Hon David

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Stern, Michael

    Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

    Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Stokes, Sir John

    Morrison, Sir Charles

    Sumberg, David

    Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Mudd, David

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Thorne, Neil

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Thurnham, Peter

    Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

    Tracey, Richard

    Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

    Tredinnick, David

    Page, Richard

    Trotter, Neville

    Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Patnick, Irvine

    Waddington, Rt Hon David

    Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

    Wakeham, Rt Hon John

    Portillo, Michael

    Walker, Bill (T'side North)

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Ward, John

    Raffan, Keith

    Wells, Bowen

    Renton, Tim

    Wheeler, John

    Rhodes James, Robert

    Whitney, Ray

    Riddick, Graham

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Rowe, Andrew

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Sackville, Hon Tom

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan

    Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Wood, Timothy

    Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

    Yeo, Tim

    Shelton, Sir William

    Young, Sir George (Acton)

    Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

    Shersby, Michael

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Mr. Kenneth Carlisle and Mr. John M. Taylor.

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    NOES

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    McAllion, John

    Callaghan, Jim

    McCartney, Ian

    Canavan, Dennis

    McKelvey, William

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Madden, Max

    Cohen, Harry

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Cox, Tom

    Patchett, Terry

    Dalyell, Tam

    Redmond, Martin

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

    Salmond, Alex

    Eadie, Alexander

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

    Vaz, Keith

    Flannery, Martin

    Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

    Galloway, George

    Winnick, David

    Hardy, Peter

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Litherland, Robert

    Mr. Dennis Skinner and Mr. Harry Barnes.

    Livingstone, Ken

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Ordered,
    That Mr. Tam Dalyell be suspended from the service of the House.
    Mr. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. After the statement.

War Crimes
3.32 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hurd): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the report of the war crimes inquiry.
I set up the inquiry in February 1988 to consider allegations that persons who are now British citizens or resident in the United Kingdom committed war crimes during the second world war and to advise whether the law of the United Kingdom should be amended to enable prosecutions for war crimes to take place in this country.
The report as submitted to me was in two parts. The main report contains the inquiry team's analysis and conclusions. The second part contains detailed material on individual cases. The inquiry team intended that the main report should be published. I am today publishing it in full and without amendment. I also accept the expert view of the inquiry team that publishing the material in the second part about individual cases would risk prejudicing any proceedings which might be instituted. I am sure that the House will see the wisdom of that distinction and understand why I cannot comment on individual cases.
I believe that the House will find the main report a full and impressive document. It takes a broad view of the historical context affecting the territories and peoples of eastern Europe, of the conduct of successive British Governments during and after the last war and of the legal and other issues. The team visited the Soviet Union and interviewed a large number of possible witnesses. I am most grateful to Sir Thomas Hetherington, formerly Director of Public Prosecutions, and Mr. William Chalmers, formerly Crown Agent for Scotland, for their authoritative analysis.
The inquiry deals with allegations of horrific killings on a large scale—crimes which would constitute violations of the internationally agreed laws and customs of war. The allegations are not about actions committed in the heat of war. They concern individuals allegedly holding quite senior positions in paramilitary units operating in territories occupied by the German forces, whose task was the systematic murder of civilians.
The inquiry examined in detail seven cases. It concluded in respect of four that there was sufficient evidence to mount a criminal prosecution. One of the individuals concerned has since died. The inquiry went on to recommend that further investigations should take place in respect of the other three cases. In addition, of the nearly 300 further cases drawn to the attention of the inquiry, it recommends further investigation of 75 and that attempts should be made to trace a further 46.
The inquiry recommends that there should be a change in the law to permit the prosecution in this country of acts of murder and manslaughter committed as war crimes in Germany or German-occupied territory during the period of the second world war, by persons who are now British citizens or who are resident in the United Kingdom. Certain procedural changes, including the taking of evidence by live television link from persons outside the United Kingdom, are proposed to facilitate the trial of such cases.
The members of the inquiry were aware of the danger of creating retrospective legislation and have tried to meet that objection. They are addressing actions which they are
734
satisfied constituted at the time clear breaches of international law, and which would constitute offences triable in British courts now, had the persons concerned been British citizens at that stage.
The inquiry reached its recommendation on legislation and prosecution in this country after examining and rejecting other courses of action. In particular, it discussed but did not recommend extradition of the individuals concerned to stand trial in the Soviet Union. It set out in the report the arguments for and against extradition. The Government find the arguments against extradition to the Soviet Union convincing.
The inquiry's recommendations raise important issues of principle and practicality. It can be argued that it is no service to the memory of the victims of these crimes to resurrect, after so many years, the horror of what they endured. One can question what will be achieved by prosecuting old men so long after the events. The practical difficulties of conducting trials include the age and frailty of witnesses, the problems of assembling the evidence, which is available in the Soviet Union, if at all, in a form in which it can be convincingly presented to a jury in Britain, and the problem of establishing identity and other key elements beyond reasonable doubt when witnesses' memories are more than 40 years old. The report deals with all those matters.
On the other hand it will be argued that, in the words of the report:
"The crimes committed are so monstrous that they cannot be condoned … To take no action would taint the United Kingdom with the slur of being a haven for war criminals."
Other countries that have uncovered similar evidence have acted to enable the alleged offenders to be brought to trial, sometimes making broader changes in the law than recommended in this report. Despite the practical problems of conducting a trial, the experienced inquiry team consisting of a former Director of Public Prosecutions and a former Crown Agent, reached the view that there would be sufficient evidence in three cases to mount a prosecution if there were jurisdiction. If and when the time comes for assessing the evidence, the prosecuting authorities of the day will need to make their own assessment of particular cases.
We are impressed by the force of argument that led the inquiry to its clear conclusion that legislation was required, but we want to hear the views of Parliament before taking a final view on the principle of legislation. This is a matter, after all, on which the views of Parliament will be decisive. The Government will provide an opportunity for each House to debate the implications of the report and the action that should be taken in response to it. The debates will take place in the autumn once there has been a proper opportunity to study the report and reflect upon it. In the light of the views expressed in those debates, the Government will take a final decision on whether to bring forward a Bill on the lines proposed by the inquiry.
Mr. Roy Hattersley: I offer the Home Secretary support for the general position that he has adopted following the inquiry into war crimes. Few will doubt that the crimes considered in the report are too appalling to be passed over, even after half a century has elapsed. The inquiry was right, however, to identify some formidable problems of principle and practice that would

735
be involved in prosecutions. We therefore welcome the Government's decision to arrange a debate in the House before reaching any definite conclusion on how to proceed.
If there are war criminals in Britain, and if they are brought to trial, it is essential that action against them should be taken by acceptable legal means. I therefore welcome the Government's decision that, if there are to be prosecutions, those prosecutions must take place in Britain. It would be quite wrong to deport, or allow the deportation of, suspected persons to countries where, as the report put it:
"The system of justice is not comparable to that in this country".
The decision to try such people here would require substantial changes in British law. I hope that the Home Secretary will confirm, in terms, that it would require restrospective extension of jurisdiction to persons who are not at present liable to charge or trial.
With that in mind, let me ask the Home Secretary three specific questions. First, if changes in the law were necessary—for example, the introduction of video recordings as evidence in Scotland—would the Government consider changing the law in general and applying the changes to all criminal proceedings, or would they consider simply changing the rules of evidence as they apply to war crimes? There is clearly a great danger in having one rule of evidence for one crime and different rules of evidence for all others.
Secondly, has the Home Secretary considered the full implications of relying on evidence in statements by individuals who are now dead? Few people would be happy were that practice to be extended to legal proceedings in general and, again, there is great danger in applying the principle to one category of charges and trials but not to others.
Thirdly, the Home Secretary will know that some of the individuals who may be prosecuted under the legislation that he is considering have already been named in newspapers. As they are not covered by the sub judice rule, does the Home Secretary propose to take steps to protect them from more prejudicial publicity?
Finally, let me ask the Home Secretary to consider one issue of principle—even before the House debates the subject. Does he agree that there are great problems of principle and practice in introducing legislation to facilitate the prosecution of a very limited number of individuals, who are probably identifiable?
Would it not be better to introduce general legislation—perhaps in terms of the Geneva convention of 1949—to make possible the prosecution of criminals from any war who have taken refuge in Great Britain or acquired British nationality? I understand that that is the approach which has been favoured by other countries that have faced the same problem. To many of us, that seems right—to avoid making retrospective changes in the law to deal with known individuals and to ensure that Britain does not harbour criminals from any war taking place at any time in any part of the world.
Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) for his general approach. This is a matter on which there will be strong differences of view that will certainly cut across party lines and on which Parliament as a whole will have to take a view.
736
I confirm the right hon. Gentleman's understanding that the proposal in the inquiry report would not make anything criminal which is not now criminal. Instead, it would bring within the jurisdiction of our courts certain allegations of crimes which are not at the moment within their jurisdiction because those concerned did not live here at the time of the crime although they now live here and in some cases are British citizens. That is the scope of the change.
I accept the general principle that the right hon. Member suggested about not providing special procedures for the particular crimes described in the report. He will know that under section 32 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 we provided for evidence to be taken by video links in England and Wales. It does not apply in Scotland, which is why the report suggests that it will have to be dealt with. It has not yet been implemented in England and Wales, and we shall have to discuss its implications more thoroughly. The principle is provided in the law for England and Wales.
The right hon. Member rightly said that there has been comment on individual cases in the past. Neither I nor anyone else can prevent such comment in the future. It is worth saying that, even if Parliament decides to amend the law, as the inquiry suggested, three consequent stages will bear on a fair trial. First, the prosecuting authorities will have to decide, by their usual criteria, whether there is scope for a successful prosecution, Secondly, the judge will have to decide the conduct of the trial to ensure that it is fair—the Criminal Justice Act is clear about that. Thirdly, the jury will have to decide whether the trial has been fair.
The right hon. Member mentioned the scope for wider legislation. Other countries have gone wider, but to go wider than the Hetherington inquiry would land us in a range of further problems. I shall study what the right hon. Gentleman said.
Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the recommendations of this distinguished inquiry will meet wide support throughout the country, because they will mean that Britain will no longer be a safe haven for the monsters who committed the worst atrocities? Although any decision to legislate will undoubtely be strengthened by an opportunity for quiet consideration of this emotive subject, one of the recommendations of the inquiry is that legislation should be introduced as quickly as possible, bearing in mind the ages of suspects and witnesses. Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that although the inquiry was limited to consideration of the second world war, it will be necessary to have such legislation in place to deal with atrocities committed in wars since the second world war?
Mr. Hurd: On the second point, the scope of the recommendations is more limited. If we legislate, that is exactly the sort of point that the House will want to consider.
I note what my hon. and learned Friend says about speed, but I find this such a difficult subject, and all those who have thought about it will share my views. The arguments of principle and practice pile up on either side, and it is not easy to reach a conclusion. I am sure that it is right that we should all consider the report carefully, pause and listen to views, which the Government certainly intend to do before bringing proposals before the House.
Mr. Robert Maclennan: Will the Home Secretary accept that Social and Liberal Democratic party Members welcome the measured depth of the analysis of these two distinguished gentlemen? The Home Secretary has taken appropriate action in allowing Parliament to voice its view before he takes a final decision, although perhaps it is fair to say that his statement leans towards accepting the recommendations.
Does he accept that the important finding of the report is that the crimes concerned were not only monstrous but were against international law at the time that they were committed? The limitation of the recommendation to extend the jurisdiction of our courts to deal with these matters is important because it enables us in Britain to give greater effect to the rules of international law for the purposes for which the Nuremberg trials were set up.
Finally, may I add my support to the submission made by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) that in considering legislation it would be appropriate to contemplate wider legislation to seek to bring within the scope of our jurisdiction war criminals who have committed crimes in other situations and at other times, perhaps those covered, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested, by the Geneva convention?
Mr. Hurd: When the hon. Gentleman studies the report, he will see why the inquiry came down in favour of a narrow extension of the law. It was anxious to avoid the accusation of retrospection and, therefore, to confine the scope of any change in the law to allegations of crimes which clearly and beyond any doubt were crimes and were criminal at the time they were committed, and not as a result of any international instruments that may have been entered into since 1945. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his general response.
Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it would be a tragic mistake now to institute war crimes trials in this country and to stir up the emotions of hatred and revenge which would be evoked by the stories of these wartime atrocities? How would it be possible for those few men to get a fair trial when a law would be passed specially to frame them, when the evidence would be almost 50 years old and when it would be impossible for them to go to the Soviet Union to find witnesses and evidence that might clear them?
Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend puts a point of view which will certainly be widely shared. However, the emotions that he has talked about are, of course, stirred up by the allegations and would certainly not be put to sleep by an announcement that the Government were going to do nothing. That would not necessarily have the effect that my hon. Friend mentioned. We in this country do not have a statute of limitations. Other countries, such as Sweden and Belgium, do, and it affects their handling of these matters. However, like Australia, Canada and the United States, we do not have statutes of limitations and, therefore, although there is force in my hon. Friend's practical point, it is not a point of principle for our law.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: Is the Home Secretary aware that, as chairman of the all-party group on war crimes, I agree with his description of the report as impressive? It contains within its covers a statement about the international law and about what has happened in other countries. Indeed, the impressive nature
738
of the report is what one would have expected from Sir Tom Hetherington and Mr. Chalmers. In the writings that preceded the report, far too many people have ignored one fact, which is brought out in paragraph 9.50, which states:
"The cases we have investigated disclose horrific instances of mass-murders".
I emphasise that the Hetherington report has been investigating mass murders, not any of the other horrible things that happen in wars on either side. I should like to make it clear to those from the Ukraine, from Latvia and from middle Europe that most of those people who have come into this country have become first-rate citizens, and many of us know them, especially in the cities of the north. The people that we are concerned about are those who have been involved in horrific instances of mass murders, and those who choose to forget that will be asking for equally horrific things to happen in the future.
Will the Home Secretary confirm that the recommended change in the law is approximately this: that if I, as a British citizen, had committed these crimes in any part of the world, I could be brought to trial; so those who acquire British citizenship subsequently are not being treated in any other way than in the way in which British citizens by birth are being treated, and that is the way that it should be?
Mr Hurd: The right hon. Gentleman's first and last points are correct. The report brings out clearly the turmoil in central and eastern Europe immediately after the war and the way in which people came here for all kinds of reasons and through all kinds of procedures. There was confusion and a lack of clear thinking and administration. As a result of that, many thousands of people of east European origin have been living here for a long time as admirable and loyal citizens. The right hon. Gentleman was right in pointing out that we have all come to know and respect their communities. As the right hon. Gentleman said, and as I tried to say in my statement, we are not talking about actions committed by soldiers in the heat of battle. That is a different proposition. We are talking about allegations—they are only allegations—that crimes of mass slaughter were presided over and participated in by a number of people now living in this country.
Mr. John Gorst: Does my right hon. Friend agree that to deter such crimes in the future, it is first necessary to ensure that those who commit those evil deeds will be certain that they will have to face justice and that, therefore, there is a gap in our existing law? May I ask my right hon. Friend one detailed question? If Parliament affirms what my right hon. Friend will be putting to it in the autumn, will it be necessary for the British police to carry out investigations, which they cannot at the moment carry out or believe that it will be necessary to carry out in future?
Mr. Hurd: Yes, Sir, certainly, and the report makes that clear. It recommends a series of investigations, but I am not prepared to authorise further work on them until it is clear in what way Parliament will wish to proceed.
Mr. James Molyneaux: The Home Secretary used the phrases "within the United Kingdom" and "a Bill". If the Government decide, with Parliament's approval, to introduce legislation, will they seek to proceed by way of a single Bill applying simultaneously to all parts of the United Kingdom?
Mr. Hurd: Yes, Sir, I believe that that would be the right way to proceed if—it is an "if"—it were decided to seek legislation.
Mr. John Wheeler: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there will be widespread admiration for the thoroughness of the excellent report, which requires careful consideration? Does he also agree that the horrific nature of the allegations contained in the report make it not a matter for just British Jewry alone, but that the wider issues of justice and principle must also apply?
Mr. Hurd: I very much echo the hope that hon. Members and. indeed, the public will read the report. I know people who have approached the subject with one attitude but who, having read the report, have come to a different one. My hon. Friend is right to make his distinction. It would not be for the House or for Parliament to decide whether individuals were guilty or even whether they should be prosecuted. Now that the report is before us, Parliament is involved with a question of principle—whether there should be legislation to bring such allegations within our jurisdiction. If Parliament so decided, it would be for the prosecuting authorities in different parts of the United Kingdom, under their existing criteria, to decide whether prosecutions should be mounted. If they were mounted, it would be for the judge in each case to decide whether the trial was best conducted under this or that procedure authorised by Parliament, and at the end of the day it would be for the jury.
Mr. Peter Archer: While in no way dissenting from the right hon. Gentleman's proposal for a debate, has it occurred to him that those who hear nemesis approaching may decide to disappear for a second time? If there is a delay in legislating, the Odessa file may be out again. Has he any proposals for dealing with that and, if not, is time not of the essence?
Mr. Hurd: I have no proposals for dealing with that. It would he unacceptable to take powers to constrain the movements or actions of people who are involved in the situation that we are now discussing. I cannot see any basis on which one could do that. The right hon. and learned Gentleman's point is an argument about time, but I do not believe that he would press us to rush into legislation in the fag end or the spillover of this Session. That would not be a sensible way in which to approach such a matter.
Mr. Robert Boscawen: I think that many people will be grateful that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has agreed that Parliament should make the decision on whether legislation should go ahead. My right hon. Friend has already answered my question when he said that Parliament would have no further say on whether there would be prosecutions following that legislation and that, naturally, that would be within the hands of the prosecuting authorities. The decision to go ahead with legislation could mean that such war crime trials could take place. After 45 years we in this country should not feel that it is necessary to prove that we are not a safe haven for war criminals. We never have been and we do not need crimes tried after 45 years to prove that.
Mr. Hurd: I understand my hon. Friend's point of view. I hope that he will read what is said in the report about the
740
people, the crimes and the documents and statements that have been produced as part of the investigation by Sir Thomas Hetherington and Mr. Chalmers.
Mr. Jeff Rooker: Does the Home Secretary accept that war crimes are not committed by the losing side only, but that the specific and horrific nature of the crimes in this case—no one denies that those crimes were committed—is what makes them different from all other war crimes? Therefore, I do not believe that we should feel apologetic at all in seeking to consider bringing forward legislation. It behoves the combative powers of the second world war, 45 years after its end, to make a common decision and to say, "We will proceed no further at any time with any allegations regarding war crimes" or, "Collectively, we shall amend and adjust our legislation to pursue until the end of time those who have committed those atrocious crimes." I subscribe to the latter view, but one way or the other, a decision of principle should be made.
Mr. Hurd: The report gives a fascinating account of the efforts to reach precisely that decision of principle immediately after the war and how those efforts foundered. Different countries have gone different ways. The United States, for example, deports and extradites—it has extradited to the Soviet Union and I believe that the person extradited was executed. In our terms I do not believe that that is a satisfactory way in which to proceed. Other countries have statutes of limitations and other countries have held trials. Canada and Australia, which faced a very similar situation to ourselves, have passed legislation that goes rather wider than that proposed in the inquiry. Although I see the advantage in what the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) has suggested, I am afraid that it is past praying for. We shall not get a co-ordinated and harmonious approach to this matter. We must deal with it as the report deals with it, within the law and within the practice of each country.
Mr. Ian Gow: Despite the horrific nature and the horrific scale of the allegations will my right hon. Friend remember Churchill's precept: there is no greater danger than retributive persecution, and a policy of retribution is a policy which is pernicious?
Mr. Hurd: It was actually Sir Winston Churchill who, during the war, set in hand the principle that there should be retribution. The report clearly shows how that statement by the Prime Minister set the tone for a great deal that followed. The fact that someone like Sir Winston Churchill had great difficulty, as time passed, in deciding within himself what the right approach should be, illustrates something that anybody thinking about this comes to appreciate—that it is extraordinarily difficult and that the passage of time obviously makes it more difficult in terms of principle, but particularly in terms of practice. I believe that the only recipe—I will not give this advice again—is for right hon. and hon. Members to digest the report and to come back in the autumn and form views upon it.
Mr. Greville Janner: Will the right hon. Gentleman convey to the distinguished and learned commissioners the appreciation of the House of the way in which they carried out their difficult task? Will he especially convey the appreciation of those of every nationality, race and religion who suffered and whose

741
families suffered as a result of the mass murders and barbaric Nazi outrages to which this report refers? Will he also have regard to the final paragraph of the report—that
"Given the ages of the suspects and witnesses"
the commissioners considered
"that any proposed legislation should be introduced and brought into force as quickly as possible"?
May we hope that the debate on this matter will be at the end of this Session, although, of course, legislation could be introduced only at the beginning of the next?
Mr. Hurd: I note what the hon. and learned Gentleman says. I think that I covered most of his points in my earlier replies. I would certainly hope that the debates will not be long delayed; I mentioned the autumn, which gives the business managers a certain flexibility.
Mr. Rupert Allason: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the report highlights an anomaly in the law—that under present legislation this country does, indeed, provide a safe haven for war criminals, an unpleasant fact which is true of only one other country, Syria? Once legislation is contemplated by the House, will my right hon. Friend seriously consider setting up a specialist police unit to investigate the allegations made not only against the 75 people who have been identified but against the 46 who have yet to be traced?
Mr. Hurd: Certainly, if the House decided to proceed down this path there would need to be further investigations. The matter could not be left on the basis of the cases that the inquiry had the time and resources to explore. That would be far too haphazard. If Parliament took a decision in principle there would be further investigations as a consequence and they would have to take place in the usual way. As I have said, I am not prepared to authorise such further investigations at the moment.
Mr. Harry Ewing: Am I right in assuming that the Government have still not made up their mind about the possibility of bringing forward legislation? Is the Home Secretary aware that this is a highly emotive issue which pulls people in all directions? For some time at the beginning of the statement I thought that I might be in a minority of one—until I heard some Conservative Members speak. I have just as much sympathy and feeling for the victims of these atrocious crimes, but, on the principle involved, what is to be achieved by putting on trial people of 80 years of age or more and, assuming that they are found guilty, sending them to prison for the rest of their natural lives? What on earth can be achieved by that sort of approach? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the world, north and south, east and west, is at the beginning of a healing process? If we open up all these old sores, how will we ever continue that process?
Mr. Hurd: The hon. Member puts it well; he will certainly not be alone. It would not be this House which put very old men on trial. The decision before the House is a different one, about whether, as a matter of principle, we should follow the example of Australia, Canada and the United States, which were faced with the understanding that there were people within their borders who might have committed these crimes, and which changed their laws to bring those crimes within their jurisdiction; or
742
whether, again as a matter of principle, we should take the line that although we have no statute of limitations, the matter is too difficult and too long ago, and however horrific the crimes, we intend to forget them.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will read the report in full. He will find his views recorded there and he will discover what the report has to say about them.
Sir John Stokes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I remember only too well the war crimes trials held immediately after the last war, and that some, even then, had doubts about the procedure, although I agreed with it? Are we now to resume war crime trials of these few old men 40 years later? How can we ever obtain proof? Will not the trials be in danger of being show trials? Above all, do the people of England want this? We are not a vengeful nation and I have not heard any demand for it apart from the demand by this small and highly articulate lobby.
Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend puts a view in which, as I have said, he will not be alone. He will read the report as others will, and he will see how it caters for the objections that he puts forward about the fairness of trials. Of course, the House will be concerned not with individual cases or trials but with the principle of the matter. It will be concerned with the quotation, which I have now found, from a speech by Mr. Churchill to which I referred in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow). Mr. Churchill, the Prime Minister, said:
"Retribution for these crimes will henceforward take its place among the major purposes of this war."
Mr. David Winnick: There are valid arguments on both sides about whether prosecutions should occur and many reasons have been voiced by hon. Members. Is it not more a question of justice and certainly not revenge? Will not many people ask how it was possible for people who have been held responsible for monstrous crimes against humanity to enter the country in the first place? Is it not correct to say that if it had been the determination of the allies to carry out in practice what Sir Winston Churchill, together with other wartime leaders, promised to do from 1941 onwards, and if Nazi war crimes had been properly investigated after the war and certainly after Nuremberg, but before the cold war started, it is likely that some of the difficulties and agonising problems that we are discussing about whether such people should be brought to justice would never have arisen in the first place?
Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman can hark back like that if he wishes, but I am not sure that it is profitable. The first chapters of the report deal with the history in some detail. Great numbers of people came here in the turmoil that followed the war. Some of them were deliberately recruited by the Government for particular jobs, some were here as prisoners of war and, for example, many Poles came because of their connections with the Polish armed forces. The matter has a long and tangled history. There was a good deal of screening. No one could argue that it was particularly clear minded or administratively thorough and no one with a sense of history would expect that it could be. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman would do anyone a great deal of good by spending too much time on history.
Mr. David Sumberg: Will my right hon. Friend accept my congratulations on a sensitive statement on matters which show crimes beyond parallel in the long catalogue of human misery? Will he underline that, as the law stands, it would be possible to prosecute a natural-born British citizen over such matters and that what he now proposes is to put those who acquired British citizenship after birth in the same position as those who acquired it on birth? I accept that there is a need for the House to debate the matter widely and thoroughly. Does he accept that there is a need to get on with it?
Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend accurately describes a proposal which is not mine but that of the inquiry. The Government make no proposal today. We are impressed by the force of the arguments and the background set out by the inquiry, but propose to pause and listen in the way that I have described.
Mr. Paul Flynn: Does the Home Secretary appreciate that although a Bill may deal only with war crimes, Nazi crimes started many years before the commencement of the war? Does he also appreciate that since the war unfortunately, many other acts of mass murder have been committed in both the East and the West? Would not the Bill be a marvellous opportunity for this country to reassert its leadership of the world on humanitarian issues? We can do that if we sent out a clear signal to all those whose business is mass murder and torture, whether in the distant past, the recent past or now, that never again will they find safe refuge in our country.
Mr. Hurd: That goes very much wider and I think that on examination the hon. Gentleman will find that there might be quite serious problems in terms of retrospection if we went back that far and covered the kind of pre-war offences that he talked about. I hope that he will look at the report. He is obviously in sympathy with its general conclusion and would like it to do more. The report spends a certain amount of time discussing why it thinks that its limited recommendation is right.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The House knows that there is to be a debate on this matter later, but, as hon. Members have been rising, I will call them. However, we must move on at 20 past four because we have another statement.
Mr. Tony Marlow: Will my right hon. Friend agree with Milton Shulman, who says in today's Evening Standard that no emotion
"soils the human spirit more than vengeance"?
Is it not possible, despite what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) said, that the motivation behind this campaign has nothing to do with justice and everything to to with smothering the world with a form of moral blackmail as a means of covering the present behaviour of the state of Israel? The House has got the impression that my right hon. Friend is not happy with this measure, and has not found a respectable way of not bringing it forward.
Mr. Hurd: I honestly think that my hon. Friend's description is grotesquely astray in its attempt to describe Sir Thomas Hetherington and Mr. Chalmers, who have taken a great deal of trouble to take the allegations that have been made—for whatever reason—to analyse them and to look behind them into the facts of these crimes. It
744
was because the Government wanted to get away from the kind of atmosphere that my hon. Friend attempts to describe—in which all kinds of allegations were being tossed to and fro, and nobody knew the motives or what substance there was behind the allegations—that we had this inquiry. I hope that my hon. Friend will read the results of it.
Mr. Spencer Batiste: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the important message that should come from the House is not one of revenge or of opening up old wounds, but the simple fact that those who have been guilty of horrendous crimes against humanity must never be able to feel that they are capable of achieving a safe haven in a civilised world? Would not that be the best message of hope that we could give to their potential victims?
Mr. Hurd: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right in that no serious person can be interested in revenge as the basis for justice. Nor could any serious person ignore the difficulties of proceeding as the inquiry suggests after this length of time. Those difficulties are real, and that is what makes the subject so daunting. Nevertheless, the analysis is a clear and strong one.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: I share the considerable unease that has been expressed by some of my hon. Friends about whether, 45 years after the events, there can be a fair trial and fair rules of evidence, especially when we have to introduce retrospective legislation. Therefore, I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement that Parliament will make a judgment on this.
I have a more specific question concerning the documentary evidence. My right hon. Friend will be aware that most crimes took place in what is now either the Soviet Union or another eastern bloc country. Historians have recently expressed concern that many documents have been forged. Can we be assured that any documents that might be used for trials will be the originals and not photocopies?
Mr. Hurd: That was one of the points in which some of us were particularly interested before the inquiry was set up, and it was something on which the inquiry spent a good deal of time. It reached the conclusion set out in part 1, which is that there was a strong case for believing that the documents concerned were authentic and the witnesses credible.
Mr Toby Jessel: Is not the real point the sheer number of murders? We are not talking of one murder, nor six, nor 60, nor 600, nor 6,000, nor 60,000, nor 600,000 but 6 million murders, including the murder of about 1 million children. What is wrong with the idea of a little bit of justice for that?
Mr. Hurd: In essence, what we are talking about in this inquiry is the slaughter, after the fighting was over, of very large numbers of Jews, simply as a matter of policy. The policy was one of slaughter, and a large number of people participated in that.
Mr. John Marshall: Should not the fact that the evidence is regarded as sufficient to warrant a prosecution by Sir Thomas Hetherington silence the doubts of those who cast doubts on the quality of the evidence?
Mr. Hurd: I do not expect a report, however expert, to silence doubts on a matter such as this. I should be surprised, and in a way dismayed, if that were to happen. That is not the way that we run our affairs. There is bound to be controversy, and it is bound to cross the ordinary boundaries of party, as we have seen in these exchanges. It is a clear and forceful report, by people whose experience, coolness and caution in such matters it would be hard to rival.
Mr. Hattersley: I have no wish to take serious issue with the Home Secretary this afternoon. I think that we have more in common over this issue than over many, united by our mutual doubts. However, I ask him whether he will consider one answer which he gave, and consider the possibility that it was wrong in fact. He said that were we to proceed on the lines that are now possible we would not be proceeding against individuals. That would certainly be the case were we to amend the law in general as the Geneva convention of 1949 suggested, but were we to proceed as the report suggests, it would be specifically directed towards individuals. If the Home Secretary reads paragraphs 8. 24 onwards of the report under the heading "Tracing suspects", he will see that the report does everything but name the individuals against whom the action is proposed. It is that which concerns some of us. Therefore, will he think again about the more general provision which I have urged upon him?
Mr. Hurd: I have promised to think about the more general provision, but I would not agree with the right hon. Gentleman. Parliament would be asked to extend our jurisdiction over a series of offences—not specified and not specific as to individuals—committed outside the United Kingdom during the war, in Germany or German-occupied territories, by people who were not then British citizens but now are or who live here. That would be compatible with individual decisions by the prosecuting authorities to proceed or not to proceed in particular cases. That is what I mean by saying that Parliament would be involved in deciding the principle. It would then be for the prosecuting authorities, the judge and finally the jury, if there were a prosecution and a trial, to decide in particular cases. That is an important point.

Electricity Privatisation (Nuclear Power)
4.21 pm
The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Cecil Parkinson): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about electricity privatisation and nuclear power.
As a result of our preparations for privatisation, it has recently become clear that the cost of reprocessing and waste treatment of spent Magnox nuclear fuel will be a great deal higher than has been charged in electricity prices and provided for in the accounts of the Central Electricity Generating Board and the South of Scotland electricity board. The Magnox stations are drawing to the end of their lives. One is already closed, and most of the others are due to close within the next few years. Most of these costs therefore relate to the past, to electricity already generated and paid for. Future customers will be bearing the full cost of the electricity they consume. It would not be right to burden them also with costs arising from the past.
It is important that the energies of the companies should be directed towards ensuring that their existing stations are run efficiently and at lowest cost. National Power will, subject to planning and other consents, also be building new pressurised water reactors. In order to enable the nuclear generating companies to focus their attention on the future, the Government have decided that it would be appropriate to relieve the new companies of dealing with these substantial problems of the past.
The Government have considered carefully how best to implement this decision. It has been decided that both the assets and liabilities relating to the Magnox stations belonging to the CEGB and the SSEB should remain under Government control.
The advanced gas-cooled reactor stations will be assigned to National Power and the Scottish Nuclear Company, and will be privatised. These stations have many years of operation ahead. The operating performance of these stations has shown marked improvement, and this can be expected to continue in the future. Therefore, we have good reason to believe that the AGRs will have a long and successful future in the private sector. National Power will continue to construct Sizewell B and, subject to obtaining the necessary planning approvals and satisfactory contractual arrangements, intends to construct and operate three more PWRs.
No changes to the Electricity Bill are needed to bring the Government's decisions into effect. The Government shall be laying a draft order before Parliament during the autumn to increase the limit on the amounts payable under schedule 12 from the interim level of £1,000 million to £2,500 million.
This order will be subject to affirmative resolution and will give the House a full opportunity to debate our detailed proposals. The order will enable grants to be paid to National Power and to the Scottish Nuclear Company for unforeseen costs, as previously explained to the House. These powers will also be used to ensure that the Magnox stations can continue to be operated and their liabilities to be met.
I am most concerned to ensure that nothing is done to jeopardise the future of the employees concerned. Their pension rights, their ability to benefit from the flotations,

747
and their career prospects will be protected. To this end I shall discuss the implementation of the proposal with all the parties concerned, including the trade unions.
We shall ensure that the necessary resources are available to maintain the present high standards of safety and environmental protection. We shall not take any steps that are not approved by the nuclear installations inspect orate.
Preparation for privatisation has brought new information to light. The costs for the Magnox stations, which have now become clearer, would present major financial problems for the two nuclear companies. They can be paid for only by the customer or the taxpayer. The Government do not believe that this legacy of the past should be borne by customers in the future. The Government have therefore moved rapidly to deal with the issue.
It is right to separate the problems of the past from the prospects for the future. The nuclear generators will be able to concentrate their efforts on building a new generation of PWR stations and further improving the performance of the AGRs. On the basis of the presently planned life, the last Magnox station will have closed by the year 2002. Thereafter, commercial nuclear power generation will be wholly in the private sector. That is where it should be, and where it will flourish.
Mr. Tony Blair: Well, Mr. Speaker—here we have it. After months in Committee, three days on Report, weeks in the other place and the Prime Minister's statement on 5 July, all the time told that the nuclear stations would all be sold, we are now informed, on the last day of the last stage of the last group of final amendments to the Bill, that the sale of the Magnox stations is to be ignominiously pulled—renationalised before they are even privatised. Are not the right hon. Gentleman's proposals for privatisation now a humiliating farce? If the lunchtime reports are correct and the right hon. Gentleman is departing to other pastures, this must be the most expensive exercise in political history of clearing one's desk.
Am I right in following through what this means—the Magnox stations will remain in public ownership so that the full costs of decommissioning, disposing and reprocessing of waste will fall on the taxpayer? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the latest estimates show that those costs may be £500 million a station—a total of £4·5 billion or perhaps even more?
Is not the question, what has the taxpayer got in return for that deal? Am I not right in saying that, not only will the nuclear tax still remain to pay for the new stations, costing consumers billions of pounds, but the nuclear quota will remain, distorting the market and squeezing out competition? Worse, does not what has been announced today mean that the public sector liability for decommissioning those stations transferred to the private sector will not just remain in full, but will be increased two and a half times? Has there ever been a more disastrous deal for the British taxpayer?
The only explanation we are given is that the public have used the stations and thus should pay for them. If that was the criterion, what of the new stations and those with many years of life left in them in which the public have heavily invested and of which they are now to be deprived? If the Secretary of State says that the public sector must pay for the stations it has used, why should it
748
not also use those for which it has paid? Is not the true motivation for this quite transparent—that the right hon. Gentleman will sacrifice anything, including normal commercial prudence, the interests of the taxpayer and the consumer and the future energy needs of this country, provided that, above all else, he can sell his privatisation to the City?
Does not one large obstacle remain, however? Has not the right hon. Gentleman always made it clear, most especially last March in front of the Select Committee on Energy, that the critical element in the entire structure of the privatisation, with its monopoly area boards, monopoly grid and duopoly of generators, was dictated by the worry about what he called the marketability of nuclear power in the Magnox stations? Has not the right hon. Gentleman now removed not merely a substantial part of the electricity industry's assets from the privatisation, but the entire justification for the form that the privatisation has taken? Would not the right course now be not to try shoring up that crumbling monument to incompetence, but to abandon it here, now and for good?
Mr. Parkinson: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on a fine display of rhetoric, but I wish to point out one or two matters. He made it sound as though this were the first time that any Government had proposed that public money be written off. I remind him that £20 billion of taxpayers' money has been written off since the nationalisation of the coal industry, and that only earlier this afternoon his hon. Friends were urging me to write off billions more. Let there be no more of this nonsense about it being the first time that any Government have come forward with restructuring proposals.
I wish to make one point quite clear. The Magnoxes, virtually to a station, were commissioned and built during the lifetimes of Labour Governments. Far from causing the problem, privatisation has, for the first time, brought the costs into the open. We are making arrangements to deal with the problem, not creating the problem.
I confirm that the AGR and PWR stations, which will be transferred, will bear their own costs, will provide for their own decommissioning and will provide for their own waste management. The difference is that, in most cases, those stations have decades of life ahead of them, while the Magnoxes are all coming to the end of their useful lives.
As we explained in Committee, under schedule 12 to the Electricity Bill, the only money that will be paid to the privatised nuclear stations will be for unforeseeable costs arising from changes in Government policy. Other costs will have to be met by the customer, collected through prices and provided over the lifetime of the stations.
The Magnox stations were never the vital part of our privatisation plans; they are the past. We did not devise a structure around a set of power stations of which most will be closed by 1995 and only one, Wylfa, will be operational in the next century to the year 2002. Those stations were not a major part of our proposals and not part of the future. Today we are clearing up costs incurred in the past.
Mr. David Howell: Despite the fulminations of the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), who clearly would like to keep everything under strict bureaucratic control, are not my right hon. Friend's proposals a sensible and realistic way of dealing with a legacy of the past, and in line with what some of us wanted from the outset? Does my right hon. Friend agree that, far

749
from damaging the future of either the nuclear or the privatised industry, they clear the way for much better prospects for competitive nuclear power? Will he confirm that the fact that not only National Power but PowerGen may consider building a dedicated PWR nuclear power station is evidence that it is an increasingly competitive and promising area?
Mr. Parkinson: My right hon. Friend is right. We are talking about clearing up the costs of technology that was initially developed at the behest of Labour and Conservative Governments more than 30 years ago, which is a very expensive exercise. The future of the nuclear industry is in the hands of the PWRs, which operate successfully worldwide. There are very successful private sector operators of PWRs in France and Germany, and there is Duke Power of the United States of America. PWRs are a proven technology capable of producing electricity economically. My right hon. Friend is right to say that we are clearing up the past and opening the way to the future.
Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Will the Secretary of State admit that the reason why he came to the House with his statement is that his friends in the City told him that he cannot sell the Magnox sector? If omitting it from privatisation is such a good idea, why did he not incorporate it in the Electricity Bill, as others suggested at the outset?
The Secretary of State attempted to turn the attack from the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), but does he not admit that the scale of the write-off of taxpayers' money associated with the flotation of the electricity industry exceeds the worst excesses of Socialism that the right hon. Gentleman is so keen to fulminate against? The sum is £8 billion to date, and there is an open blank cheque from the consumer for the decommissioning of Magnox power stations.
Will the Secretary of State admit that his statement vindicates those right hon. and hon. Members who condemn the expansion of nuclear power and opposed Sellafield and THORP reprocessing facilities in particular—alas supported now by both the Labour and the Conservative parties—and accept that the privatisation is wholly flawed? Should not the right hon. Gentleman abandon it, and acknowledge that his announcement today is an indication that he has no interest in the environment but is interested only in maximising the industry's share price? The only thing that is green about Conservative Members is the colour of their wellies.
Mr. Parkinson: The hon. Gentleman's last remark and the reaction of the House to it summed up the level of his contribution. Privatisation is exposing the industry's existing costs, it is not the cause of them, and we are making arrangements to deal with them. The country has taken electricity from the stations concerned for more than 30 years, and they have an average of six years of life left. We are making arrangements to clear up the past and to open up a secure future for the industry.
Sir Ian Lloyd: First, I may express my hope that if the news we are likely to hear today is true, this is
750
the last occasion on which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will have to rest on the energy bed of Procrustes.
My right hon. Friend's statement is as welcome as it was inevitable. I wish to put to my right hon. Friend four related questions. [HON. MEMBERS: "Four?"] Yes. First, my right hon. Friend said that the electricity from the Magnox stations has been generated and paid for. The fact is that the electricity has been generated but not paid for. Therefore, as my right hon. Friend said, the choice is between the taxpayer and the consumer, and he has chosen the latter.
Secondly, how will the Government ensure that there will be fair competition between the electricity that will be produced in the Magnox sector for at least a further six years and that of the rest of the private sector, including the other nuclear stations? Thirdly, how will the very large sum—it remains a matter of dispute as to whether it is the £4·4 billion suggested by British Nuclear Fuels plc or some lesser or larger sum—be distributed between Magnox, PWRs and AGRs and, broadly speaking, the reprocessing sector?
Finally, my right hon. Friend expressed confidence that after 2002 all nuclear power will be in the private sector, "where it will flourish." I share his hope but not his expectation. Does his expectation imply that, in his judgment, by 2002 the full environmental costs of fossil fuel power generation are likely to tip the balance in favour of nuclear power?
Mr. Parkinson: In the past, customers paid what was regarded at the time as a fair price for electricity, but it is clear that they underpaid. We had to decide whether in future customers should pay a fair price for nuclear electricity and, at the same time, pay the price for previous under-charging. We came to the conclusion that that would not be reasonable.
Electricity produced by Magnox stations will be paid for through the fossil fuel levy. The arrangements for that are set out in the Bill. In future, the area boards will sign up for nuclear electricity from Magnox stations, which will still be in the public sector as long as they continue to produce electricity.
AGRs have enough life ahead of them for proper provision to be made now in the price that they charge, through the fossil fuel levy, for their future decommissioning and reprocessing costs. That will be built into the price that they charge. They have enough life left for them to recover the full costs.
As I said in reply to a previous question, in other countries, PWRs are operated by private sector companies. They are privately financed, and successfully produce competitively priced electricity.
I found it interesting at Question Time that some hon. Members asked why Britain produces more carbon dioxide than France. The French produce 70 per cent. of their electricity from nuclear stations: that is why France contributes less carbon dioxide and less to the greenhouse effect. Hon. Members who argued against nuclear power were at the same time pointing to the French performance, which is based on nuclear power.
Mr. Tony Benn: Is the Secretary of State aware that what he has done today is to confirm what many people have long suspected—that nuclear power in Britain is not, and never has been, economic in any sense

751
of the term? The Government have closed many pits, however, and have thrown many miners out of work on the ground that the pits were uneconomic.
Is he also aware that, in the United States, where pressurised water reactors are in private hands, not one has been ordered for 10 years? There is no reason to believe that they will be any different in their economic operations from the Magnox and AGR stations. Is the Secretary of State also aware that, by retaining the costs of Magnox stations in the public sector, he is deliberately giving an enormous subsidy to shareholders who intend to buy parts of the electricity industry? Finally, how could he say that he had no idea of the cost of nuclear power until he tried to sell it off? I think it is virtually a resignation speech when a Minister says that he did not know what he was doing until he tried to sell off an industry and the figures came to light.
Mr. Parkinson: I am an admirer of some aspects of the right hon. Gentleman, but for sheer, brass-necked effrontery, that intervention takes some beating. If I closed every pit remaining in Britain, I could not match the right hon. Gentleman's record as a closer of pits, because he closed more than any previous Secretary of State. He was also an enthusiastic supporter of nuclear stations while he held the job that I now hold. I think that I am right in saying that he ordered AGRs and approved of that technology. Therefore, having been a party to creating the problem that I am now dealing with, for him to come over at his sanctimonious worst is almost beneath contempt.
Mr. Chris Butler: What will be the effect on the price of electricity of this announcement about Magnox stations? Will it be higher or lower as a result? Will there be doubt about the decommissioning costs of other reactors as a result of the exposure of privatisation?
Mr. Parkinson: The price of electricity will not be affected by today's announcement; it will be affected by the proper charging of costs in the future. We have made, and will make, arrangements to charge properly for the cost of electricity produced by nuclear power stations. I have said over and over again in Committee that we are creating a totally transparent system. The days of pushing it under the carpet, which was the hallmark of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), have gone. The cost of nuclear electricity will be revealed, known and declared and it will have to be defended, and I am quite happy to do that.
As I have already said, almost all the present generation of stations have a long life ahead of them. During that life, knowing what is now known, we can make provision to meet the costs of decommissioning and waste management.
Mr. James Molyneaux: In his statement, the Secretary of State said:
"This order … will give the House a full opportunity to debate our … proposals."
Will the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues on the Front Bench ensure that that full opportunity is somewhat greater than the 90 minutes accorded to Northern Ireland business, even though it is primary legislation?
Mr. Parkinson: That is obviously a matter for the business managers. The right hon. Gentleman makes a serious point. The Government will be only to happy to have a full debate on this subject.
Sir Trevor Skeet: Since I moved in Committee, and on Report, amendments to do exactly this, may I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on having moved along these lines? Does he realise that it is likely to be a loss-making enterprise, unless he is prepared to add to it a mix of profitable assets, which should include the AGRs and PWRs that are being built?
If it has a mix of assets, the enterprise will be able to compete with National Power and PowerGen in the future. Will he still have time to consider that possibility?
An Hon. Member: He should live so long.
Mr. Parkinson: I think I am going to live longer than that. My hon. Friend has consistently argued this case, and I recognise that. We believe that it is necessary to clear up the past nuclear power stations. If they had a longer life ahead of them, we could make arrangements to recoup those costs, but, as I have explained, it would net be reasonable to impose on today's customers the underpricing that went on for a long time. We believe that the nuclear past should stay where it is and that the nuclear future should move into the private sector.
Mr. Alexander Eadie: May I press the right hon. Gentleman, with reference to the question about how long we will have to debate this issue, to tell us whether he is speaking on behalf of the Government when he says that there will be a full day's debate on this proposition? I am sure that he will know that Sir Winston Churchill said, 80 or 90 years ago, that the Tory party was the party of big business and vested interests. Does not the announcement that he has made today show that he has capitulated to the City, and that it is the taxpayer who will have to pay the bill'?
Mr. Parkinson: The question about a full day's debate is a matter for the business managers, but there is a strong case for it, and I hope that there will be no attempt to restrict debate to an hour and a half. I will press that point on the business managers.
We are not selling out to big business. We recognise that there has been serious under-provision, during the past 30 years, for costs that will be incurred in the future. I do not see how our action will benefit the City, or how it could be fair to impose on an industry costs for stations that will virtually not be operating under the control of the businesses involved. The stations are coming to the end of their useful lives. They were commissioned in the public sector, and they will end their days there.
Mr. Peter Rost: What is my right hon. Friend's best estimate of the cost of nuclear electricity in pence per kilowatt hour? When does he expect an announcement to be made about the ring-fenced price?
Mr. Parkinson: The negotiations between BNFL and the generators about future prices are still in progress. The information will be available when we return after the summer recess and present full and detailed proposals.
Mr. Peter Hardy: The Secretary of State suggested that, when the generating industry was originally structured, it was necessary to provide National

753
Power with 70 per cent. and PowerGen with 30 per cent., so that National Power could accommodate all the existing nuclear undertakings. Does this substantial change mean that the right hon. Gentleman will be revising the very structure of the generating industry?
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that great pleasure will be felt by investors in the privatised industry, not least the substantial proportion living abroad? The foreigners will share the loot, but the burdens and liabilities will be borne exclusively in Britain.
Mr. Parkinson: As I told the House, we are creating an electricity industry which we hope will continue well into the next century. We are building a structure that will have a very long life. We are talking about clearing up the costs of stations, most of which will be closed by the middle of the next decade, and only two of which will be operational after 1995. It is quite wrong to say that the whole structure of the industry was developed to accommodate them. We are discussing how to clear up the past and liberate the industry so that it can develop nuclear power in the future.
Mr. Michael Stern: I thank my right hon. Friend for the fact that, despite this afternoon's announcement, my constituents who work at Oldbury and Berkeley will be entitled to share in the benefits of privatisation. Does he not agree that it is a bit rich for the Opposition to criticise him this afternoon for leaving the costs of decommissioning with the public sector when that has been their policy throughout?
Mr. Parkinson: I made it clear in my statement that we would take part in active discussions with the trade unions and management to ensure that career prospects, pensions and the opportunity of a stake in the privatised industry would be available to those who work in the Magnox sector. My hon. Friend is absolutely right: we are making arrangements to deal with existing costs. We are not inventing costs, or creating them; we are arranging to clear up the costs of a group of power stations most of whose useful lives are well behind them.
Mr. Jack Thompson: I am sure that the Secretary of State has felt no pleasure in making this statement to the House. This information should have been given to him many months ago, before the Bill came to the House, by the CEGB or his own Department. Is there not a case for heads to roll? Does he accept that if the information had been available some months ago, the tenor of our debate on the Bill would have been different?
Mr. Parkinson: The fact of the matter is that only when we set about the process of privatisation were those facts forced out. They have become available in detail literally only in the last few weeks, and we have been working to produce the information and make it available. I could not have come to the House any earlier than I have.
As I pointed out in my opening remarks, everything that we are proposing is possible under the Bill: we do not need to change it. I felt, however, that the House should have specific information as soon as I was in a position to give it, and that is why I am here.
Mr. David Tredinnick: Is it not a fact that, but for the privatisation process, the real costs of
754
decommissioning Magnox would not have come to light? Is that not another illustration of the benefits of privatisation?
Mr. Parkinson: It is absoutely true that, if we had not decided to privatise the industry, ways would have been found of losing the costs through the bulk supply tariff, and they would never have been revealed to the public. The privatisation process has exposed the costs, and will force the industry to make better arrangements in the future.
Mr. Alex Salmond: Is there any limit to the amount that the Government are prepared to spend to keep the nuclear show on the road? Can the Secretary of State estimate to, say, the nearest billion pounds the likely final expenditure on the nuclear slush fund of schedule 12?
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the electricity companies are coping with the rapidly escalating costs of non-Magnox decommissioning by discounting expenditures far into the future. If one of those private companies were to go out of business before the expenditures became due, who would pick up the tab?
Mr. Parkinson: The hon. Gentleman asked about the size of what he calls the slush fund. May I point out that, at worst, it would be just over a third of the amount that we have written off in coal since it was nationalised? Considerable sums have been written off, and—as I told the hon. Gentleman earlier this afternoon—I am being pressed by Members with mining interests to write off billions this year. The idea that there is something novel about Governments' discovering under-provisions and making arrangements to deal with them is entirely wrong.
Mr. Ian Bruce: Does my right hon. Friend agree that Gridco is currently having some difficulties in organising how electricity will be priced? Can he tell us a little more about how electricity that is effectively produced from Government assets will be fed into the free market?
Having removed the difficulty of Magnox, do we really require the non-fossil fuel levy to exist for the other stations that will be run by National Power? Will my right hon. Friend also tell us how the stations owned by the Atomic Energy Authority—in particular, my own station at Winfrith—will figure in the new organisation?
Mr. Parkinson: What I said in my statement was that the future costs of nuclear electricity would be clearly shown, and would be collected from all users of the system through the fossil fuel levy. That is what it is there for—to ensure that the cost of nuclear is borne by all the industry's customers, and not just by the domestic sector, as has been in danger of happening in the past. The costs of future, properly priced nuclear electricity will be collected through the fossil fuel levy and spread among all the customers of the industry.
Mr. Giles Radice: Does the Secretary of State accept that withdrawing such a large part of the nuclear industry from the Bill at this late stage not only represents a stunning personal reverse for him but undermines what little public confidence remains in his electricity privatisation scheme?
Mr. Parkinson: I do not think that that is the case at all. I think that the fact that the Government have recognised

755
the problem, revealed it and explained how they will deal with it will do nothing to destroy the credibility of the industry.
Mr. Tim Smith (Beconsfield): Is not the statement a serious indictment of the way in which the electricity supply industry has been managed by successive Governments in the past? Is it not now clear that the Central Electricity Generating Board has completely failed to provide adequately for the costs of decommissioning, that as a result its accounts in successive years must have been seriously misleading, and that consequently electricity consumers have paid too little for their electricity? Do not all those factors underline the inadequacy of nationalisation?
Mr. Parkinson: My hon. Friend is right. One would never guess from listening to the Opposition that they were defending the system that created the problem which we are tackling.
Mr. Frank Cook: I thank the Secretary of State for confirming everything that I have ever said about his grasp of his subject. He seeks to justify the withdrawal of the Magnox stations from his window display by citing the length of time left in their working life, saying that it is not fair to hand them over. Will the same criteria be applied to fossil-fuel-burning stations that have a limited remaining life? Is it not the case that, when the right hon. Gentleman claimed a number of times at the Dispatch Box that nuclear-generated electricity was the cheapest available electricity, he had been misled, and therefore had misled the House? The right hon. Gentleman has already admitted that he does not yet have the AGR and PWR costings. If we could not believe him when he was wrong before, how does he expect the House to believe him now?
Mr. Parkinson: To the best of my recollection, I have never heard the hon. Gentleman open his mouth in an energy debate in which I have taken part. I invite him to go through Hansard and find in any debate in which I have taken part any claim by me that nuclear electricity was the cheapest. I have always defended nuclear electricity on the ground of diversity of supply being the basis of security. I have never claimed that it was the cheapest. I have made it clear that I wanted to expose—and under our system we would—the true cost of nuclear electricity.
The hon. Gentleman has asked me about the costs of fossil-fuel electricity. We have written off or made deficit grants of about £1 billion to the coal industry in each of the past 10 years. The CEGB reckons that it has been paying between £500 million and £1 billion over the odds for the coal that it has been burning. We have effectively had a coal tax of between £1·5 billion and £2 billion a year every year for the past 10 years.
Mr. Tony Marlow: If large potential liabilities attach to Magnox reactors, and if the taxpayer is going to pick up the tab, will not the taxpayer get an equal or equivalent amount of additional money at the time of privatisation? Although the subject of accountancy might be a little difficult for the Opposition to understand, I wonder whether my right hon. Friend could arrange for courses in arithmetic so that at least they could work out that taking one from one leaves no difference?
Mr. Parkinson: From our first debate on this subject, the Opposition have failed to recognise that it is the City, the shareholders, who pay and the Government, the taxpayers, who receive. As a result of not loading the industry, the taxpayer will receive a better price, so the taxpayer will benefit from the realism that we are introducing into this discussion.
Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: Is the Secretary of State aware that, although he may tell the House that he was not aware of the costs of nuclear electricity until his statement, he was questioned on that fact 18 months ago by the Energy Select Committee? In paragraphs 147 and 148 of its report, the Select Committee said:
"First, we are worried about the costs of nuclear power … Secondly, if there are to be additional costs from nuclear power, we are concerned about where they will fall."
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, as recently as last week, the chairman of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority told the Select Committee that it was not possible to estimate the true costs of decommissioning the power stations? Where will the tab for decommissioning fall? Is it not simply political dogma for the Government to insist on 20 per cent. nuclear power, whatever the cost, so as to enable them to run down the coal industry?
Mr. Parkinson: We are not making arrangements to run down the coal industry. For about the past 15 years, 20 per cent. of our electricity has come from nuclear power. The other 80 per cent. has been available to the coal industry, which has supplied a great deal of it. When we have privatised the industry, 80 per cent. of the market will not be supplied by nuclear. I hope that a great deal of it will be supplied by British Coal.
Mr. Michael Jack: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the nation has a particular debt to pay to the nuclear industry, for it was nuclear electricity that kept the power flowing during the last miners' strike? Will he confirm also that the public will be reassured by his announcement that these early decommissionings of Magnox stations will be properly financed and supervised?
Mr. Parkinson: My hon. Friend is right. We are openly acknowledging costs that have been incurred over the past 30 years and have been under-provided for. Those costs are now being revealed, and we are making arrangements to meet them. That is the sum total of the effect of my announcement.
Mr. Bruce Grocott: Is the Secretary of State aware that, probably unwittingly, he has performed a service to the House, in that he has spelt out with a clarity that is unmatched by any of his right hon. Friends the complete absence of principle behind the Government's privatisation policy? It is based upon the political expediency of rewarding his friends in the City arid of providing that the tab for anything that is unprofitable is picked up by the taxpayer. If there is any other basis for the distinction that the right hon. Gentleman has enunciated today, will he please do the House the service of spelling it out?
Mr. Parkison: I have already answered that question. At the moment, all the assets and all the liabilities are in the public sector. If we maintain some of the liabilities in

757
the public sector, we will get a better price for the taxpayer for what we sell. Therefore, the taxpayer both receives the benefit of the sale and bears some of the liabilities.
Mr. William O'Brien: The right hon. Gentleman has revealed how misguided he is about the privatisation of electricity. Is he aware that, for years, the decommissioning of these old power stations has been debated by the Energy Select Committee and the House? To tell the House that he has just realised the problems is totally misleading and unfair to the House. Do we take it that this afternoon the Secretary of State has revealed a forerunner to what we will have with water privatisation—the antiquated sewage works and the old reservoirs will be taken out of the sale? Is that the way that the Government are going on privatisation?
Mr. Parkinson: I have already answered that question at least five times, but because the hon. Gentleman insists, I am happy to make the point again. The Government, on behalf of the taxpayer, are selling and will receive the proceeds of the sale. The Government will also retain some of the liabilities. One must be set against the other. I believe that we have put the position clearly in front of the House. I have always argued the case for nuclear on the ground of diversity leading to security, never on the basis of price.
Mr. Ian McCartney: What we are seeing is Meltdown Man—the first nuclear meltdown in Britain. The Secretary of State has come to the House to admit that, unless he gets this proposition through, the City will not purchase the privatisation shares. What he has not said is that he is creating a third generating company. We require information about who will be responsible for the generating company and who is negotiating about the six years of average production. I assume that the right hon. Gentleman will not close all the Magnox stations on vesting day, so someone will purchase their capacity from the company. Who will be responsible for that? Who will be the chairperson who will carry out the negotiations, or is that another fix that was not sorted out before the right hon. Gentleman came to the House with his astonishing statement?
Mr. Parkinson: I made it clear in my statement that we shall come to the House with detailed proposals. We shall have discussions with trade unions and management, as I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would expect us to have. I have already committed the Government to making sure that the career prospects, pensions and security of those who work in Magnoxes will be maintained. We shall come to the House with detailed proposals on that and we shall attach them to the debate in the autumn.
Mr. Alan W. Williams: Is not this statement humiliating for the Government, particularly for the Secretary of State on the last day of his job? He is ending with a miserable climb-down. Is it not the case that the City of London has looked long and hard at nuclear power and seen an uneconomic industry which has always been uneconomic and has problems with waste and decommissioning? Is not the truth that it is just as unhappy about AGRs and PWRs as it is about Magnoxes? Is it not the case that we should not privatise nuclear power or the electricity industry?
Mr. Parkinson: I do not understand the thought processes that conclude that what I have announced today is some sort of advertisement for nationalisation, under which these problems developed. It is privatisation that is making this Government the first Government to face up to the real costs and to make arrangements to meet them. It is nationalisation that enabled these stations to be developed and operated as they are. I cannot see anything in what the hon. Gentleman says that is an advertisement for nationalisation.
Mr. Paul Flynn: In his panic statement, the Secretary of State said that Magnoxes would be part of our past. Does he agree that they will be very much present in our future? There are six Magnox stations within a 25-mile radius of my constituency, the two at Berkeley are being stripped down now, but it will take 12 years to remove the fiercely radioactive material, and the rest will stand there for at least a century. Does the Secretary of State agree that the cost and anxiety of nuclear power will be with us for many years and will be a burden on our grandchildren's grandchildren? Will he tell us today what that cost will be? In effect, the Secretary of State is making a gift to those who will buy the shares in the new industry but placing a burden on taxpayers that will be centuries long.
Mr. Parkinson: There is no source of energy that does not involve long-term clear-up costs. Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to estimate the cost of the damage to the climate, the contribution to the greenhouse effect, subsidence, lives lost and slag heaps that come from burning coal? Is he prepared to work out how many generations will pay those costs? Does he recognise that the cost of removing platforms from the North sea will be at least £10 billion and that that, too, will have to be paid for? To pretend that coal does not involve clear-up costs is to mislead oneself.
Mr. Donald Dewar: Will the Secretary of State accept that today's announcement will be seen in Scotland as an astonishing story of confusion and muddle? Is it not now clear that the chairman of the South of Scotland electricity board was right to claim at Torness in December 1988 that his board, when privatised under the Government's plans, would be wholly unsellable? Both the Minister of State and the Secretary of State denied that, but we now know that the taxpayer will simply be asked to take over the costs of decommissioning Hunterston A, which may amount to £500 million, in order to float the privatisation programme, which would otherwise sink without trace.
I accept that the Secretary of State may not be able to give details of his scheme for the Magnox stations, but surely he could give us an outline of it. Will there be a separate state-owned generating company to see them through the remainder of their life? Will there be a separate company to decommission Hunterston A, or will it be handed over to a privatised generating company in England or to the successor board in Scotland?
Is not the clear implication of what the right hon. Gentleman is saying that the boards have failed until now to face up to the realities of BNFL reprocessing and decommissioning costs? If in future the privatised companies face up to the "real costs", the implication is that there will be a specific fund for that purpose financed by the consumer to meet those costs. Will that not mean

759
significantly higher electricity costs? That is the inescapable conclusion of the Secretary of State's arguments.
Finally, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that he has admitted failure and, worse still, shown a wrong-headed determination to proceed with a discredited and unwarranted privatisation exercise, irrespective of the cost?
Mr. Parkinson: The hon. Gentleman's argument is not supported by his example of Hunterston A, which will never produce a single unit of electricity for a privatised company. It will be closed at least a year before the company is floated. He is saying that we should load a new company with costs from power stations that have never contributed a single unit of electricity to it. I hope that he is beginning to realise the scale of the problems with which we are dealing.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the successor vehicle for holding the Magnoxes. We are having discussions with the nuclear installations inspectorate because it is important that the inspectorate is prepared to license that vehicle. We shall come to the House with full details of our proposals, and we shall be happy to debate them then.
Our proposals are forcing costs out—[HON. MEMBERS: "Up."] No. They are forcing costs out. They will force people to recognise what the prices are and to realise that the costs can no longer be lost in the bulk supply tariff. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome that transparency. The result of privatisation is that prices will be what they will be. [Laughter.]
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Parkinson: Privatisation does not create the costs; it simply reveals them. To claim that, because we now know the costs, they have been caused by the action that makes us aware of them is extraordinary logic.
Mr. Speaker: Application under Standing Order No. 20.—Mr. Benn.
Mr. Harry Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I shall take it later.
Mr. Ewing rose—
Mr. Speaker: No. The hon. Member knows that I will take it later.
Mr. Ewing: You would be better to take it now, Mr. Speaker.

Industrial Situation
5.17 pm
Mr. Tony Benn: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely
"the serious industrial situation directly created by Government policy, which has compelled large numbers of workers to withdraw their labour in order to maintain their living standards in the face of rising prices and higher mortgage interest charges; and to protect essential services, public safety and civil liberties, which are threatened by other Government policies."
Hon. Members who support those who are now on strike have been unable to put their case before the House and the public, and Ministers have been protected from having to justify their actions, which have precipitated the problems now being experienced by the public.
The dockers have been denied the protection of their jobs, and their employers have been dismissing those who are taking action in order to intimidate the men to return to work on the old and brutal casual basis.
Town hall staffs are the direct victims of a persistent assault upon local services, which are understaffed and underfunded, at the expense of the communities that depend on them. All this is happening at a time when the Chancellor has announced a huge budget surplus.
The basic rate for a railman is £103·60 a week, and average earnings last year were £196·80, based on overtime of 13 hours and an average 52-hour week. Contrast hat with the astronomical salaries of chairmen of major companies, such as Lord King of British Airways, who has received an increase of 115 per cent. bringing his earnings to £7,423 per week. Sir Peter Walters of BP receives £9,000 a week, Mr. Rowland £19,000 a week and Lord Hanson £23,000 a week.
During the winter of 1978–79, 48 applications were made for emergency debates on the industrial situation, and some of them were allowed by the then Speaker. I urgently request you, Mr. Speaker, to allow this application before the House rises, if only on the ground that the reputation of Parliament will be damaged if those who elected us to this place to protect their interests and concerns find that we in Parliament have no time to consider their demands for justice and fair play.
Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman seeks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the serious industrial situation directly created by the Government's policy".
I have listened with care to what the right hon. Gentleman has said. As he knows, my sole duty in considering an application under Standing Order No. 20 is to decide whether it should be given priority over the business already set down for this evening or tomorrow. I regret that the matter which he has raised does not meet the requirements of the order and I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House.

Electricity Bill (Consideration)
5.22 pm
Mr. Tony Blair: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In the statement that we have just heard, the Secretary of State for Energy said, perhaps rightly, that no amendment to the Electricity Bill would be required to facilitate the process that he has described. But surely the proposals have very great consequences that would go to the heart of the privatisation provisions. There would be consequences concerning the structure of whatever company would hold the Magnox stations, for accounting procedures and for personnel and pensions matters. The curious thing about the statement is that the proposal will mean that whole chunks of our debates in Committee and on Report will be rendered otiose or will have taken place on a completely false basis.
May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, as a matter of urgency, to see whether, in accordance with the rules of the House, we can at least postpone consideration of the Bill until such time as arrangements can be made for a full and proper debate on the effects of the statement on the Electricity Bill?
Mr. Harry Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. It may help the hon. Gentleman if I say that the only thing that he can do, from the procedural point of view, is to move a motion, which I should be prepared to put to the House.
Mr. Ewing: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise to you; we have got on fine during this Session and the last thing that I would want to do would be to upset you at this late stage. Nevertheless, I have a very important point of order. It concerns the effect of the statement by the Secretary of State, not on the Electricity Bill itself, although my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) made an important point, but on the money resolution. The House has already passed a money resolution to the Bill. Whatever the cost of the proposal announced by the Secretary of State—we have had some to-ing and fro-ing across the House with figures of between £4·5 billion and £8 billion—that cost is clearly outside the terms of the money resolution.
Rather than allowing the House to get into difficulty by debating proposals that fall outside the terms of the money resolution, would it not be better to take the Electricity Bill off the list of business for today? I know that you do not have the power to do that—or perhaps you have. It is clear, however, that the proposals must contravene the money resolution and I ask you to look into this matter carefully before we start to debate the Bill.
Mr. Alan Williams: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful to you for the guidance that you have given my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair). Last week, you wisely intervened and agreed to the adjournment of questions on a statement to allow proper information to be made available, and I gather that your are willing to consider the possibility of adjourning the proceedings on the Electricity Bill. We seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker, because you will understand that, as the Secretary of State has said, there need be no further legislation. That means that this is the very last opportunity that we shall have for a debate.
762
As my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield said, our debates over the past few months would undoubtedly have taken a very different form had the information that has been made available today been available before, not just to this House but to the other place, which will now have absolutely no opportunity to absorb the proposals. We would therefore wish to take advantage of the procedural opportunity that you have suggested. Will you please tell us when is precisely the right time to move that we suspend or adjourn further proceedings on the Lords amendments? We shall then do just that.
Mr. Speaker: The right time to move such a motion would be once the Orders of the Day have been read, and I would put the Question upon it forthwith.
Mr. Ian McCartney: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Secretary of State said that there would be no requirement to amend the Bill. He used as his excuse the provisions of paragraph (4) of schedule 12, which refers to his powers to specify by order that the sum may exceed £1,000 million. My hon. Friends and I then asked the Secretary of State specific questions about the setting up of a company, and he admitted that he was setting up a generating company.
Mr. Speaker: Order. None of this is a matter for me. The hon. Gentleman persists in referring to what the Minister said, and I am not responsible for that.
Mr. McCartney: I understand that, but I am trying to make a point of order regarding the business before us. In bringing this business before the House, the Secretary of State has told you, Mr. Speaker, that amendments to the Bill will not be required. Yet in his statement he said that he would be setting up a generating company to deal with Magnox—
Mr. Speaker: Order. No, the hon. Gentleman must pursue this matter under business relating to statutory instruments. It is not a matter for me.
Mr. McCartney: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not a matter for me.
Mr. Tony Benn: But has the Minister made a statement converting the Bill into a hybrid Bill, Mr. Speaker, in which case it is a matter for you? That is the point. The Minister has dropped the Bill today—[Interruption.] Well, he has dropped the main provisions of the Bill. He has said that he proposes to introduce a new Bill involving a public and a private generating provision, as my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) has said, and the electricity will therefore come from a hybrid system.
With respect, Mr. Speaker, you will recall the arguments over the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act in 1975, when hybridity became a very important question. I am asking you, Mr. Speaker, to consider whether it is in order for you to allow a Bill to proceed when a statement has been made that contains a clear indication that hybridity has been introduced and when we are considering the Lords amendments.
Mr. Speaker: At the moment, we are supposed to be discussing Lords amendments. No amendment is to be brought forward by the Minister today.
Mr. Michael Foot: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. A few minutes ago, in your guidance to the House, you said that the matter would be put to the House and that you would be prepared to consider a motion proposing the adjournment of the debate, and—if I may say so respectfully—that is the very best advice that could be given to the House. I am sure that my hon. Friends on the Front Bench will take up that suggestion and move the adjournment, in which case it will be a debatable motion, will it not?
Mr. Speaker: We have had nearly an hour on this matter, and I would certainly be prepared—
Mr. McCartney: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker: No.
Mr. McCartney: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: No!
Mr. McCartney: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: No. I am on my feet, and the hon. Gentleman has been here long enough to know that he must not interrupt the occupant of the Chair.
Following what the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) said, I shall put the dilatory motion to the House, if it is moved, for the reasons that we have heard over the past hour. The hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) must not persist in raising points of order with me that are not my responsibility.
Mr. Foot: May I confirm that the dilatory motion is debatable? I am sure that the House will understand that.
Mr. Speaker: I intend to put the motion forthwith, on the ground that we have had an hour of questions to the Minister.
Mr. McCartney: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Clause 63(1)(a) says that two companies
"shall be designated as generating companies".
Those words appear on the face of the Bill. The Secretary of State said today that there would be a third generating company, but there are no legislative powers in the Bill for that. That is the point that we have been trying to make. Schedule 12 provides the Secretary of State with the ability to make an order for costs. The Secretary of State does not have the power to amend the Bill today to set up a third generating company, which is precisely what he said in his statement. Clause 63 does not allow him to do that without amendment.
Mr. Speaker: That is as may be, but the Secretary of State has not brought forward an amendment.

NHS (Wales)
5.31 pm
Mr. Barry Jones: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you, Mr. Speaker, assist in obtaining from the Secretary of State for Wales a statement to the House on the National Health Service in Wales? We understand that a statement will be made, but outside the House. We have received no papers on the Health Service, but they were promised on 1 March. We have had no debate on the White Paper, but we were promised one on 1 March. Labour Members believe that the Secretary of State should make a statement before the House rises. We ask for your assistance as it appears to us that the Secretary of State for Wales is running away.
Mr. Speaker: I have no knowledge of such a statement being made outside the House, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's comments will have been heard by Ministers.

Orders of the Day

  Electricity Bill
  Lords amendments further considered.
  5.32 pm
  Mr. Alan Williams: For the reasons put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) and me already, I beg to move,
  That further consideration of the Lords amendments be now adjourned.
  Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 34 (Dilatory motion in abuse of rules of the House):—
  The House divided: Ayes 186, Noes 293.

  Division No. 316]

  [5.31 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Allen, Graham

  Eadie, Alexander

  Anderson, Donald

  Eastham, Ken

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Fatchett, Derek

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Ashton, Joe

  Fisher, Mark

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Flannery, Martin

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Flynn, Paul

  Barron, Kevin

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Battle, John

  Foster, Derek

  Beith, A. J.

  Fraser, John

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Galloway, George

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

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Blair, Tony

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Boateng, Paul

  Gordon, Mildred

  Boyes, Roland

  Gould, Bryan

  Bradley, Keith

  Graham, Thomas

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Buckley, George J.

  Grocott, Bruce

  Caborn, Richard

  Hardy, Peter

  Callaghan, Jim

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Haynes, Frank

  Canavan, Dennis

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Cartwright, John

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Henderson, Doug

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Clelland, David

  Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Cohen, Harry

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Coleman, Donald

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hoyle, Doug

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Corbett, Robin

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Cousins, Jim

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Cox, Tom

  Illsley, Eric

  Crowther, Stan

  Ingram, Adam

  Cryer, Bob

  Janner, Greville

  Cummings, John

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Darling, Alistair

  Kennedy, Charles

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Lamond, James

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

  Leighton, Ron

  Dewar, Donald

  Litherland, Robert

  Dixon, Don

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Dobson, Frank

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Doran, Frank

  McAllion, John

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  McAvoy, Thomas

  766

  McCartney, Ian

  Rowlands, Ted

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Ruddock, Joan

  McKelvey, William

  Salmond, Alex

  McLeish, Henry

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Maclennan, Robert

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  McWilliam, John

  Short, Clare

  Madden, Max

  Skinner, Dennis

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

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

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

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

  Meacher, Michael

  Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

  Meale, Alan

  Soley, Clive

  Michael, Alun

  Spearing, Nigel

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Stott, Roger

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Straw, Jack

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Mullin, Chris

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Murphy, Paul

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Nellist, Dave

  Vaz, Keith

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Wall, Pat

  O'Brien, William

  Walley, Joan

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Patchett, Terry

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Pike, Peter L.

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

  Prescott, John

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Radice, Giles

  Wilson, Brian

  Randall, Stuart

  Winnick, David

  Redmond, Martin

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Worthington, Tony

  Richardson, Jo

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Rogers, Allan

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Rooker, Jeff

  Mr. Allen McKay and Mr. Ray Powell.

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Alexander, Richard

  Burns, Simon

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Burt, Alistair

  Allason, Rupert

  Butler, Chris

  Amos, Alan

  Butterfill, John

  Arbuthnot, James

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Ashby, David

  Carrington, Matthew

  Atkins, Robert

  Carttiss, Michael

  Atkinson, David

  Cash, William

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Baldry, Tony

  Chope, Christopher

  Batiste, Spencer

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Conway, Derek

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Benyon, W.

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Couchman, James

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Cran, James

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Curry, David

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

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

  Boswell, Tim

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Bottomley, Peter

  Day, Stephen

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Devlin, Tim

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Bowis, John

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Dover, Den

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Dunn, Bob

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Durant, Tony

  Brazier, Julian

  Dykes, Hugh

  Bright, Graham

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

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

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Fallon, Michael

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

  Favell, Tony

  767

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Lord, Michael

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  McCrindle, Robert

  Forman, Nigel

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Forth, Eric

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Madel, David

  Franks, Cecil

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Freeman, Roger

  Malins, Humfrey

  French, Douglas

  Maples, John

  Gale, Roger

  Marlow, Tony

  Gardiner, George

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Gill, Christopher

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Gorst, John

  Mellor, David

  Gow, Ian

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Mills, Iain

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Gregory, Conal

  Moate, Roger

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Ground, Patrick

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Hague, William

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Hannam, John

  Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

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

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Mudd, David

  Harris, David

  Neale, Gerrard

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Needham, Richard

  Hayes, Jerry

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Neubert, Michael

  Heddle, John

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hill, James

  Norris, Steve

  Hind, Kenneth

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Page, Richard

  Howard, Michael

  Paice, James

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

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Patten, John (Oxford W)

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Pawsey, James

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hunter, Andrew

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Irvine, Michael

  Portillo, Michael

  Irving, Charles

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Jack, Michael

  Price, Sir David

  Janman, Tim

  Raffan, Keith

  Jessel, Toby

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Redwood, John

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Renton, Tim

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Key, Robert

  Riddick, Graham

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Knapman, Roger

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Rost, Peter

  Knowles, Michael

  Rowe, Andrew

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Lang, Ian

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Latham, Michael

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Lightbown, David

  Shelton, Sir William

  Lilley, Peter

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Shersby, Michael

  768

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Tredinnick, David

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Trippier, David

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Trotter, Neville

  Speed, Keith

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Speller, Tony

  Viggers, Peter

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Squire, Robin

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Walden, George

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Stern, Michael

  Waller, Gary

  Stevens, Lewis

  Walters, Sir Dennis

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Warren, Kenneth

  Stokes, Sir John

  Wells, Bowen

  Sumberg, David

  Wheeler, John

  Summerson, Hugo

  Whitney, Ray

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Wilkinson, John

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Wood, Timothy

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Yeo, Tim

  Thorne, Neil

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Thurnham, Peter

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory and Mr. David Maclean.

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Tracey, Richard

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Mr. Tony Benn: May I go back to the point that I raised with you about hybridity, Mr. Speaker? I appreciate that what the Secretary of State said to the House—I do not know if he is still the Secretary of State—has no legislative authority and, having consulted the Table, I understand that only when the wording of the Bill was changed would the question of hybridity arise. I have had the opportunity of having a quick look at the Bill. I do not believe that you, Mr. Speaker, could possibly answer now the question that I am putting because there may be enough in what I am proposing to submit to persuade you that you should seek advice before you give a ruling against what I am saying.
  5.45 pm
  Clause 62 states:
  "all property, rights and liabilities to which each Area Board is entitled or subject immediately before that date shall become by virtue of this subsection property, rights and liabilities of a company which, in relation to that Board, is nominated for the purposes of this subsection by the Secretary of State."
  However, the Secretary of State has said that that will not be the case any more. In effect, he has said that certain financial liabilities in respect of the Magnox stations will remain in the public domain.
  Clearly, those are only words from a Secretary of State and have no legislative authority. However, had they been part of the long title of the Bill—the right hon. Gentleman has told us that the Bill will be interpreted in that way—you, Mr. Speaker, would have been bound to consider whether we were getting a mixed arrrangement for the supply of electricity which would affect private and public companies and consumers separately.
  In view of the sensitivity of matters relating to hybridity, which affect the House and the protection of private rights and so on, I believe that you should not reject my submission out of hand until you have had the opportunity of considering it. Therefore, I submit that

  769
  you, Mr. Speaker, in your judgment, should not allow the Lords amendments to be proceeded with until you have had the chance of taking that advice.
  Mr. Speaker: I will certainly consider carefully what the right hon. Gentleman has said, for, as he correctly stated, no legislative change is made to the Bill as a result of what the Secretary of State has said. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman submits his reasons for what he has just said to me in writing so that I may consider them carefully.
  Now we move on to Lords amendment No. 158 with which—
  Mr. Bob Cryer rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that I can say any more, and I am not prepared to rule on hybridity in the middle of Lords amendments.
  Mr. Cryer: I simply want to ask you, Mr. Speaker, at what stage does the House have the opportunity to refer such a Bill, if it is indeed hybrid, to the Examiners of the Bill, who, as you know, consist of officials from both Houses, to check on the question of hybridity? Is it following a statement by yourself when you make a decision, Mr. Speaker, that a formal motion is moved, and is that motion subject to a vote like the vote that we have just had, in which the Government can use their vast majority to tear the procedures of this place apart and thus remove the rights which protect ordinary citizens, as they have just done?
  Mr. Speaker: That matter is hypothetical until I have seen the submission to be made to me on this matter.
  Mr. Bruce Grocott rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I repeat I cannot rule on hybridity in the middle of Lords amendments.
  Mr. Grocott: I am sure that you will recall, Mr. Speaker, as we all do, the tremendous seriousness that was attached to the issue of hybridity during the 1970s on crucial matters of legislation which, as far as I can recall, included a whole day's debate on whether a piece of legislation was a hybrid measure. We are all dealing with information that has come to light only recently and the information that I have received seems of similar import to the discussions that took place in the 1970s. Therefore, can we have your assurance that, when the ruling is made, the opportunity will arise, so far as it is in your power, Mr. Speaker, to determine it, for us to discuss it in the same way and with the same seriousness with which it was discussed in the 1970s?
  Mr. Speaker: I must first consider the submission that is put to me. Of course I do not control the timing of debates in the House, but I shall certainly bear in mind very strongly what the hon. Member has said.
  Mr. Benn: The point is that the passage of the Lords amendments today could lead to an attempt to get Royal Assent for the Bill immediately. Clearly, when the House has dealt with the Lords amendments, the Bill will have completed its passage through both Houses. [Interruption.] I do not know whether it depends on how the House rules on the matter. However, the point is that the matter of hybridity would have to be settled before the
  770
  Bill was cleared for Royal Assent. Once the Bill has gone for Royal Assent, it becomes an Act of Parliament. There is, therefore, an urgency about the matter. When you come to it, Mr. Speaker, you would have to interpose your judgment between the final stages in either House and the Royal Assent. You have given me an opportunity to put in such evidence as I can, which will concern clauses 62 and 63 on the generating board.
  Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman should get in that submission as quickly as he possibly can.
  Mr. Tony Blair: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you confirm that it will be necessary to have a ruling on the question of hybridity before the Lords amendments are passed, since otherwise the opportunity is lost? The matter is therefore urgent.
  Mr. Speaker: I understand that.

  Electricity Bill
    Schedule 12

      NUCLEAR LIABILITIES: FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
      Lords amendment: No. 158, in page 117, line 21, after "incurred" insert "or to be incurred".
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Michael Spicer): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 159, in page 117, line 26, at end insert—
      "(1A) Subject to paragraph 4 below, the Secretary of State may, with the approval of the Treasury, enter into an agreement with any person under which the Secretary of State undertakes that, if such conditions as may be specified in the agreement are satisfied, he will exercise the power conferred by this paragraph in such manner and to such extent as may be specified in the agreement."
      Amendment (a), after first 'agreement,' insert
      'to be no longer than 5 years in duration.'
      Lords amendments Nos. 160 to 162.
      Mr. Spicer: The amendments will fulfil the commitment given by my noble Friend in another place to put the provisions of schedule 12 on a firmer footing. It is important that the nuclear generators should have the certainty of knowing that the Government will stand by their assurances to provide funds, and the amendment simply provides for the Secretary of State to enter into contracts to meet those obligations.
      The Opposition amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 159 seeks to restrict the length of the contract to five years. That would make the policy unworkable. The contracts need to last long enough for the Government to make the payments when they fall due. The stage 3 decommissioning of power stations may not take place for 100 years after the station has closed, and vitrified high-level waste will not be finally disposed of until at least 50 years after vitrification. It is essential, therefore, for the contracts to be capable of lasting for a long time. While accepting the Lords amendments, I would ask the House to reject the Opposition amendment.
      Mr. Blair: The Lords amendment alters substantially the position as it was in the Committee and Report stages of the Bill here. The Secretary of State said in his statement today that if there had been any benefit of privatisation, it was to have exposed the economics of nuclear power. It is

      771
      worth pointing out that it was only two and a half years ago that Mr. Hadley, the secretary of the Central Electricity Generating Board, appeared before the Sizewell inquiry and proclaimed that the Magnox reactors, about which we have heard a lot this afternoon, were saving the consumer some £250 million a year. Throughout the history of nuclear power until privatisation, we were told consistently that it would be cheap. Indeed, that was the primary case submitted by the CEGB in support of Sizewell. What has happened since then is not that by some magical process of privatisation or a great evolution of market power it has become clear that nuclear power has become more expensive, but, in crude terms, that, where it used to be in the interests of the electricity board to tell us that nuclear power was cheap, it is now, short-term at least, in its interests to tell us that it is expensive so that it can get more guarantees and more subsidies from the Government.
      When we debate the schedule and the Government amendment, we should remember that we are not merely debating those nuclear liabilities, but we are debating them against the background of the nuclear tax to pay for the new PWR stations that will be costing the consumer about £20 or £50 a year. The nuclear quota will remain in being and will ring-fence the nuclear industry in that special way, but the cost of decommissioning, which will form part of the nuclear liabilities cost, will arise not merely in respect of the Magnox stations that have been shuffled back into the public sector today, but in respect of the PWR stations that are about to be decommissioned in the United States. The estimates of cost for commissioning the advanced gas reactor stations are again escalating at a fairly rapid rate.
      During our deliberations we heard much from the Secretary of State about how he wants to rid us of the iniquities of the cost-plus system, but under privatisation, and under the provisions relating to nuclear liabilities, we will have cost plus and then the profit on top of that necessary for the private sector to take a dividend for its shareholders.
      The amendments have a peculiar and coloured history. My hon. Friends will remember that in Committee those nuclear liabilities for the end-of-cycle costs of decommissioning, reprocessing and disposing of nuclear waste started off as simply those costs that were entirely unforeseeable. The only example that we received during the entire Committee stage was that a future Government might bring forward stage 3 of the decommissioning process and that would add to the cost. That would indeed add to the cost. Indeed, recent estimates show that it would add about £200 million to the cost of decommissioning the power stations. I add, too, that it appears that the fact that a future Government may change our procedures to bring them into line more with those procedures operating as best practice abroad is entirely foreseeable. Why we should guarantee and insure a private sector company against that risk, I do not know. That is the only example that the Minister gave us during Committee of where the schedule would be activated.
      We were then told in the other place, when the matter was debated, that that was to be extended not merely to items that were unforeseeable, but to what were called, in the words of Baroness Hooper, factors "outside the industry's control". That is an utterly vague statement on which we should have clarification today. What has happened, too, between our debate in Committee and the Bill's returning to the Floor of the House for Lords
      772
      amendments is that the discretion of a Secretary of State to exercise power and to give nuclear liabilities the underwriting in the way I have described has gone and has been replaced by these words in the amendment:
      "the Secretary of State may, with the approval of the Treasury, enter into an agreement with any person under which the Secretary of State undertakes that, if such conditions as may be specified in the agreement are satisfied, he will exercise the power conferred by this paragraph in such manner and to such extent as may be specified in the agreement."
      In other words, a discretion has been replaced by a binding agreement into which the Government now want to enter to shore up the nuclear side of the privatisation.
      The importance of that is that the discretion would be exercisable at the time when the contingencies against which it is guarding arise. Therefore, the discretion might be exercised when a future Government change the decommissioning plan or when the factors "outside the industry's control" materialise. I hope that the Minister will deal with that point.
      Presumably the arrangement in the Lords amendment now contemplated by the Minister will be agreed to before privatisation. The purpose of the amendment, therefore, is to give binding rather than discretionary guarantees to the industry before privatisation. Surely it becomes all the more important that we should assess the contingencies that may give rise to that binding agreement and what its terms would be.
      6 pm
      A binding agreement will be entered into as a result of the amendment and Parliament will give the power to make that agreement. The extraordinary thing is that we do not know the terms of the agreement, its duration, the contingencies against which it may arise or the consequences of the agreement for public sector funding. Nothing is known about this open-ended agreement to subsidise a private sector company from public funds. It is therefore outrageous for the Government to enter into such an agreement on our behalf in order to shore up a privatisation which, as we heard earlier today, is failing so badly.
      Why have the Government not taken all the nuclear power stations rather than just the Magnox power stations out of the privatisation? The explanation is perfectly simple and it is an important one to remember when considering the amendment. The Government have not taken the Magnox stations out because they have a greater appreciation of the future success of the other stations compared with those Magnox stations—some might argue that the advanced gas-cooled reactor stations are in a worse shape than the Magnox stations. The Government have withdrawn the Magnox stations because they know that if they took all nuclear power out of the privatisation, as we urged them to do, they would have to withdraw I he Bill.
      In Committee and throughout the passage of the Bill we were told that the 70:30 per cent. split between National Power and PowerGen was necessary to ensure the marketability of the nuclear sector within the industry's structure. If the Government withdrew nuclear power from that structure, they would then have to withdraw all the structure.
      It is important to remember that, under the agreement, the price that we shall pay has been upped from £1 billion to £2·5 billion. That is the sum for which we, as taxpayers,

      773
      will be liable. The price that we pay as taxpayers and consumers is, no more and no less, the price of saving the Government's face.
      I must make it clear that we wholly repudiate the notion that the Government should be allowed to enter into an open-ended agreement for the public subsidy of a private sector company. We do not regard the introduction of the amendment as a proper exercise of ministerial discretion.
      Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Today's statement has sharpened the purpose of the amendment and for many outside it will be put into sharp focus the commercial and safety risks associated with nuclear power. During the past 15 years the Government have had an incredible record of misinforming the public about the case for nuclear power. It is therefore difficult to see how any innocent speculators can be reassured by the Government's admission that the Magnox stations are too big a risk to be privatised, but that they should not worry as the Government will underwrite the risks of the other nuclear power stations. People are supposed to be reassured that those stations do not suffer the same problems of uncontrolled costs and environmental complexities as the Magnox stations. We have heard it all before and no one should take the Government's word about nuclear power.
      Over the years the views of many of us have been vindicated. Throughout the passage of the Bill we have given the Government the benefit of our advice, but they have refused to take it even though, at the last gasp, we have been proved right and they have been proved utterly wrong.
      The amendment is an open cheque as it is an attempt to get the House to accept that the private sector, which will run the nuclear power stations, should have unlimited access to taxpayers' money to cover the cost of its commercial mistakes, engineering failures, the difficulties associated with reprocessing, however unpredictable, or any other environmental consequences of the industry's activities. I hope that the Minister can tell us what other part of the private sector of the economy has such cast-iron, gilt-edged and open-ended guarantees. If such an amendment had been tabled by an Opposition party to cover any other industry it would have been ridiculed and condemned by the Government. Here they are, however, asking the House to accept a Lords amendment that will provide such guarantees.
      The Secretary of State told us that he has only just discovered that nuclear power is more expensive than people thought. Many of us could have told him that a long time ago if he had been prepared to listen.
      Mr. Rhodri Morgan: The right hon. Gentleman has moved rapidly.
      Mr. Bruce: That is true. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that it has just become apparent that the cost of reprocessing is escalating at an unprecedented rate. Those of us who study the industry could see that coming and, in the circumstances, the escalation in costs is not entirely surprising.
      It is not just a matter of problems associated with reprocessing as other changes are taking place. The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) mentioned Baroness Hooper. She said that risk was being shared in such a way
      774
      "in areas which are not subject to the control of the nuclear operators"
      That underlines my point about the amendment being an open cheque. She also said:
      "We must look very carefully at this area to see whether we can give greater certainty to the investor and the public that the Government will meet their side of the deal. Therefore, at Report stage we intend to table an amendment to Schedule 12 to enable the Secretary of State to enter into binding commitments in this respect."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 19 June 1989; Vol. 509, c. 20.]
      That quote sums up the Government's attitude. They are much more concerned about the potential investor than they are about the best strategic way in which to run the industry or about meeting the public's concern about nuclear power.
      The cost of reprocessing has escalated and is continuing to escalate dramatically. What happens if the cost of reprocessing makes nuclear power stations unviable? Today's statement does not make any difference. The entire cost of the lost capacity would fall on the taxpayer; there would be no risk to the shareholder. What would happen if Sellafield or THORP—the thermal oxide reprocessing plant—were closed on safety grounds? As a consequence the Magnox power stations would have to cease to produce. Who would bear the cost of that? Who would find the replacement capacity? The answer is that the taxpayer would bear the cost. To pretend that normal risk analysis or risk management would operate is an extraordinary distortion.
      There is evidence to suggest that my theory is not just a fanciful concern. At the Hinkley inquiry the National Radiological Protection Board said that evidence of recent years suggested that the acceptable radiation dose had been set at too high a level. It suggested that the level should be reduced to a fraction of the current level. If what the board is proposing were introduced, it would mean that about one third of the employees at Sellafield would be exposed to radiation levels above the safety level projected by the board. The Minister must acknowledge that, if that is so, it is difficult to see how Sellafield or THORP could continue to operate. Already they have been threatened with closure, and if that happens the consequences for the taxpayer will be phenomenal.
      Earlier, the Secretary of State tried to impugn the Labour party's commitment to the coal industry, and what it has cost the taxpayer, and I suppose that the Opposition's commitment is fair game. But what the Government are proposing is potentially a far greater commitment than that to the coal industry. The Bill is already committed to costs of more than £7·5 billion, and they go up by about 20 per cent. every time it returns to the House. I imagine that there will be numerous orders in the coming years on occasions when the Government come back to the House to seek further consent to increase borrowing to cover the costs of decommissioning and rising reprocessing charges.
      Until recently, not many people suggested that we would simply abandon a decommissioned nuclear power station in a concrete shell for 100 years. Interestingly, the industry has tried to make that sound like an acceptable proposition, but I do not think that it will prove acceptable to have a decaying nuclear power station—monitored though it may be—wrapped up in concrete as a monument looming over people's communities. People will want total decommissioning; they will want stations removed; they will want land to be freed from the blight put upon it—
      Mr. A. J. Beith: Will not that be especially true in cases in which the generating board has its eye on greenfield sites and beauty spots like Druridge bay in Northumberland, where there will be not only a building but a structure that will last for 100 years?
      Mr. Bruce: My hon. Friend raises a pertinent point. This factor will be used by objectors in future planning inquiries into the implications of building nuclear power stations. No longer will the industry be able to say—however unacceptable even this might be—that it is a question of a 25 or 30-year cycle, and then the structure will be removed. People know that it is so difficult to succeed in planning applications that one fades away, then another comes along, followed by another. My hon. Friend's point was a fair one: many communities will find it wholly unacceptable that a piece of land is likely to be frozen and out of use for up to 200 years. At least with a conventional power station, they know that it can be removed and that the site can be levelled within a generation or a generation and a half.
      All those factors will affect the cost and liability of the industry. They will make many people reluctant to invest in it. We are faced with this prospect because of the consistent resistance of the City and other quarters to the saleability of a private electricity company based on nuclear power. and on Magnox reactors in particular. A poll published recently showed that about 17 per cent. of the population said that they might be willing to buy shares in the privatised electricity industry, but on closer questioning, more than half of those said that they would not buy shares if they included a nuclear component.
      The Secretary of State may have had the worst of both worlds. He has failed to remove nuclear power altogether from the privatisation, but he has removed enough of it to tell these people that their judgment about the nuclear power industry was right and that an investment that requires them to buy into it is likely to be difficult—except that the Minister will be able to wave this proposal in front of them and tell them that they will make a profit while the taxpayer bears all the risk. The Government have signed up a wonderful deal for the investors. That is dishonest and immoral and it represents a principle that the Conservative party would not defend in any other context. It is the worst sort of double standards and double dealing to be brought before the House on this matter.
      6.15 pm
      The public should share my view and, if they have any sense, stay clear of the industry, and not only because it is not necessarily a sound investment: it is a bad risk with which they should not wish to taint their hands.
      The Government are asking for an open-ended commitment which will leave investors feeling uncomfortable, which will not satisfy public concern and which will underline the fact that nuclear power should have stayed in the public sector. Surprisingly, the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North (Sir. T. Skeet) is not in his place; I should have thought that he would be anxious to contribute. He said from the outset that nuclear power should be kept in the public sector, as did the CBI. Many of us who opposed the privatisation recognised that it would have been tidier without the nuclear industry. It is extraordinary that the Government have not even been prepared to accept good advice either from the Opposition or from their own Back Benchers. We believed that,
      776
      although privatisation should not go ahead, without the nuclear industry the argument for it could stand on its merits.
      The Government have conspicuously failed to realise that. Their proposal involves a blank cheque which will mean, over time, that the industry will cost this country, in subsidies from the taxpayer, more than the coal industry has done to date—and by a substantial margin. It will do so in circumstances that utterly destroy the rhetoric for privatisation. This is a dishonest piece of legislation, of which this amendment is the most dishonest part.
      Mr. Alan W. Williams: I find it strange that we are debating schedule 12, in view of the Government's statement this afternoon. As Magnox reactors have been removed from the intended sale, I should have thought that at least half the problem of decommissioning has been removed from the privatisation, and I would expect dramatic changes in schedule 12, the more so since Magnox reactors are near the end of their lives and will incur these costs first.
      The same goes for all our discussions today. The changes implicit in the statement should be subjected to the sort of discussion that we had in Standing Committee, because many of the premises have been wholly changed.
      There is a fundamental objection to schedule 12. Why should the public carry all the risk of the escalating costs of waste and decommissioning? The sums mentioned in this context—£1 billion or 12·5 billion—are small compared with what I suspect the true eventual figures will be.
      We have no real idea of how we shall get rid of high-level nuclear wastes. Intermediate-level waste will be given a shallow burial, probably at Sellafield. That will be very expensive and I do not think that the public, even near Sellafield, will accept it. Ideas for high-level wastes are still at the design stage. No country has got rid of its high-level waste, and the costs will run on for up to 100 years. The wastes will stay radioactive for hundreds or thousands of years, so how can we estimate the costs? One billion pounds or £2·5 billion seem trivial amounts compared with the true costs. Estimating the cost of decommissioning is crystal ball gazing. We understand that for Berkeley the cost may be about £300 million. Stages 1 and 2, which involve taking out the waste and reprocessing, will certainly account for that. We have no idea of the cost in 100 years time of dismantling the power stations and £300 million sounds like a terrific underestimate. Experts in the industry think that the cost could be anything up to £2 billion per reactor. That figure is from the Financial Times newsletter article, "Power in Europe" which is edited by Mr. Andrew Holmes. Where will that money be found?
      In Committee we tried to estimate the foreseen costs for waste and for decommissioning and arrived at figures of £10 billion, £12 billion or £16 billion. Those are the present guesstimates. Apart from the guesswork involved in arriving at such figures, the fundamental objection to schedule 12 is why should the public carry the risk, especially in view of today's statement that Magnox reactors will be left out of the privatisation. The new privatised National Power will have AGRs and PWRs which will run for 20, 30 or 40 years. Presumably they will be operated at a profit but, if not, there is the nuclear tax to fall back on. When it comes to waste and decommissioning, the buck will be passed back to the taxpayer. Schedule 12 is wrong in principle.
      Mr. Alex Salmond: I should like to put two questions to the Minister to see if we can clarify the economics of the nuclear industry in the Government's mind. I understand that the Government now accept that the nuclear industry is not fully economic. In a whole variety of ways and through some ingenious subsidies, ways are to be found to subsidise the industry or to give comfort to private investors thinking of investing in nuclear power stations.
      Can the Minister of State, Scottish Office tell us whether that is still the Government's thinking in terms of the Scottish nuclear industry? In Committee, the Secretary of State for Scotland still maintained that the nuclear industry was fully economic, and the most cost-effective method of generation in Scotland. My first question to the Minister is whether the Government feel that nuclear generation is not economic in England but is economic in Scotland.
      If it is fully economic in Scotland, how does that square with the evidence given last week to the Select Committee by the chairman of the Atomic Energy Authority? Under the most strenuous questioning by the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) the chairman of the authority accepted the argument that the final decommissioning costs of nuclear power stations were unquantifiable at this stage. If the chairman of the Atomic Energy Authority is correct about that, how on earth can the Secretary of State for Scotland maintain that in Scotland the economics of nuclear generation is comparable with other power sources?
      Perhaps the Minister of State will make a careful note of my second point, so that, when the Secretary of State returns, he will be able to give an answer to a question on which I manifestly failed to extract an answer from him earlier today. Given that the electricity companies are discounting over a long time the possible costs of decommissioning nuclear power stations, what will happen if the private companies go out of business before the costs fall due? Who will pick up the tab if the private companies which are to be given that responsibility are no longer around to meet the costs?
      Mr. Ian Bruce: I should like to comment briefly upon the way in which the Government have decided to unscramble the electricity industry in a very much different way from that which was originally proposed. Many of us understand the problems that any Government would face in trying to privatise a complex industry such as electricity generation and separate the different companies and the way in which they will operate.
      The Government were correct to decide that there should be competition. I have always felt that perhaps the nuclear element of the industry should consist of one or more separate companies. The amendments are sensible, because the Government need to have powers to take account of contracts and other such matters. It is rather strange that the Opposition should try to defeat such contractual arrangements because, basically, the Government are seeking the ability to set out what is for sale and the agreements that are to be made in the industry. They seek to be able to say to potential investors that this is the way in which the Government will take out uncertainty about the reprocessing and decommissioning costs on the nuclear side of the industry. By doing that, the Government are not subsidising investors or giving them
      778
      additional profit. By taking out that uncertainty, they are ensuring that the price paid for the other assets is much higher than it would be if such a doubt were allowed to influence the price. They are protecting the assets of the Government and the taxpayer by doing it in that way.
      I stress to the Government that the uncertainty about the way that decommissioning and reprocessing will be dealt with is causing problems. Like any Back Bencher, I appreciate the Government's difficulty, because every time they make a decision about the way that we are to dispose of or reprocess waste, the NIMBY syndrome appears. That is designed to stop us taking decisions, and sometimes we have to go down what seems to be long and involved roads and try to put nuclear waste within a constituency that is already so heavily committed to the industry that it feels that it must provide a site for the spent fuel.
      The Government's nuclear policy contains some imponderables. As we know, the City dislikes imponderables and will take the worst case and add 50 per cent. for good luck. Taking out the Magnox stations is a sensible idea. However, the Secretary of State for Energy has left within National Power a hostage to fortune, in that the management of that company could well use it as a milch cow by putting all the costs that it possibly can on the nuclear side, knowing that the rest of the industry will provide a subsidy.
      The AGR stations and the future PWR stations should be shown to be economic. Given the additional costs of solving coal-fired problems of pollution and the cost of "greening" fossil fuel burning, we shall see the equation between nuclear generation and coal-fired generation turning around. It is necessary to have within the Bill powers to give nulcear power a subsidy, if it is needed. However, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will look carefully at ways to introduce a profitable nuclear industry and stretch it out.
      The Atomic Energy Authority and British Nuclear Fuels plc are left in doubt as to what will happen to the nuclear stations that they are running. In my constituency, there is a steam generating heavy water reactor, which was designed many years ago as an experiment—the first-off of a type of reactor that was then cancelled by a previous Secretary of State for Energy, the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). This station has a fairly limited life left, because its generators and other equipment will not last. We were assured that the station would be included in the non-fossil fuels requirement. Today's statement leaves us in some doubt about how this station will be dealt with.
      The powers in the Bill are designed to help the Government to provide a sensible solution to the great difficulties of producing a privatised, denationalised electricity industry, and I commend them to the House.
      6.30 pm
      Mr. Peter Hardy: As I had to see a Minister about an urgent constituency matter, I missed part of the debate.
      Mr. Giles Radice: Which one?
      Mr. Hardy: They change so frequently that it is difficult to remember.
      I shall not detain the House for long, but I have one or two important points to make. The other day, I took part

      779
      in a "Worldnet" television programme, which lasted the best part of an hour, between Strasbourg and Washington. Taking part were an American senator in Strasbourg and other American politicians in Washington. It was interesting to hear them say that an expensive, large nuclear power station had been built close to Long Island, but although it was now just about complete, it would never function because they believe that it is neither acceptable nor economic.
      The Secretary of State's statement about Magnox may have bought him some time, but whoever is Secretary of State for Energy after we come back from the recess will be appearing before the House to make yet another concession to try to make this privatisation work. Even with this concession, National Power will not be a successful flotation. The City may view PowerGen as dramatically more likely than National Power to succeed, because it has no nuclear encumbrance. However, if what I said both in Question Time and in the debate last Thursday is right, about the sheer fecklessness that we are about to experience as National Power approaches its launch in a few days' time, the City and many investors will be put off.
      My last point echoes the point that I made when I asked a question of the Secretary of State after his statement. The prospect of electricity privatisation may be more attractive now in Tokyo, Frankfurt, New York and other such places than it is in London.
      Sir Trevor Skeet indicated assent.
      Mr. Hardy: I am glad to have the endorsement, from a sedentary position, of the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North (Sir T. Skeet), who is the only Conservative Member to emerge with any credit from this sad and sorry tale. As he quite properly pointed out to the Secretary of State—false modesty has no place in matters as serious as this—he proposed in Committee the very step that the Secretary of State has taken today.
      Mr. Morgan: Part of it.
      Mr. Hardy: The hon. Gentleman suggested part of the step. One recognises virtue on a larger scale than it might deserve. However, the hon. Gentleman recommended a course of action that we supported in Committee but the Minister rejected. It would he interesting to ascertain how much the dilatory response of the Secretary of State to that proposition has cost us. The Secretary of State may feel that privatisation is more worth while, but the City of London, in assessing the economics of privatisation, may now recognise, despite all the cosmetic actions that have been taken, and all the to-ing and fro-ing to No. 10, the Government now look like a sick Government, or a partial Government. They look like a partisan Government, concerned only with the interests of those who will be seeking to make a little money out of privatisation. Today's action will not make privatisation successful, and it will assist neither the new electricity industry nor the cause of those who wish to see the business of this nation conducted competently.
      Sir Trevor Skeet: I apologise to the House for not being here earlier, but I had to attend to one or two matters. I was here for the interesting statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy. I asked a question afterwards and suggested that my right hon. Friend could have gone a bit further. It is a wise man who
      780
      recognises that, taking all the factors into account., a change is necessary. It shows the effectiveness of the Committee system when a Secretary of State listens to the arguments of Back Benchers, listens to the arguments put on Report, and eventually makes a modification. I find this one helpful. [Interruption.] I can remember when the Labour party introduced a groundnuts scheme, which cost us £36 million. An argument was put forward carefully in Committee and the Government are big enough, wise enough and awake enough to weigh up the arguments and bring out the desired modifications.
      The crux of the Bill can be found in clauses 30, 32 and 93 and the schedule 12. We are dealing here with the schedule. When we deal with structures that will be closed down by the turn of the century, some revision must be made. Has it occurred to Labour Members that we are now building a third unit into the competitive exercise? We shall have not only National Power and PowerGen, but the British nuclear firm. In Committee, I made the modest suggestion that if we put some of the other nuclear assets into this body, it would be extremely competitive, and would be the third side of the competitive wedge. If we bring in the renewables, towards the end of the century. more competition will be introduced.
      Mr. Morgan: The hon. Gentleman is rather jumping the gun. We were given no details to show that there will be a third company. If this were done by means of a sale-and-leaseback arrangement, that would not be the case. The Secretary of State gave no sign that a third company to supply nuclear electricity in England and Wales, with a bit of Scottish Magnox, would be set up.
      Sir Trevor Skeet: It can be done in two ways. If the Magnox assets are retained by the state, those in Scotland and England will be either pooled into one company, or leased back to the enterprises. Final responsibility will rest with the state. That gives an additional guarantee to those concerned and to any disquieted members of the public that they can have full confidence in the privatisation that will ensue.
      Further details will have to emerge. We shall have to ascertain precisely how these measures will be implemented. I have no doubt, however, that the right concession has been made at the right time and that it will lead to a successful flotation of the companies. The concession was made because the market required it—the market wanted the removal of uncertainty. It would not have been possible to continue with such a large measure of uncertainty.
      Unfortunately, schedule 12 was not discussed at any great length in Committee. However, the Government were told that additional money would be required for the reprocessing of nuclear fuels, for their storage—much depends on where we put them—and for the disposal of nuclear waste. The Government were prepared to set aside as much as £2·5 billion, but the first tranche was to be a much smaller sum than that. If the Secretary of State wants to put more money up front, I can understand his reasons.
      Let us try to understand what decommissioning is. For the first 50 years little will occur. That will be the cooling period. It will be a long time before the decommissioning can be amortised. We must understand that the Central Electricity Generating Board has been making provision for the eventual decommissioning of its stations. I do not

      781
      think for one moment that it has made satisfactory provision, but some provision has been made. I understand that it intends to make more and more provision as time passes. There is an advantageous position because the state enterprise in which the company is vested will remain with the Department of Energy, and the Department will be responsible for the reprocessing of the fuel elements. It will be responsible also for ensuring that any necessary repair work is carried out. It will be responsible for decommissioning.
      Mr. Salmond: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has read the Select Committee's report on the accounts of BNFL, which contains the following passage:
      "Using decommissioning to shift the burden of costs to future generations has little to commend it in economic or accounting theory or moral principle, particularly if the burden so shifted is a very substantial one."
      Does the hon. Gentleman endorse that view?
      Sir Trevor Skeet: We must remember that there are cycles of popularity. The nuclear industry was extremely popular a few years ago but popularity has now shifted to fossil fuels. I think that in the years ahead the nuclear industry will become more popular. Fossil fuels have the disadvantage of CO2 sulphur dioxide, metals coming out of stacks and so forth. All these consequences have to be avoided and the shoe can move on to the other foot, as it were. Much depends on the amount of coal that comes on to the market, and it may be more restricted than we think. If that is so, the nuclear industry will gain in popularity. I should think that that would happen in about two or three years' time.
      6.45 pm
      Who would have thought that the price of uranium would have fallen from about $45 a pound to below $10? That fall in price has meant that it has become not especially profitable to operate all sites. With any commodity there will be periods of expansion and improvement followed by a period of deterioration. I have full confidence in the nuclear industry. It is wise to keep the nuclear industry going in the United Kingdom for the time when there will be improvements and expansion. Some countries have decided to let their nuclear industries go. If we followed that example, teams of experts would be disbanded. If £2·5 billion is made available for additional expenses and costs, the nuclear industry can be kept intact to a certain extent. That must be the desired consequence.
      We have been told that no new nuclear power stations are being built in the United States. We must remember that the price of coal in the United States is very different from the price in the United Kingdom. The price here is relatively expensive, but in the United States the nuclear industry cannot compete with coal. I agree that the competitive element has gone in the United Kingdom that is on an 8 per cent. discount rate—but there are greater advantages here than there are in the United States.
      Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: Does the hon. Gentleman think that he or anyone else can estimate the full cost of nuclear power, including decommissioning? It is all very well to talk about the next 50 years, but somebody will have to pay the full cost at the end of the day. It is likely that for two or three decades the private sector will make a profit from our nuclear industry.
      782
      When the time comes to pay for decommissioning, the bill will probably be met by the public purse. Is that what the hon. Gentleman advocates?
      Sir Trevor Skeet: If a plant is dismantled, it normally has to be dealt with there and then. When a nuclear plant is decommissioned, it has to be left to cool for a number of years. That applies especially to the reactor. The first phase may be 50 years. We then enter subsequent phases. Therefore, nuclear costs can be phased over a period. There is ample opportunity to do that. The purpose of the provisions that we are discussing is to meet the future possibility of vastly increased costs. When we dealt with this issue in Committee, I recommended that the Magnox assets were not very valuable and that they should be written down to some extent. It could be argued that some of the assets in the coal industry are similarly not of great value and that they should be written out of the accounts. I recommended today that the coal industry should be subject to a reconstruction. It may be that after 100 years have passed we shall have to examine certain aspects of the nuclear industry with a view to deciding what should happen next.
      I think that the Government are moving in the right direction. They have taken up the Magnox stations and kept them within the state scheme. I agree that they could have gone a step further, but they have not done so. A partial contribution is an extremely valuable asset.
      Mr. Ian McCartney: The Lords amendments stem from the directors of the National Westminster Bank. I have no doubt that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was to be seen scurrying to his inspectors to get them to examine the figures proposed by the Central Electricity Generating Board. We are talking not of a blank cheque but of the complete underwriting of a share issue because of the Government's fear that the City will not purchase at a sufficient level and that there will be a disaster on flotation.
      These are not party political points being advanced by those who are opposed to the principle of privatisation. The issue arose in January in Committee when, fortuitously, the then chairman-designate of National Power sent a letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) in which he set out his concerns about the flotation of the company. He was anxious about its being saddled with the decommissioning costs of the nuclear industry. He argued against the underwriting by the company of the cost of fuel storage. He urged that the Government should construct a financial settlement that would protect BNFL, limit risks and enable it to be ripened, as it were, for future privatisation. The chairman-designate was opposed to the declared policy of the Department of the Environment that the polluter must pay. He said that, carried to its logical conclusion, such a commitment hung round the neck of the company would mean an unsuccessful flotation on the stock market. He said that he expected the Secretary of State for Energy to come up with proposals that would not only loosen the strings of that commitment, but would mean the Government picking up 100 per cent. of the continuing costs of nuclear decommissioning and the underwriting of fuel storage costs.
      The Minister of State, Scottish Office is on the Bench and will respond to this debate. No doubt the Secretary of State and his Under-Secretary have been either successful

      783
      or unsuccessful in the current operations at No. 10 Downing street. Perhaps we will be told later today what has happened. Will the Minister either confirm or deny that in January the Secretary of State received a letter from Mr. Baker making it clear that unless he introduced suitable amendments in another place it would be almost impossible to achieve a successful flotation of National Power? It is important that the public understand that the purpose of the amendments is not to provide some equalisation of market forces within the industry following privatisation; it is no more and no less than the use of taxpayers' resources to fund the flotation—a flotation which scares the Secretary of State stiff.
      Mr. Baker's letter also made it clear that National Power was not prepared to agree to any commitment to phase 3 of decommissioning. He said:
      "There is no way that you can guarantee that National Power will not become insolvent over the next one hundred years. Any impediment on National Power is only likely to increase the chances that it will not survive."
      He said that that would
      "significantly reduce its attractiveness to investors".
      The amendments are designed purely to improve the attractiveness of the industry to potential investors, and the necessity to do that has obviously been quite clear since Mr. Baker's letter last January. My hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) was right to say that the beneficiaries of this policy will not be the taxpayers or the investors of the United Kingdom, but the foreign private capital investors who will buy the shares in the marketplace.
      The Minister must clarify the statement made in another place about the Secretary of State giving up the power to decide on grants for unforeseeable costs. Indeed, under the amendments the Secretary of State relinquishes any power logically to decide on claims for the cost of decommissioning. By giving a blank cheque to the privatised companies he hopes to improve the chances of a successful flotation.
      During the months since the Bill first entered its Committee stage, it has become increasingly clear that the public do not think that privatisation will benefit the nation. The Secretary of State has tried to push through this amendment while the manoeuvring at No. 10 is grabbing the headlines. He will not be successful—
      Sir Trevor Skeet: The hon. Gentleman made a number of speeches in Committee. Does he accept that in most countries the private sector electricity industry is successful? That is partly because it involves an element of competition. Before the Government can privatise the industry, they must determine the value of its assets. Correct valuations must, for example, be made for all the reactors that will shut down by the end of the century. If a company is to be floated, it is important to decide whether its assets are worth nothing or a great deal. The Government have placed the private companies under an obligation to build four 1175 MW PWRs. That will be a heavy burden on the industry.
      Mr. McCartney: The hon. Gentleman obviously did not listen to any of the arguments deployed by Labour Members in Committee, when we produced ample evidence of the problems. For example, New York state has had to step in to save a privatised company from bankruptcy. It sold and and then had to buy back the potential nuclear power generating capacity. The nuclear
      784
      companies in France are on the verge of bankruptcy because of crippling costs and the French Government have had to intervene to prevent that. The hon. Gentleman knows that his argument does not hold up. That is why he, more than any Conservative Back Bencher who supports privatisation, has pressed the Government to underwrite the sale of the industry. Without a massive underwriting, not only will there be a shortfall on the expected proceeds from the sale, but in the long term the privatised company will be unable to cope with its social and environmental responsibilities as well as its prime objective of realising the profits that come from privatisation.
      Mr. Eric Illsley: I wish to make only a few brief comments, most of which will relate to the Secretary of State's statement this afternoon and the effect of schedule 12. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Magnox stations will now remain in public ownership, yet schedule 12 increases funding for unforeseeable costs from the interim level of £1 billion to £2·5 billion. That suggests that the funding is being increased for the benefit of fewer power stations. There will be a larger pie for fewer stations.
      Sir Trevor Skeet: There were many fund-raising Bills for the coal industry under the National Coal Board in its time. Each time it exhausted the upper limit, it was extended through a new Bill. I am sure that no one would suggest that schedule 12 will last for ever. Perhaps another £500 million will be required and the Secretary of State will have to come back to the House with a new Bill. That is in line with coal industry legislation.
      Mr. Illsley: The hon. Gentleman merely reinforces the point that we made in Committee, that decommissioning costs were unforeseeable and the Government would have to come to the House time and again to obtain more money for the nuclear industry. Cost comparisons including decommissioning all show that coal-fired stations are more economic than nuclear-powered stations. The Electricity Bill has not yet completed all its stages, yet already the Secretary of State intends to raise the funding for unforeseeable costs from £1 billion to £2·5 billion, even though the Magnox stations have been taken out of the equation. The decommissioning costs are increasing even before privatisation. The Select Committee report in April endorsed our views on BNFI, in which the hon. Gentleman has a particular interest. Its decommissioning costs have increased fivefold because of the change of policy to decommissioning to greenfield sites in three stages over 100 years.
      We must wait until the Bill reaches the statute book in the autumn before the necessary order for further funding is brought before the House and we have an opportunity fully to debate the matter. BNFL's liability for decommissioning costs alone has increased five times over the estimated amount. That begs the question of whether the Government will need to return to Parliament for more money to pay for the decommissioning of the THORP plant, the costings for which already lag well behind the likely actual expense.
      7 pm
      Mr. Donald Dewar: I am obliged to the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North (Sir T. Skeet) for the thought that the measure that is the subject of this debate might be the equivalent of the groundnuts scheme for the Government. However, there is

      785
      a distinction to be drawn between the two, because I am sure that the hon. Gentleman accepts that the groundnuts scheme was based on idealism and good intentions, and no one can say that the same is true of electricity privatisation. Certainly it cannot be said of the muddle that we have witnessed today.
      I am sorry that, although the Minister of State, Scottish Office, has been courteous enough to await the conclusion of this particular debate, he has chosen not to reply to it. I wanted to ask him one or two questions about the implications of schedule 12 for Scotland, and the Under-Secretary of State for Energy, who is beginning to look like a remarkably solid and permanent object on the shifting scene of the Department of Energy, may not be able to provide the detailed information I want.
      As I flew to London this afternoon, it occurred to me that many important questions remained unanswered because of the total lack of information about nuclear capacity and nuclear costs. However, as a consequence of the past two or three hours, we have almost too much information—most of it confused and disjointed. Nevertheless, only the most churlish right hon. or hon. Member could retreat from remarking that there has been a most interesting series of happenings.
      While I recognise that it is difficult to get the attention of any even junior Ministers on this day of all days, because there is some nervous tic on the Conservative Benches, I may tell the House that my interest in schedule 12 was triggered by a report last week in the Glasgow Herald that the South of Scotland electricity board's accounts will be delayed for up to six months. I was curious to know whether that was true and, if so, the reasons for the delay. Perhaps we can now guess at some of the reasons, but it will still be useful if the Minister can confirm that the SSEB's accounts have been delayed and that the explanation offered by those who monitor the industry is correct—that the arithmetic of nuclear power has gone so badly wrong for the SSEB that it has been compelled to delay publication of its accounts while it scratches its head about the way of presenting them in a more palatable form to those people who may be tempted to invest in the privatised company.
      That is an extremely plausible scenario. As the Under-Secretary of State may recollect, last year the SSEB reported a £15 million operating profit, but it was suddenly translated into a £70 million loss because of the problems relating to the transfer of Chapelcross and of the sharp rise in BNFL's reprocessing costs. Those circumstances form part of the formidable evidence that the whole privatisation exercise is in appalling and fundamental trouble as a consequence of the escalating costs of Britain's nuclear capacity.
      I confess that I am greatly irritated by the way that Ministers blandly deny even the existence of such troubles and there is hardly a ripple across their calm pond of ideology, when anybody who takes the slightest interest knows that there is a ferment of anxiety behind the scenes. It may even have reached the notice of the Energy Minister that in December 1988 the chairman of the South of Scotland electricity board, briefing the press at Torness, remarked that if the Government pursued their original plans, the privatised company would be unsellable. He asked for "absolute insurance" against the ever-escalating
      786
      costs of reprocessing and the way in which he could apparently be held to ransom by BNFL and by the substantial costs of decommissioning, which are also constantly rising.
      SSEB's chairman said at that briefing—I recall raising this point again and again with the Scottish Office—that the assurances
      "will have to be signed and sealed before one writes a prospectus—otherwise it will not be worth writing."
      Clearly he felt very strongly about that matter. Subsequently, I and other right hon. and hon. Members pressed for details of the Government's intentions. There were tales in the press about secret deals and guarantees, but perish the thought, we were told it was a horrible idea that such things should be happening in smoke-filled rooms. In fact, I am sure that those rooms had very good air conditioning. We were told that nothing was happening, but now we know that a deal was hammered out, and that in essence it is an extremely bad deal for the taxpayer.
      The Secretary of State for Energy—as he then was, and may still be—suggested that the Labour party was not in touch with reality and had failed to catch up with the developments with which he was dealing so bravely and effectively. However, when I raised various matters in December 1988, I received a reply from the Secretary of State for Scotland, who is ever-courteous in responding to queries, in which he wrote:
      "I fully recognise Mr. Miller's concerns, but I am confident that there will be a range of instruments to meet them in a manner which both meets legitimate investor concerns and safeguards the position of consumers. There are no grounds for suggesting that the successful privatisation of the industry will be jeopardised by risks associated with the nuclear operating costs."
      A few months later, the Secretary of State for Energy stumbles to the Dispatch Box and concedes that there was every reason for concern, and that a major capitulation by the Government is required in respect of nuclear costs.
      I still want the Under-Secretary of State for Energy to explain more about the Government's intentions. I realise that there will be detailed statements and a debate later, which I welcome. However, as the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North fairly pointed out, we are faced with a patchwork quilt of responsibilities, consisting not only of the English distribution companies but of two generating companies, one of which will have nuclear interests, and in Scotland a nuclear company wholly owned by the two successor companies to the present boards. There will be a Scottish Nuclear Company, and there is the possibility—I put it no higher—of some continuing state nuclear capacity, which will mesh into that network in a way that is, as yet, obscure.
      I accept entirely that the details have yet to be worked out, because the Government have not worked out the details of any of their actions. They never seem to be worked out, and the Government consequently shift and change their position. The Minister must surely be able to give an overview of how the network will work and describe in the broadest terms what kind of holding company, public institution, quasi-quango, state board or corporation will be created to look after the residue of Britain's nuclear capacity that is the surviving Magnox stations—and state who in Scotland will spend the £400 million or £500 million that will, according to latest estimates, be required for decommissioning Hunterston.

      787
      I take the point made by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), quoting my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse), that it is difficult to quantify decommissioning costs. My impression is that it is possible to make some estimate at a given point in time, but the trouble is that, over a long time, costs escalate in an alarming and extraordinary fashion.
      I have an article from Power in Europe, a newsletter which carries some authority in the industry, showing the Central Electricity Generating Board's quantifications of decommissioning costs between 1986 and 1989 for a Magnox station. They vary from £211 million up to £641 million, depending on which of those years one picks, and the time scale between stages 2 and 3. This shows the variants and the unknown factors that we are being asked to face.
      We want to know a great deal more about this, and about the circumstances in which money will be paid out under schedule 12. We now know that the upper limit of £2·5 billion is at stake. That is a substantial sum of money. It looks as though the taxpayer is being asked to take over the difficult fag end of the nuclear industry—the older Magnox stations—and pay the bills as a sacrifice to allow the new privatised industry to be launched with reasonable prospects.
      It seems to me that there has been not just a touch of muddle, but a scandalous willingness to prop up a crumbling and tumbling scheme, almost irrespective of the cost.
      Sir Trevor Skeet rose—
      Mr. Dewar: I shall not give way. I am anxious to make a couple more points before I sit down.
      My worry is not with the City, or the financiers—I have some respect for the people who might invest in this company—but with the people who will get forms through the door, because they are South of Scotland electricity board customers, telling them that they will have a wonderful discount if they buy SSEB shares. I think that that is worrying. I am sure it must worry the Under-Secretary as well, if his senior colleague is right, and the Government have had to ride to the rescue because the electricity industry has not faced up to the true costs of decommissioning and reprocessing over the years, but must do so in future. I understand from that that the Minister expects those costs to be met partly out of schedule 12 funds, but substantially out of some reserve, some unidentifiable fund, to be built up over the years. It will face the formidable costs of decommissioning and reprocessing the AGRs in Scotland, which is bound to occur one or two decades after privatisation. I hope that the Minister will comment on that.
      If we are to face the so-called true costs in the future, it is clear that there will almost certainly be a substantial increase in the price of electricity to the consumer. That is an inescapable conclusion from the statement we have heard today, and from the muddle and confusion that has emerged.
      An article in The Daily Telegraph on 21 July said that there might be a 15 to 20 per cent. rise in electricity costs as a result of privatisation. The logic of what has been unveiled today makes that a real problem. It will be a problem for small shareholders and for the consumer. I do not think that the Government are out of the wood yet.
      788
      If the Minister sells these shares on the basis of the prospectus to people who are unlikely to have independent financial advice—people who get offers through the door with discount forms, who see the gloss and the glitz of the television advertising every day in their front rooms—to judge from the arithmetic and prospects that emerge from today's confusion, that would be the height of social and, I suspect, fiscal irresponsibility. The one thing that emerges from all this, with great clarity, is that the old story that I have been given year in, year out by the industry—that the best commercial basis on which to produce electricity is nuclear—has been blown out of the water. The truth is now out.
      7.15 pm
      Paragraph 78 of the Energy Select Committee's sixth report, on the greenhouse effect, says:
      "Most strikingly, when questioned about the economics of nuclear power and the impending privatisation of the electricity supply industry in Great Britain, the Chairman of the UKAEA said that he did 'not believe that in the present situation or climate privatised electricity generating companies would invest in nuclear power, to be absolutely frank'."
      That we have again had to bail out a privatisation with the cynical use of taxpayers' resources does not hide the fact that the problems of nuclear power will haunt many of the Scottish boards, or rather the combined generating and distributing companies. I suspect, as the years go by, that exactly the same problems that have haunted the SSEB over the past few years will haunt the new companies and their shareholders and, given the Government's approach, the people who will pay the price, formally and unfairly, will be the customers who buy the electricity.
      Mr. Michael Spicer: I hope that the House will agree to the Lords amendments that we are discussing and oppose the Opposition motions because, as I said in my opening speech, I do not think that it is sensible to put a time limit on these agreements.
      Mr. Morgan: The Government want a bottomless pit.
      Mr. Spicer: The hon. Member says that we want a bottomless pit. That is precisely what is not implied in this group of amendments, in clause 93 and in schedule 12. A precise figure is attached to them, as he knows, because his knowledge of the subject is detailed. The figure is £2·5 billion. I remind the House that, for the figure to be raised from £1 billion to £2·5 billion, there will have to be an affirmative resolution. I want to underline what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said about that—the affirmative resolution will be debatable. Therefore, far from being open ended, as the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) said, it is the reverse. It is specific as to what sums of money are involved.
      I assure the House that these amendments do not make any difference, in substance, to the purpose of clause 93 and to schedule 12. That is common ground in the House, I would have thought. It has been made clear to us when writing the prospectus for privatisation that the additional net, if it can be called that, should be introduced into the Bill so that there is no doubt about the Government's intention to apply the terms of clause 93 and schedule 12. It underscores and underlines the Bill as it stands.
      I understand, after today's statement, that the Opposition want to peg further questions and debates. II do not quarrel with that, but this is purely a technical matter, underlining clause 93 and schedule 12.
      Sir Trevor Skeet: Schedule 12 is there because certain costs cannot be evaluated because of the lengthy period over which they will mature. Decommissioning takes more than 100 years, so it is impossible to be precise, and, if one cannot be precise, one has to have this schedule to be able to deal with it. Is that not true?
      Mr. Spicer: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making an important point which leads me to what I wanted to say in any case. The purpose of clause 93 remains exactly the same in relation to the new private companies. No doubt there will be unforeseen and indeed uncontrollable costs, but the powers under the clause will allow them to be met. The problem of the time scale would exist whether or not the industry was privatised, and regardless of today's statement; power stations of this kind have not been decommissioned before. The powers in the Bill clearly make sense, and the amendments simply underscore them.
      The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), and a number of others, have thrown around the figure of £8 billion. I do not know where they got that figure; perhaps they will let us into the secret, and help us to make our dispositions even firmer. One of the reasons why we have no firm figure as yet was implied by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) when he asked me about the effect of Chapelcross on the profitability of the SSEB last year. Let me remind the hon. Gentleman that, contrary to the impression that he gave, Mr. Donald Miller has always been very enthusiastic about the sale—or so all his public statements have implied.
      The hon. Gentleman's main question concerned the relationship between BNFL and the SSEB in the context of delayed accounts. I concede that negotiations between BNFL and the entire United Kingdom electricity industry on reprocessing are still in progress. Until the contracts are completed we cannot foresee the costs, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, North (Sir T. Skeet) has pointed out.
      Sir Trevor Skeet: I am not sure that the Opposition have worked this out properly. A different company from BNFL will probably be dealing with the Magnox reactors. I am assuming, on the basis of the schedule, that the additional costs of some of the reactors will come out of the £2·5 billion. If that can be clarified, we shall have made some progress.
      Mr. Spicer: I was coming to that point. As I have said, the companies left in the private sector will be subject to the criterion that we have already laid down, and about which I was questioned by the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair). My hon. Friend was wise and percipient to ask about the Magnox reactors: the powers in clause 93 could be applied to Magnox costs, should cashflow problems require it. We are not sure whether that will happen, as they will be earning revenue in the public sector as well as creating costs. My hon. Friend has made an important contribution by enabling that to be put clearly on the record.
      There is nothing untoward about the Lords amendments, and I hope that the Opposition will not press them to a vote. It would certainly be extraordinary of them to press their amendment to a vote. They may not like our general policy; they may be concerned about the statement; they may have all sorts of worries. The problems, however, are long-term problems and have not
      790
      occurred before. Any policy involving "capping" or "time-limiting" the agreements would, I feel, be wrongheaded.
      Mr. Salmond: I hope that the Minister was not intending to finish his speech without answering a question that I have already asked twice today. Given that decommissioning costs have been discounted over long periods, who will pick up the tab if a private company goes out of business before the costs need to be met?
      Mr. Spicer: That is very unlikely, for a number of reasons. One of those reasons is that the regulator will be able to determine the prices that the industry will require to cover its costs. At the back of our minds has always been the need to make proper provision over a period of time, difficult though that is. That will incur costs, which the regulator will no doubt take into account when constructing his price formula. There will be no problem; that is the reason for the regulator's existence.
      Given the regulation of the industry, the non-fossil fuel obligation and other protections for the industry which the Opposition have questioned, I do not feel that the hon. Gentleman's fears are well founded. I hope that the Opposition will feel able to withdraw their amendment and that the House will accept the Lords amendment.
      Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
      The House divided: Ayes 312, Noes 195.

      Division No. 317]

      [7.27 pm

      AYES

      Adley, Robert

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Burns, Simon

      Alexander, Richard

      Burt, Alistair

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Butler, Chris

      Allason, Rupert

      Butterfill, John

      Amess, David

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Amos, Alan

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Arbuthnot, James

      Carrington, Matthew

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Carttiss, Michael

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

      Cash, William

      Ashby, David

      Chapman, Sydney

      Atkins, Robert

      Chope, Christopher

      Atkinson, David

      Churchill, Mr

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)

      Baldry, Tony

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Batiste, Spencer

      Conway, Derek

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Cope, Rt Hon John

      Benyon, W.

      Cormack, Patrick

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Couchman, James

      Biften, Rt Hon John

      Cran, James

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Curry, David

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

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

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Day, Stephen

      Boswell, Tim

      Devlin, Tim

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

      Dover, Den

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Dunn, Bob

      Bowis, John

      Durant, Tony

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

      Dykes, Hugh

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

      Brazier, Julian

      Fallon, Michael

      Bright, Graham

      Favell, Tony

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

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

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Fookes, Dame Janet

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Forman, Nigel

      791

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Forth, Eric

      Lightbown, David

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      Lilley, Peter

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

      Franks, Cecil

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Freeman, Roger

      Lord, Michael

      French, Douglas

      Luce, Rt Hon Richard

      Gale, Roger

      Lyell, Sir Nicholas

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      McCrindle, Robert

      Gill, Christopher

      MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

      Goodlad, Alastair

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Madel, David

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Malins, Humfrey

      Gorst, John

      Maples, John

      Gow, Ian

      Marlow, Tony

      Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Greenway, Harry (Eating N)

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Gregory, Conal

      Mates, Michael

      Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Ground, Patrick

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Hague, William

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Miller, Sir Hal

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Mills, Iain

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Hannam, John

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

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

      Mitchell, Sir David

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Moate, Roger

      Harris, David

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Hayes, Jerry

      Moore, Rt Hon John

      Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

      Morris, M (N'hampton S)

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Morrison, Sir Charles

      Heddle, John

      Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

      Moynihan, Hon Colin

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Mudd, David

      Hill, James

      Neale, Gerrard

      Hind, Kenneth

      Needham, Richard

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Nelson, Anthony

      Holt, Richard

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Howard, Michael

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

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

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Norris, Steve

      Howell. Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Page, Richard

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Paice, James

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

      Hunter, Andrew

      Patnick, Irvine

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

      Irvine, Michael

      Patten, John (Oxford W)

      Irving, Charles

      Pawsey, James

      Jack, Michael

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Jackson, Robert

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Janman, Tim

      Portillo, Michael

      Jessel, Toby

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Price, Sir David

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Raffan, Keith

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Rathbone, Tim

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Redwood, John

      Key, Robert

      Renton, Tim

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Riddick, Graham

      Knapman, Roger

      Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

      Knowles, Michael

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      Lang, Ian

      Rost, Peter

      Latham, Michael

      Rowe, Andrew

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Rumbold, Mrs Angela

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      792

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Thurnham, Peter

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Tracey, Richard

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Tredinnick, David

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Trippier, David

      Shersby, Michael

      Trotter, Neville

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Wakeham, Rt Hon John

      Speed, Keith

      Waldegrave, Hon William

      Speller, Tony

      Walden, George

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Waller, Gary

      Squire, Robin

      Walters, Sir Dennis

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Ward, John

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Stern, Michael

      Warren, Kenneth

      Stevens, Lewis

      Wells, Bowen

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Wheeler, John

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Whitney, Ray

      Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Stokes, Sir John

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Sumberg, David

      Wilkinson, John

      Summerson, Hugo

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Wolfson, Mark

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Wood, Timothy

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Woodcock, Dr. Mike

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Yeo, Tim

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Thorne, Neil

      Mr. David Maclean and Mr. Stephen Dorrell

      Thornton, Malcolm

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Coleman, Donald

      Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Allen, Graham

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Alton, David

      Corbett, Robin

      Anderson, Donald

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Cousins, Jim

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Cryer, Bob

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Cummings, John

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Ashton, Joe

      Cunningham, Dr John

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Darling, Alistair

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Barron, Kevin

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

      Battle, John

      Dewar, Donald

      Beckett, Margaret

      Dixon, Don

      Beith, A. J.

      Dobson, Frank

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Doran, Frank

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

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Eadie, Alexander

      Blair, Tony

      Eastham, Ken

      Boateng, Paul

      Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

      Boyes, Roland

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

      Bradley, Keith

      Fatchett, Derek

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Fearn, Ronald

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Fisher, Mark

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Flannery, Martin

      Buckley, George J.

      Flynn, Paul

      Caborn, Richard

      Foster, Derek

      Callaghan, Jim

      Fraser, John

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Galloway, George

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

      Canavan, Dennis

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Cartwright, John

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Gordon, Mildred

      Clay, Bob

      Gould, Bryan

      Clelland, David

      Graham, Thomas

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Cohen, Harry

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      793

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Grocott, Bruce

      Patchett, Terry

      Hardy, Peter

      Pendry, Tom

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Pike, Peter L.

      Haynes, Frank

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Henderson, Doug

      Radice, Giles

      Hinchliffe, David

      Randall, Stuart

      Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

      Redmond, Martin

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

      Home Robertson, John

      Richardson, Jo

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

      Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Hoyle, Doug

      Rogers, Allan

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Rooker, Jeff

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Illsley, Eric

      Ruddock, Joan

      Ingram, Adam

      Salmond, Alex

      Janner, Greville

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Johnston, Sir Russell

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      Short, Clare

      Kennedy, Charles

      Skinner, Dennis

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Kirkwood, Archy

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

      Lamond, James

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

      Leighton, Ron

      Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

      Lewis, Terry

      Soley, Clive

      Litherland, Robert

      Spearing, Nigel

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Stott, Roger

      McAllion, John

      Straw, Jack

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      McCartney, Ian

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Macdonald, Calum A.

      Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Turner, Dennis

      McKelvey, William

      Vaz, Keith

      McLeish, Henry

      Wall, Pat

      McWilliam, John

      Wallace, James

      Madden, Max

      Walley, Joan

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

      Meacher, Michael

      Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

      Meale, Alan

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      Michael, Alun

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

      Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

      Wilson, Brian

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Winnick, David

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Worthington, Tony

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Mullin, Chris

      Murphy, Paul

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Nellist, Dave

      Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie and Mr. Ray Powell.

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      O'Brien, William

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 159 to 162 agreed to. [Special entry.]
      Lords amendment: No. 21, before clause 11, insert the following new clause—Licence conditions for nuclear installations—
      "Where a person authorised to generate electricity under section 6(1)(a) above proposes to do so by means of nuclear fission, it shall be a condition of the licence that the Secretary of State may at any time if he perceives that there is a matter affecting the safety of the public by order requisition and bring under his own control the relevant nuclear installations."
      Mr. Michael Spicer: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 81 to 89 and the Government motions to disagree with each.
      Mr. Spicer: I understand, Mr Deputy Speaker, that it may be for the convenience of the House if we take with this group the following Lords amendments: No. 28, in clause 32, page 24, line 42, leave out from "with" to "and" in line 43 and insert
      "the suppliers concerned, by order require each public electricity supplier in England and Wales or each supplier in Scotland, before a day specified in the order, to make (in so far as he has not already done so)"
      Amendment (a) to the Lords amendment, leave out
      'each such supplier in Scotland'.
      Nos. 29 to 35.
      No. 36, in clause 33, page 26, line 21, after "above" insert
      "in relation to public electricity suppliers in England and Wales, or public electricity suppliers in Scotland"
      Amendment (a) to the Lords amendment, leave out
      'or public electricity supplier in Scotland'.
      Amendments Nos. 37 to 50, 78 and 79.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is that the wish of the House? That being so, the Minister may proceed.
      Mr. Spicer: Amendments Nos. 28 to 79, dealing with the non-fossil fuel obligation and associated levy, are technical amendments. If any hon. Member has questions, I shall be happy to answer them, but if not, I shall leave the amendments to one side.
      The first group of amendments deals with safety and seeks to provide that when a nuclear power station is defined as unsafe, its ownership and control should fall back into the hands of the Secretary of State. The main reason why the Government disagree with that is simple. Under the Nuclear Installations Act 1965, the nuclear installations inspectorate has powers to shut down nuclear power stations or to modify their licences. Indeed, should there be any question of their being unsafe, it has virtually unlimited powers over power stations and their operators. The obligation for safety placed on the operators within the general restrictions and safety conditions laid down by the inspectorate has served the country well, so the amendment is not necessary.
      I do not want to make a debating point, but the Opposition are trying to suggest that we should take safety for North sea oil operations out of the hands of the Secretary of State whereas the other place at least supports the view that safety at nuclear installations should be in the hands of the Secretary of State. It will be interesting to see whether the Opposition can solve that conundrum.
      Both sides of the House agree that the present legislation is tight on safety. The Bill further strengthens the safety provisions relating to the regulator. We have had a debate on that subject and the Government have brought forward amendments to that effect. We agree about the paramountcy and importance of safety, but the Bill provides a regime to ensure that safety provisions will be complied with.
      7.45 pm
      Mr. Morgan: We are in something akin to uncharted waters this evening, in more ways than one. First, we seem to be operating in a Minister-free zone. I have some sympathy for the departing Secretary of State and his Under-Secretary of State, who were near to ascending their own parliamentary Everest. Just before they reached the summit, the Secretary of State, at least, seems to have slid back to South Col on his backside. Since then, he seems to have found a convenient bus operating from

      795
      South Col back to Katmandu. His future parliamentary survival may depend on him seeing what he can do to live down the consequences of his announcement earlier today that Magnox stations would be left out of the Bill at the last minute of its parliamentary consideration.
      There is a further reason why we are in uncharted waters. The Secretary of State told the House at 4.30 pm that Magnox stations should be taken out of the privatisation process and brought back into the public sector, because that was the only way to protect potential investors. Now the Minister is telling the House, at 7.50 pm, that for reasons of public safety he is not willing to consider bringing nuclear power stations back into the public sector. He is willing to strengthen protection for private investors, but he wants to weaken protection for public safety. That is an extraordinary contradiction. It may even he the ultimate statement of what the Government are about. They do not care as much about public safety as they do about the safety of the privatisation process, and the advice that they receive from merchant banks on the electricity industry ranks higher than any other.
      Lords amendment No. 21 makes it clear that, should there be any doubts about the public safety of nuclear power stations, the Secretary of State would have the right to draw them back into the public sector, if they had already been privatised. I assume that that is confined to AGRs and PWRs. Even after today's announcement, we have no details about that and there could still be an element of privatisation. For that reason, I shall speak as though Magnox stations could be privatised on a sale-and-leaseback procedure. That has by no means been excluded by the Secretary of State's extraordinarily vague announcement. That is another reason why we are in uncharted waters.
      It is all very well for the Minister to tell the House, as he did two minutes ago, that we have well-established procedures for dealing with safety issues on the nuclear side of the electricity generating industry. No one has more regard for the inspectors and employees of the nuclear installations inspectorate than the Opposition Front Bench. We hold Eddie Ryder and his staff in the highest regard, but several relatively new factors tend to undermine one's confidence in the bland assurances given by the Under-Secretary of State a couple of moments ago.
      We know from the nuclear installations inspectorate itself that it is seriously under-staffed. It would like a very much larger complement because it will have to deal with a much wider range of problems in future. It will be dealing with three separate nuclear installations technologies—Magnox, AGRs and, before long, PWRs—which it has never had to do before. It will also be dealing with a whole new ball game because of the number of stations being decommissioned. It looks as though the inspectorate may even have to deal with three separate companies, although that is not necessarily so. Clearly, it will have to deal with the nuclear divisions of National Power and the SSEB and it now seems possible that we shall have some sort of cross-border dog's dinner of a nuclear company to deal with Magnox in its declining years until Wylfa is decommissioned in 2001 or 2002, so the NII may be having to deal with three separate management teams.
      The Minister argues that there is no need to worry because we have the NII, whose terms of reference are clear—that the NII licences the operators and the types
      796
      and that that means that we in Britain have a much better system than other countries and that no problems can arise. As I said, no one could have more regard than the Opposition for the staff of the NII and their dedication to their duties, but the fact remains that they will be facing new problems.
      Take the decommissioning of the Magnox stations. The staff of the NII take the view that with the present complement the inspectorate will have its hands full simply dealing with the annual reports for the Magnox statio:ns. It will be almost a full-time job. In addition, the NII will have to consider for the first time the licensing of the operating side of PWRs when the construction phase of Sizewell B is eventually completed in about 1992. In the light of those new problems, the Minister's bland assurances are inadequate.
      When the Magnox stations are running down, a whole new series of safety problems will arise. Let me give this idea to the Minister to chew over in case his mind is turning to other matters—such as whether he will be here tomorrow. As Magnox stations fall in temperature, they produce weapons-grade plutonium, rather than civil-grade plutonium. A whole new series of protective measures may be required to cover that accidental by-product of the running down of Magnox stations. The nuclear installations inspectorate and other international inspectorates may well take a great deal of interest in that unintended side effect.
      In terms of public safety questions such as terrorist attack or theft of plutonium stocks, the decommissioning of Magnox will give rise to a whole new series of questions. We have never had to deal with such questions before because we have never decommissioned stations before, whereas now a whole series of Magnox stations are to go out of business over the next 13 years, until the Magnox problem is behind us.
      For those reasons Opposition Members have a great deal of sympathy with the Lords amendments. The Government may say, "We have solved that problem ourselves by taking the Magnox stations out of the privatisation process and keeping them in the public sector. And if they are in the public sector already we do not need the power to take them out of the private sector." We need an assurance from the Minister that the Magnox stations will not enter the private sector by way of sale-and-leaseback arrangements because the Secretary of State was extremely vague on this issue in his statement earlier today. He gave us no idea what form the company would take—perhaps another Secretary of State will have to handle that particular hot potato—and until we know that, we must assume that there is a possibility that the privatised nuclear power industry will include at least the management of the Magnox stations. In that case the provisions of Lords amendment No. 21 would need to apply to Magnox stations as well as to AGRs and PWRs.
      Even if we assume that the Magnox stations stay in the hands of a state nuclear corporation—being incorporated with BNFL, being placed in the hands of a separate Crown nuclear company or remaining in legislative limbo—we must still ask whether the state should have the right to reacquire ownership of AGRs if a public safety threat such as a military, terrorist or type-fault threat arose. Given all the criticisms that have been made about AGRs, that possibility cannot be excluded. Should the Government have an easy route to reacquire the stations on public

      797
      safety grounds or should we have to go through the whole dreary process of introducing legislation to transfer the industry from private to public?
      We have much sympathy with the Lords amendment because we believe that the Lords took a long-term view. The public have a great many doubts about how they will live with the nuclear industry. For example, we know that one could never build a nuclear power station on a green field site in this country following the public inquiry process. One can build new nuclear power stations where there are already nuclear power stations because there is a nuclear vested interest in those areas. But if the public had known in the late 1950s and early 1960s what they now know about nuclear power, the existing sites would never have been set up, and that vested interest would never have arisen.
      The Lords have sought to reflect the fact that, given the choice, no one would allow a nuclear power station to be built in his area. The public do not want to live in close proximity to nuclear power stations. That is also true in other countries, the possible exception being France.
      The public would undoubtedly be greatly reassured if the Government embraced the spirit of the Lords amendment and said, "We understand how you feel about nuclear power and how you were conned into accepting nuclear back in the late 1950s," acknowledging that nuclear power was our weapon to defend ourselves against being exploited by high oil prices and that to be able to construct nuclear power stations was the macho symbol of technologically advanced civilisations. All those assumptions proved hopelessly inaccurate, but they were sufficient to persuade the public to accept nuclear power stations.
      The Government must think seriously about how to reassure the public that in a privatised electricity industry public safety will be given the highest priority. We know that once the industry is privatised we shall have a jungle out there. We know that the public believe that in the jungle of a privatised industry corners will be cut. The Minister asked earlier where the estimate of £8 billion for decommissioning Magnox stations came from. I recall that Phillips and Drew the stockbrokers, who are under something of a cloud at present in relation to an entirely different matter, suggested that the possible cost would be £12 billion. That firm was assisting the Government in preparing reasonable estimates of the real cost of nuclear power and said that the decommissioning of Magnox would cost £4 billion if it were done over a century but that that could rise to £12 billion if it were done at the most rapid practicable rate—the rate at which the Swedish Government have told their industry to decommission.
      The British Government may wish to choose a similar regime. The public might want them to make that choice rather than having huge concrete domes all over the countryside. The public suspect that in a privatised nuclear industry management will say, "We cannot possibly afford that; we cannot do it; we shall go bust if you force us to do it." What is the answer to that?
      The public are crying out for reassurance about the safety of living next door to sources of radiation while the interests of investors and shareholders are pulling the other way. We want to know which way the Government will go. The public would like to see the spirit of Lords amendment No. 2 incorporated in the Bill.
      798
      The prime purpose of the Bill must be to reassure the public. Whatever the ideologies of hon. Members, the operation of the industry must be safe and electricity supply must be secure. The Bill's prime purpose cannot be simply to give potential investors a risk-free ride when they have a punt on the pylons and power stations.
      In that spirit of asking the Government to reassure the public about the safety of nuclear power stations, I ask them to think again and move to the spirit of Lords amendment No. 21.
      8 pm
      Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I support the general thrust of the comments of the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan). There are currently so many question marks over nuclear power that it should not move out of the public sector. It certainly should not move from the public sector when its monitoring, safety and emergency provisions have been exposed as underdeveloped. In Committee, we touched on such matters and gave examples to reinforce our argument.
      The general attitude to the level of acceptability of radiation doses has changed dramatically over the years. We have moved from a feeling that any radiation was likely to be damaging, through a belief that quite high doses could be tolerated, to the current belief that we cannot accept the present dosages. The industry is about to be privatised when a public debate is going on about whether the acceptable levels of exposure to radiation are low enough.
      In the 1950s, the dose limit for workers in the industry was set at 150 mSv, but it was reduced to 50 mSv in 1977, the last time that there was a specific change. The National Radiological Protection Board believes that much lower levels should operate, and has suggested 0·5 or 0·2 mSv. Seven per cent. of employees at Sellafield have received doses of almost 50 mSv. People involved in decommissioning and reprocessing are particularly vulnerable to high doses. If the processes of reprocessing or decommissioning make it impossible for humans to do them because safety levels have fallen below what is acceptable, what will that mean for reprocessing, decommissioning or the private sector nuclear industry? The amendment at least ensures that the Government have at their disposal, at any time, the right to intervene and to say, "We are not satisfied that sufficiently high standards are being applied, so we propose to take direct responsibility."
      In Committee, I referred to emergency evacuation procedures for nuclear power stations. It is little short of a scandal that we still have no published, workable or known evacuation procedures for people within the vicinity of nuclear power stations, despite many requests for one by the Association of Planning Officers. Information is not available to local general practitioners about the effect of discharge of radiation on workers or people in the vicinity of a nuclear power station, although they have tried to secure such information several times.
      The industry is being privatised, despite the fact that we know that major accidents can happen, and have happened. We have a moving position on safety and the possibility that, in an emergency, responsible local authorities and the public within the vicinity of a nuclear power station would not know what was expected of them. That example determines that the amendment is necessary to ensure that safety factors are taken into account.

      799
      The House should not allow the Government to be complacent about this industry, of all industries. It is a regrettable fact that the commercial climate created by the Government of the maximisation of profit and the allowance of commercial interests with the maximum deregulation has already led to major disasters in the private sector. I do not need to catalogue them, because we are all aware of them and because they have been referred to all too often in debates.
      Do the Government want to put alongside Zeebrugge, Clapham or Lockerbie a Hinkley Point or a Dungeness B because they chose to privatise the industry with inadequate safeguards? I believe that that is what they are proposing. I believe that that is what their Lordships thought, and that is the reason for the amendment. It is regrettable that the Government do not appear to have learnt from the savage incidents that have occurred. The consequences for the nuclear power industry of the pursuit of profit and the compromise of safety standards that might occur as a result would be more far-reaching than the other disasters to which I have referred.
      I should like to question the implications of the non-fossil fuel levy for Scotland, which is why by I tabled two probing amendments. Scotland has substantial overcapacity in all electrical power generation, predominantly because of excessive investment in nuclear power stations. I suggested in Committee that, to reduce that over-capacity, the ownership of Torness should be transferred to National Power, thereby releasing some of the excess capacity in Scotland. That is not an ideal solution, because Torness should never have been built, but given that it exists and is operating, and given that under the Bill nuclear capacity is to be contracted to a percentage under the non-fossil fuel levy, it appears that it could make a contribution.
      I ask the Minister to say whether the Government have any thoughts on when and if the non-fossil fuel levy will be applied to Scotland. It has been suggested that eventually it might, but will a different level apply? Perhaps more pertinent, it is important to impress on the Minister that the way in which nuclear power capacity is being forced on the industry is continuing to depress and prejudice the interests of alternative non-fossil fuel sources of electricity.
      Will the Minister comment on reports that have appeared in the press over the past few days that the French believe they can meet the target that the Government have set of 600 MW of alternative non-fossil fuel sources from their hydro facilities? Understandably, the Government share my suspicions that that would be a way of offloading their extra nuclear capacity. When one switches on a light, it is difficult to know what system of generation has produced the power that results. This is an important issue and the Government could have set themselves a much higher standard than their 600 MW objective.
      It remains a matter of concern to me—I repeat it only at its face value—that Scotland probably has the best potential of any part of the United Kingdom for developing substantial renewable energy. That is in no way to underplay what can be achieved in other parts of the United Kingdom, but, according to independent studies, our wind profile is better than that of Denmark and we therefore have the potential to secure a substantial amount of energy from wind power. The Norwegians are pressing ahead with wave power, and Scotland too has appropriate sites to develop that source of energy successfully.
      800
      However, the chances of those alternative sources of energy being developed are much reduced by the fact that Scotland has massive extra capacity, most of it nuclear. That would seem to pre-empt significant amounts of investment in Scotland. I know that the Minister will say that certain things are happening—I am aware of them—but they are very small and I cannot see that significant commercial developments will result from them.
      In any case, upgrading the interconnector is absolutely crucial if Scotland is to offload its capacity. That brings me to the crunch question for Scotland, to which I do not believe that the Government can give any answer. The method of calculating prices means that prices in Scotland will be based on the average rather than on Scotland's costs. The consequence of that will inevitably ensure that my constituents in the north of Scotland, who currently enjoy the lowest unit price of electricity in the country—and need to, given where they live—will find themselves rising rapidly up the scale of charges as a direct result of this privatisation.
      On top of that, if the Scottish boards find difficulty contracting the sale of their nuclear-powered electricity, it seems that Scottish consumers, as well as Scottish shareholders, will be stuck with a capacity that they cannot sell and with a debt that they still have to service. The consequences could be disastrous for Scottish consumers. Whatever the perception of the Bill in England and Wales—and wherever one goes, the Bill is opposed by the majority of people—I have no doubt that the opposition to it in Scotland is more substantial, basically because in this legislation the Government are refusing to acknowledge the different structure, traditions and history of electricial generation in Scotland. The Government have lumped all the provisions into a global Bill with the consequence that Scottish interests—and the differences in the mix, the organisation and structure of the industry in Scotland—have not been taken into account.
      That is why I have tabled amendments to take references to Scotland out of the provisions. I admit that they are probing amendments, but they are based on the premise that, as we reach the end of the Bill's passage through Parliament, it is apparent that it is bad news for the United Kingdom, but very bad news for Scotland. That probably means that it will be bad news for the Government in the polls in England, and very bad news for them in Scotland, but they have become used to that and perhaps after the next election there will be no Tory Members left in Scotland to bring back the reports of what happened.
      However, that is as may be. My conclusions are simply that the non-fossil fuel levy and the safety issues are serious considerations, that the Lords amendments improve the Bill, and that it is regrettable that the Government are trying to reverse them.
      Mr. McCartney: In our Committee discussions on nuclear safety, those of us who have been involved in local government and in the preparation of plans relating to the nuclear industry argued for a bipartisan policy on this matter. Irrespective of whether one is pro or anti-nuclear, or pro or anti-privatisation, one must agree that it is essential to the nation's security that we come up with an acceptable and workable set of proposals not only for on-site, but also for off-site emergency planning measures for nuclear installations.

      801
      In Committee, in the Lords and again this evening, the tragedy has been the Government's unwillingness to accept a bipartisan approach to nuclear safety and to the development of off-site and on-site plans. In these privatisation proposals, the Government have missed a real opportunity to look at what has happened during the past decade between the nuclear industry and the emergency planning officers in local government, both at county level and at fire and civil authority level. All of us who have been involved in this issue over that period accept the need to resolve the inadequate relationship between planning officers and the nuclear industry as it currently stands.
      8.15 pm
      In Committee, the Minister went some way to accepting the need for a radical change in the current position in relation to on-site, but especially to off-site, emergency planning. He acknowledged that by saying that it was the Government's intention to bring forward proposals similar to those that are currently operating in industry for large-scale petrochemical plants and for other industrial processes that can cause difficulties and accidents. However, he did not go on to accept the current inadequacies of our off-site emergency planning procedures in terms of the ability of local authority emergency planning departments to sit down in consultation with the nuclear industry and with those in the community who live close to a nuclear plant and to come up with proposals to improve the existing position.
      It is because of the inability and the lack of willingness on the part of the nuclear industry in the past decade to take local communities and emergency planning departments into its confidence that in the past few years local authorities and, through their professional bodies, the planning officers, have attempted to initiate new plans and proposals to upgrade and modernise off-site emergency planning activities. That has included a number of table top exercises, paid for by local authorities, which looked at the current position in the industry and the likely response from the local community in the event of varying scenarios of nuclear incidents.
      Each time, the exercises showed the inadequacies of the development of off-site plans in all regions, whether in the north-west, the south-west, Scotland or anywhere else with a nuclear installation. All such table top exercises have shown up the glaring anomalies and the lack of accountability of the nuclear industry. They have also shown the lack of an adequate relationship between the industry and those responsible for the development of local off-site emergency plans.
      Therefore, although the Minister will not accept any of the amendments that have been tabled and will attempt to eradicate those from another place, I hope that he will accept, irrespective of his personal views and his political animosity towards Opposition Members, that we should come to a bipartisan approach to off-site emergency planning.
      In Committee, both I and my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) spent a great deal of time over several days dealing with amendments and general discussions in clause stand part debates trying to set out a framework and structure for the type of amendments that would be required if there were to be any meaningful
      802
      relationship and public accountability for off-site emergency planning or public involvement through emergency planning departments and officers.
      Despite promptings from me and other hon. Members to come to see what was happening at local authority level, Ministers still insisted that the Government totally accepted the current position, and that there was no need for any major changes. However, that is flying against all international views on this and against the advice that is currently being given to the Government by the chief emergency planning officers and their professional bodies.
      The Government are still refusing to amend their proposals on "reference accident"—although the International Atomic Energy Agency sees the reference accident scenario as inadequate under the current proposals. The reference accident is based on analyses of possible failures of components and systems, and fails to take into account that accidents that have happened overseas in the nuclear industry have not been because of a failure in the fail-safe component systems, but have been mainly through human error, especially those at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. The Government's proposals do not take account of on-site and emergency planning for such human errors and the accident that would flow from a major disaster involving the culpability of people working in installations.
      Experience also shows that site operators fail to provide efficient on-site and off-site plans. It is therefore an absolute necessity that the Government proposals should bring about a system whereby the nuclear industry would sit down and work out in consultation with emergency planning departments a comprehensive plan for each nuclear installation, whether in the public or private sector. It is important, too, that we have a proper system of notification in the development of such plans to ensure the involvement of local communities and community organisations.
      I shall quote from a recent report prepared by the chief emergency planning officers' professional body, which I believe the Minister has seen. Perhaps he will tell us tonight whether he is prepared to accept the report's recommendations. It states:
      "Nuclear installations should come under similar legislation to other industrial major hazard sites in that the operator should be required to engage County Authorities in producing the off-site plan for which the operator would pay. The operator would then have a duty to provide information to the public about the activities of the site and the appropriate counter measures to take in the event of an accident in response to an agreed warning system and the management of an off-site emergency plan would be in the hands of the Civil Authorities"
      and not in the hands of a nuclear industry as it currently stands.
      It is important, therefore, that the Minister does not simply reject the Lords amendment, or reject out of hand the Opposition's proposals, but that he comes up with a positive response to the genuine fears not just of politicians but of people in the community, community leaders and emergency planning officers, who have had experience of emergency procedures in, for example, the armed services, the Home Office and other Government Departments. None of them has been appointed because of a political allegiance to any particular party or policy on nuclear matters. They are appointed because of their experience and qualifications on emergency planning matters. When people with such experience and understanding of the

      803
      situation tell the Government that the current position is inadequate, the Government should respond positively to their proposals.
      In the recommendations for change, the Government should accept the abandonment of the reference accident as a basis for plans. They should accept an increase in the minimum emergency planning zone from 3 km to 10 km, two further planning zones of 25 km and 100 km, and an automated and extensive warning system should be established, coupled to a pre-arranged local radio station for the transmission of emergency information. There should be a legal requirement for county-level authorities to prepare and maintain composite off-site plans and for the site operator's role in the off-site emergency responses to be curtailed, and the responsibility for setting up the off site operational support centres and implementing counter-measures should pass ultimately to the police.
      We require the development of a mutual aid agreement between adjacent counties, because we have seen in Three Mile Island and in Chernobyl that accidents are not just contained within a region or a sub-region, but can cover the globe and create a European scenario or, in the United States, affect a whole state. It is important, therefore, that off-site emergency plans are not just developed for the immediate hinterland around an installation, but are co-ordinated regionally and ultimately at a national level. That must mean the creation of a national disaster unit, which would co-ordinate emergency responses at a national level. There would be an emergency planning inspectorate to evaluate all areas of emergency planning and to possess the power to withhold site licences for those operators whose off-site plans are not of the required standard.
      Those are the minimum requirements and they are well within the grasp of the Government if they are prepared to take a non-party political view and to accept that the priority should not be to ensure that the industry is sweetened up for privatisation by downgrading and keeping to a minimum the basic measures needed for emergency planning. That is in the interests of no one, and especially is not in the interests of the industry.
      One of the problems that has bedevilled the nuclear industry over the past decade, and still continues to do so, is people's unwillingness to accept the industry's assurances about its safety record. One thing that the industry could do to help itself, and that the Government could do to help the industry if they are interested in promoting nuclear power, is to give the public and the bodies that represent the public the opportunity to have a real say in the development of off-site emergency plans. Unless the Government give such a commitment and the resources to do it, there will still be public scepticism and fear about the nature of the emergency plans, their adequacy and who would control them if there was an accident.
      I hope that the Minister will for once be positive in this matter and accept that the Opposition have some good ideas and some common-sense views about the development of such plans. Perhaps, if there was some co-operation between us, the fears that many people have about the nuclear industry and of a nuclear accident would, while not being completely ameliorated, be calmed, and for once, during the lifetime of the nuclear industry, the general public and local authorities would be involved
      804
      in a real sense in the development of emergency plans, and their structure and criteria would be established in an effective and efficient manner.
      Mr. Alan W. Williams: I address my comments to Lords amendment No. 21, which is a simple one. It gives the Secretary of State the power to take over a nuclear power station on grounds of safety whenever there might be a serious incident. In nuclear power, accidents do happen. There was a time when the nuclear industry used to claim that there were so many fail-safe systems that a serious accident could never happen—it was, for example, one every 1,000 million reactor years.
      Then, in 1979, came the accident at Three Mile Island, when a pressurised water reactor came to within one hour of meltdown and, in 1986, there was Chernobyl, when a reactor went completely out of control. It burned furiously for two weeks or more and spilled out 5 per cent. of its radioactive content. That led to the evacuation of almost 100,000 people and the declaration of a zone 30 km around the reactor as uninhabitable. I read recently that more villages have just been evacuated in that area. The fallout went north of Chernobyl, and it is clear now that the soil and the food that is grown there are contaminated. They have therefore had to evacuate a further 25 villages.
      Now, post-Chernobyl, they are finding deformities in animals, an increase in ill-health, thyroid problems among children and a doubling in the incidents of cancers to the lip and mouth. That shows that, when there is a major nuclear accident at a reactor, it can be disastrous. The cost of Chernobyl was conservatively estimated at £5 billion. The Government have argued that such accidents could not occur with our reactors, but that is transparent nonsense, as our reactors could fail just as disastrously.
      I am pleased that, as a result of the statement, the Government have decided not to privatise the Magnox power stations, because those reactors are clapped out and, at any time, one of them could fail disastrously. I wish that the Government were not going to privatise the AGRs, PWRs or any other part of the electricity industry. At the Hinkley inquiry, the CEGB has now conceded that the newly designed PWRs could suffer a meltdown. It would be in such circumstances that we want the Secretary of State to have the power to take over a nuclear power station.
      8.30 pm
      I am aware that clause 92 gives the Secretary of State some power to give directions for the purpose of
      "preserving the security of buildings".
      That wording is extremely vague. The Minister spoke. about the nuclear installations inspectorate and its powers. We are well aware of those powers, but the NII is incredibly under-staffed, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) has already drawn attention. It is a national scandal that the NII, in common with all anti-pollution inspectorates, is understaffed. If a serious accident on the scale of Three Mile Island or Chernobyl were to occur, the NII would have insufficient powers to rescue us.
      The public are genuinely worried about nuclear safety; perhaps that is the No. 1 reason why the public are so anti-nuclear. That concern is already felt about an industry that is in public control, but once that industry passes into private hands that concern will grow. There will be great

      805
      concern about privatised PWRs that will be able to produce 1,000 MW or 1,200 MW, the largest capacity in the world.
      The new clause proposed in Lords amendment No. 21 would give the Secretary of State a reserve power, which we hope that he would never have to exercise. If there were a major incident, the Secretary of State, as the public would want, could take over a nuclear installation. It is a long-stop amendment, as we hope that that power would never be needed.
      If there was a major incident, chaos and confusion would reign. That is what happened at Chernobyl and that was our Government's reaction to that accident. The Lords amendment would give the Government the power to intervene and to tell the people that it was their responsibility to take over a particular installation rather than to act as passive bystanders.
      The Government should accept the sensible amendment, as it would give the Secretary of State an absolute right to take over a nuclear installation in the interests of public safety.
      Mr. Kevin Barron: My hon. Friends the Members for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) and for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) have made good contributions and, although their comments may have been somewhat wide of the amendment, the Government should take on board what they have said about emergency planning.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen was right to say that Lords amendment No. 21 is a long-stop amendment for the Secretary of State. We all hope that he would never have to use the power, but as the other place said, that power is a response to the fears that have been expressed by many of our constituents about nuclear power. More important, it reflects the fears held by many about the nuclear power industry being transferred to the private sector, especially as the private sector has not had a brilliant record in many sectors.
      It may be argued that the Secretary of State has control over institutions such as the NII and that, therefore, there is no need for the Government to accept the amendment, despite its inoffensiveness. My hon. Friends have already demonstrated, however, that the NII is currently under-staffed. Until that is put right to the satisfaction of the inspectorate and everyone else, no one can be too happy.
      The Minister said that amendment No. 28 and the other amendments in relation to the non-fossil-fuel levy were technical amendments. That is probably right as those amendments take up two and a half pages to amend two pages of the Bill covering clauses 32 and 33. Technical amendments of such length have been introduced on Report on all manner of Bills; they are symptomatic of this Bill and of the Government. Somewhere deep-seated in No. 10 we have a policy unit that devises schemes to move things out of the public sector into the private sector. The maxim is: public sector bad; private sector good.
      Here we have two and a half pages of amendments to cover just three pages of the Bill that we discussed in December on Second Reading. Those two and a half pages relate to perhaps the most dogmatic part of the Bill, the Government's action to ring-fence the nuclear electricity industry as opposed to any other part of it. That action
      806
      distorts the competition in the Bill, the very competition that we are told is the main reason for the Government to privatise the electricity supply industry.
      Today, we have heard the bugles of retreat sound in relation to some of that ring-fencing as the Magnox stations will no longer be part of the private sector, because they are unsustainable. It appears that, although everyone else failed to convince the Government of that, the sounds from the City in the past few days did so.
      It is ironic that the only good thing to come out of clause 32 and the ring-fencing is that the Government have given a slight commitment to sources of renewable energy, something that has been largely forgotten for the past 10 years. It now appears that sources of renewable energy may be given a lifeline because of the non-fossil-fuel obligation to which suppliers will be bound.
      Hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber argued that combined heat and power should also be considered in relation to renewable sources of energy. That request was rejected in our earlier discussion of the Lords amendments. It was sad that, during the course of those very debates, the combined heat and power scheme put together by Leicester city council and a private consortium collapsed. It was intended that that scheme would lead the way in combined heat and power, but it collapsed because it was not allowed access to the grid. It believed that the East Midlands electricity board was operating its old cartel to keep out small and new producers.
      Although we shall not divide the House on the non-fossil fuel levy, we should take this last chance to remind people who are reading our debates and who look with interest to the outcome of electricity privatisation how distorted the Bill is from beginning to end. The non-fossil fuel levy and the events of the past few hours in the Chamber have shown this legislation to be nothing more than an ideological attack on the public sector. It has been ill-thought out and in years to come we shall find that it will make electricity, which was once easy to come by, more difficult to get hold of and more expensive when it arrives.
      Mr. Michael Spicer: With the leave of the House, I wish to answer one or two of the questions that have been asked.
      The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) asked whether leaving Magnox stations in the public sector would affect the safety regime; the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) asked the same question. The structure of the industry has no bearing on the safety regime, which will be controlled by legislation that is already on the statute book. The operator is responsible for safety, under the command and control structure of the nuclear installations inspectorate.
      In this context, the hon. Member for Cardiff, West perfectly properly asked—as did the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron)—whether NII staffing would be adequate for the future of the industry. NII staff numbers have been significantly increased lately. We entirely agree that the inspectorate's staffing must be adequate, and I assure the House that it will be adequate to meet the NII's responsibilities.
      There were 120 inspectors at 1 April 1988, and the inspectorate has the authority to increase their number by 33 per cent., to 160 inspectors, by 1 April 1990. We shall discuss all aspects of the new arrangements, including

      807
      staffing requirements, with the NH to ensure that high standards are maintained in the industry. We agree with the Opposition about that and I hope that they are reassured by what I have said.
      Mr. Morgan: Considering the new questions that now face the NII when determining, almost on a six-monthly basis, whether this or that Magnox station can safely continue operating, and, if so, what work must be done on it before it can be approved, is the increase of 40 in the approved establishment, for which the Government say they are willing to pay, what the NII has asked for to meet its responsibilities, which have been increased by the changed circumstances of the industry; or is that some lower figure?
      Mr. Spicer: There is no change as regards safety. The Magnoxes are reaching the end of their working lives. Questions of safety relating to those stations arise under present structures, which have not changed. The resources will be provided so that the NII can carry out its statutory responsibilities.
      There may be some qualification in this context: the NII cannot ask for excessive resources, but, like the Opposition, we want to ensure that the industry continues to be as safe in the future as it has been in the past. The NII is the instrument to achieve that, so it stands to reason that it must have adequate resources. We are at one with the Opposition on that.
      The hon. Members for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) and for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) asked about emergency procedures which, as they acknowledged, we discussed at some length in Committee. Matters have moved on, to the extent that it was recently announced that new health and safety regulations are to be made under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. The regulations will place a formal requirement on local authorities to prepare integrated off-site plans for nuclear installations similar to those in the control of industrial major accident hazard regulations—the CIMAH regulations—which now cover the chemical industry. That would put on a statutory footing arrangements for emergency procedures which already exist. I hope that that announcement answers the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Makerfield and by other hon. Members.
      The hon. Member for Gordon raised one or two points about Scotland—most pertinently, about the non-fossil fuel obligation. The reason why that obligation does not exist in Scotland is the high level of non-fossil fuel generating capacity there. That capacity makes the obligation unnecessary for the foreseeable future.
      The hon. Member for Gordon went on to ask whether there would be some form of average pricing arrangements which would not put the same sort of commercial pressures—in the best sense of the word—on the industry in Scotland as are to be found elsewhere. The Nuclear Company in Scotland will be subject to regulation, and specifically subject to the need for transparent accounts and dealings. The regulator will be able to take a firm and direct view of whether the efficiency that he requires is present in the system.
      The hon. Member for Gordon also asked about renewables and about the non-fossil fuel obligation applying to France. He was right to say that we have set a special tranche of 600 MW for renewables, although they can also compete within the general non-fossil fuel
      808
      obligation. To some extent, that is a movable feast, capable of revision in the future. Should there be a massive under-provision for renewable capacity—in the context of the obligation for renewables—it would be open to the Government of the day to increase that tranche. That has been allowed for. So there is nothing final about this. the tranche, at 600 MW, looks about right in terms of a special arrangement within the overall NFFO for renewable.
      In the light of those remarks, I hope that the House will feel able to agree with us and to move on to the next debate.
      Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
      The House divided: Ayes 291, Noes 190.

      Division 318]

      [8.48 pm

      AYES

      Adley, Robert

      Curry, David

      Alexander, Richard

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

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Allason, Rupert

      Day, Stephen

      Amess, David

      Devlin, Tim

      Amos, Alan

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Arbuthnot, James

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Dover, Den

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

      Dunn, Bob

      Ashby, David

      Durant, Tony

      Atkins, Robert

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Atkinson, David

      Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Fallon, Michael

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Favell, Tony

      Batiste, Spencer

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      Bendall, Vivian

      Fookes, Dame Janet

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Forman, Nigel

      Benyon, W.

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Forth, Eric

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Franks, Cecil

      Boswell, Tim

      Freeman, Roger

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      French, Douglas

      Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

      Gale, Roger

      Bowis, John

      Gardiner, George

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Gill, Christopher

      Brazier, Julian

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Bright, Graham

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

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

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Gorst, John

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Burns, Simon

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Burt, Alistair

      Gregory, Conal

      Butler, Chris

      Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

      Butterfill, John

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Ground, Patrick

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Carrington, Matthew

      Hague, William

      Carttiss, Michael

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Cash, William

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Chapman, Sydney

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Chope, Christopher

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

      Churchill, Mr

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)

      Harris, David

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Hayes, Jerry

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Conway, Derek

      Heddle, John

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NF.)

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Cope, Rt Hon John

      Hill, James

      Cormack, Patrick

      Hind, Kenneth

      Couchman, James

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Cran, James

      Holt, Richard

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      809

      Howard, Michael

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Page, Richard

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Paice, James

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Patnick, Irvine

      Hunter, Andrew

      Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Patten, John (Oxford W)

      Irvine, Michael

      Pawsey, James

      Irving, Charles

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Jack, Michael

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Jackson, Robert

      Portillo, Michael

      Janman, Tim

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Jessel, Toby

      Price, Sir David

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Raffan, Keith

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Redwood, John

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Renton, Tim

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Key, Robert

      Riddick, Graham

      Kilfedder, James

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Knapman, Roger

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Rost, Peter

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Rowe, Andrew

      Knowles, Michael

      Rumbold, Mrs Angela

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Lang, Ian

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Latham, Michael

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Lightbown, David

      Shersby, Michael

      Lilley, Peter

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Lord, Michael

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Luce, Rt Hon Richard

      Speed, Keith

      Lyell, Sir Nicholas

      Speller, Tony

      McCrindle, Robert

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Squire, Robin

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Malins, Humfrey

      Stern, Michael

      Maples, John

      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

      Sumberg, David

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Summerson, Hugo

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Miller, Sir Hal

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Mills, Iain

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Thorne, Neil

      Mitchell, Sir David

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Moate, Roger

      Thurnham, Peter

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Moore, Rt Hon John

      Tracey, Richard

      Morris, M (N'hampton S)

      Tredinnick, David

      Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

      Trippier, David

      Moss, Malcolm

      Trotter, Neville

      Moynihan, Hon Colin

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Mudd, David

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      Neale, Gerrard

      Waldegrave, Hon William

      Needham, Richard

      Walden, George

      Nelson, Anthony

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Waller, Gary

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Ward, John

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Warren, Kenneth

      Norris, Steve

      Wells, Bowen

      810

      Wheeler, John

      Woodcock, Dr. Mike

      Whitney, Ray

      Yeo, Tim

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Mr. Alan Howarth and Mr. David Maclean.

      Wolfson, Mark

      Wood, Timothy

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

      Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

      Allen, Graham

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Alton, David

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Anderson, Donald

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Gordon, Mildred

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Gould, Bryan

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Graham, Thomas

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Ashton, Joe

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Grocott, Bruce

      Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

      Hardy, Peter

      Barron, Kevin

      Haynes, Frank

      Battle, John

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Beckett, Margaret

      Henderson, Doug

      Beith, A. J.

      Hinchliffe, David

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

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

      Home Robertson, John

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Hood, Jimmy

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Blair, Tony

      Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

      Boateng, Paul

      Hoyle, Doug

      Boyes, Roland

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Bradley, Keith

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Illsley, Eric

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Ingram, Adam

      Buckley, George J.

      Janner, Greville

      Caborn, Richard

      Johnston, Sir Russell

      Callaghan, Jim

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Kennedy, Charles

      Canavan, Dennis

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

      Cartwright, John

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Lamond, James

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Leighton, Ron

      Clay, Bob

      Lewis, Terry

      Clelland, David

      Litherland, Robert

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Cohen, Harry

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Coleman, Donald

      McAllion, John

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Cousins, Jim

      McCartney, Ian

      Cryer, Bob

      Macdonald, Calum A.

      Cummings, John

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      McKelvey, William

      Darling, Alistair

      McLeish, Henry

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Maclennan, Robert

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      McWilliam, John

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

      Madden, Max

      Dewar, Donald

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Dixon, Don

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Dobson, Frank

      Meacher, Michael

      Doran, Frank

      Meale, Alan

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Michael, Alun

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Eadie, Alexander

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Eastham, Ken

      Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

      Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Fatchett, Derek

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Fearn, Ronald

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Fisher, Mark

      Mullin, Chris

      Flannery, Martin

      Murphy, Paul

      Flynn, Paul

      Nellist, Dave

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Foster, Derek

      O'Brien, William

      Fraser, John

      Patchett, Terry

      Galloway, George

      Pendry, Tom

      811

      Pike, Peter L.

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Stott, Roger

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Straw, Jack

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Radice, Giles

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Randall, Stuart

      Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

      Redmond, Martin

      Turner, Dennis

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

      Vaz, Keith

      Richardson, Jo

      Wall, Pat

      Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

      Wallace, James

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Walley, Joan

      Rogers, Allan

      Warden, Gareth (Gower)

      Rooker, Jeff

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      Salmond, Alex

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Wilson, Brian

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Winnick, David

      Short, Clare

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Skinner, Dennis

      Worthington, Tony

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

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

      Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Soley, Clive

      Mr. Frank Cook and Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie.

      Spearing, Nigel

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 81 to 89 disagreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 28 to 50, 78 and 79 agreed to.

    Clause 1

      THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF ELECTRICITY SUPPLY
      Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 1, line 11, at end insert
      "in a manner that protects consumers of electricity without discrimination".
      9 pm
      Mr. Michael Spicer: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 8, and Lords amendments Nos. 23 and 24, with the Government motions to disagree.
      Mr. Spicer: Lords amendment No. 1 requires the director to protect consumers without discrimination. This would apply irrespective of who was actually supplying any particular consumer. If this amendment were agreed the director would have no option but to ensure that all licensed suppliers dealt with their customers on exactly the same basis in all respects.
      In terms of prices, there could be no differentiation on the basis of the different and disparate requirements and characteristics of the customers and customer groups—industrial, commercial and domestic customers would have to be treated identically under the terms of the amendment. Nor could there be any scope for individual contracts since the terms of these could not be allowed to differ from what was offered to all other customers. The prices charged for electricity would have to be the same for a factory and a flat.
      The requirement does not stop with prices. There could be no special protection for groups such as the elderly and the disabled. Nor could there be any aid for those who have difficulty in paying their bills. This would clearly be discriminatory against those who are not elderly or who had paid their bills on time.
      In short, this is a wrecking amendment that attacks the central theme of the Bill by preventing the scope for
      812
      competition in the supply of electricity and by doing so, rather than protecting the interests of consumers a s it purports to do, it damages them by withholding the benefits of reduced costs and hence prices which would flow from competition.
      It may be that the proponents of the amendment did not intend these effects but were concerned to ensure that there can be no unjustified discrimination between customers by suppliers. From this point of view, the amendment is unnecessary because, under clause 3, the director and the Secretary of State are already required to exercise their functions so as to protect the interests of all consumers of electricity in respect of prices. There are, in addition, provisions in clause 18 and in the public electricity supply licence preventing the public electricity suppliers from exercising undue preference or undue discrimination. These guarantee that the customer will always be able to get supplies at a fair price and will not be required to subsidise lower prices to others.
      Mr. James Wallace: One of the concerns in remoter rural areas is the high cost of supplying electricity. Quotes of £60,000 have been mentioned. Clause 19 says that expenditure on supply will be recovered from
      "the person requiring the supply … to such extent as is reasonable in all the circumstances."
      Will the Minister explain or confirm that "all the circumstances" includes the means of the person who is seeking the supply of electricity?
      Mr. Spicer: It certainly would not under the terms of the amendment. I have explained that no class of consumer could be the subject of discrimination—for or against. A fair, proper and reasonable price will be one that reflects directly the cost of providing a service. There are ways in which those who cannot pay are assisted, such as the the pre-payment system. There are other methods through social security legislation in which direct assistance is given.
      Will a policy of non-discrimination in a new and competitive environment be in the interests of the rural customers whose interests the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) has at heart? I understand that he is making a case for his poor rural constituents. If there is competition and the area companies are not able properly to compete in areas where there is intense competition, with the result that they lose customers in those areas, as in many instances they will have the same overheads they may have to increase prices for their remaining rural customers. That is something which seems to have eluded some of those who are arguing against competitive prices within their areas.
      In saying that there will be the ability to charge prices to meet competition, we are talking about a downward pressure on prices. If that ability is denied, everyone, including rural consumers, will be the losers in the end within area boards.
      We aim to ensure by the provisions in the Bill—I think that we wish to achieve the same result as the hon. Gentleman—that costs are a consideration. There cannot be cross-subsidisation when cost structures are not reflected in prices. We are trying to ensure also that area boards have the ability to compete for customers. In the process of competition, prices will fall.
      Mr. Beith: On the basis of the Minister's argument, is he saying that there will be no effective competition in the area of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board? How else can he defend the fact that there will be a common tariff in that area and not in others?
      Mr. Spicer: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman was present in Committee when we debated that. It has been thought that the structure of the industry and the dispersal of the population in the north of Scotland are such that special conditions apply that do not apply in the rest of the country. The hon. Gentleman is as aware of the argument as I am. He may or may not agree with it but it is there and it is the argument that has won the day for giving the north of Scotland special treatment.
      The Government believe that Lords amendments Nos. 23 and 24 do not make sense. On the one hand, they would allow the supplier to show due preference in setting tariffs, but on the other they would prevent him from showing any discrimination. In particular, the supplier will not be allowed to show discrimination to rural customers. As no discrimination is to be shown to anyone, it is difficult to see what additional protection could be offered to any particular group. It is clear that any preference to any customer or group of customers must introduce a degree of discrimination. If there is no discrimination there can be no preference, due or undue.
      Load management is a major part of any electricity supplier's planning to optimise operations and to reduce costs. If by offering particular terms a supplier can persuade customers to accept limitations on their supply, or to use power in such a way as to help improve load management, that will be of benefit to all customers. That applies equally to the domestic consumer using the economy 7 tariff as to an industrial customer who has agreed load shedding arrangements to have effect at short notice. The amendments would prevent that happening.
      We understand that all the amendments are motivated by the objective and desire to ensure in future that due regard is paid to, and adequate protection provided for, rural customers. That is shown most clearly in amendment No. 8 to clause 3. We sympathise with that motivation. The clause already requires the director general and the Secretary of State to exercise their functions to protect the interests of all consumers in regard to prices. Nevertheless, we accept that the amendment will reinforce the requirement in respect of rural consumers. No doubt it would serve to draw to the attention of the Secretary of State and the director general the particular needs of rural consumers. In view of that, we invite the House to accept amendment No. 8.
      Mr. Alan Williams: I wish to speak to Lords amendment No. 1 and the consequential amendments Nos. 23 and 24. As the Minister has pointed out, those amendments are about rural prices and the fears of constituents in rural areas that as a consequence of the Bill they may pay more for their electricity than urban consumers.
      One can understand why the costs of distribution are greater in rural areas. Simply reading the meter is more expensive and the length of transmission lines means that the distribution costs are higher. If the privatised distribution companies started imposing economic costs on rural consumers, it could mean substantially increased charges. About 80 per cent. of the cost of electricity is for
      814
      generation, and distribution accounts for only about 20 per cent. Nevertheless, if the price of electricity is about 6p per unit, in towns and big cities the cost including distribution may be only 5p. Therefore, those areas may be helped. In rural towns the cost of electricity would be 7p or 8p per unit and in rural villages it would be more like 10p. For individual farmsteads or remote cottages the cost may be 15p or 20p per unit. That sort of price structure could emerge if we applied rigorous economic costing. It would hit our rural areas and farmers badly. There are many poor people in rural areas and rural poverty is sometimes as extreme as inner city poverty.
      In Committee the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) pointed out forcefully that people do not realise that this provision is in the Bill. If people in rural areas realised that that was the case there would be outrage. There would be no end of complaints from our constituents and the postbags of Members representing rural areas would be full. Conservative Members would perhaps suffer disproportionately.
      In Committee the Government's reply to our argument was that the provision for differential pricing already exists and that our present electricity boards could, if they chose, charge rural consumers more than urban consumers. Under the present structure the industry is in the public sector so there is public accountability. Once it is privatised, the threat of differential pricing would be much greater.
      One of the local authorities in my constituency, independently of my work on the Bill, realised that that could be a consequence of the Bill. Dynevor borough council wrote to the Department of Energy expressing its concern. The reply, dated 19 June, stated:
      "The Bill makes it clear that tariffs may relate to different areas."
      It is obvious that differential pricing is possible. The letter also said that the area boards
      "have given an assurance that they expect to maintain common tariffs for domestic consumers for five years from privatisation."
      That gives a period of grace of five years. The letter then offers the reassurance that, after that time, should the private companies
      "choose to introduce differential tariffs, the licence also requires that any difference in the price offered to different tariff consumers would only be permitted so far as it reasonably reflected differences in the costs associated with the supply."
      I represent a constituency second only in size to Brecon and Radnor, and we fear that the remote areas will be adversely affected. Prices will be higher in rural villages in general and could even be doubled or trebled in remote areas.
      9.15 pm
      The principle of differential pricing is unjustifiable. I speak on behalf of the rural dwellers who already suffer from inadequate services, such as a lack of buses, and who have to face extra costs for rural transport. It is generally accepted that, for most services, urban areas should subsidise rural areas. For example, postal, telephone, gas and water services all operate under standard pricing. The Water Bill, which has paralleled the Electricity Bill, contains a clause that specifically rules out differential pricing.
      I hope that the Government will accept the sensible Lords amendments, which would ensure that electricity pricing protects consumers without discrimination.
      Mr. Beith: Despite the Government seeking refuge through technical objections to the wording of the amendments, their purpose is quite clear. They are about whether the new companies should be allowed to charge more to rural customers than to urban customers. The Minister failed to deal with that issue. The technical defects of the amendments are obvious, but the Government could have tabled amendments to put the objectives of the Lords amendments in the correct form, as they have with other amendments.
      The Government have abandoned the case for those who live in the countryside. Should the private companies be allowed to charge their rural customers more than their town customers? The Government answer that crucial question with two voices. For the north of Scotland, the answer is "No"—by statute, there can be no discrimination between urban and rural customers in any part of the hydro board's area. However, in the south of Scotland, in the whole of England and in Wales, discrimination will be allowed between different parts of each area. There is no sense in adopting two such contradictory positions.
      The Minister was in some difficulty when trying logically to respond to my intervention. He said that there were special circumstances and difficulties in different areas. Remoteness is remoteness, wherever it is. It is rather less remote on the outskirts of Inverness in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) than it is at the top of the Cheviots in my constituency, where the privatised company will be allowed to charge different tariffs.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), who is present, put it to the Minister at an earlier stage that it would be perfectly practicable to extend the common tariff from the north of Scotland to all areas, thereby confirming the practice of the existing electricity boards. The Minister replied:
      "I did not say that there was no way in which we could do it. I said that there is no way in which we would want to do it."—[Official Report, 6 April 1989; Vol. 150, c.400.]
      Conservative Members must realise that the Government have no desire to protect rural consumers from tariffs that discriminate against them, which is a ludicrous position to adopt.
      The Government's only other defence is that the chairmen designate of the electricity companies that do not yet exist have said that for five years they will maintain common tariffs. That statement is not enforceable in the courts and is without authority. It is, by their own definition, a transitional arrangement, at the end of which the companies may launch a programme of higher charges to rural consumers.
      Any right hon. or hon. Member who doubts that possibility should consider the case of British Gas. Only two weeks ago, British Gas warned that it will introduce variable tariffs for domestic consumers in different regions if a price war develops with privatised electricity distribution companies. The new chairman of British Gas warned that he would have to meet the competition
      "to hold the load",
      which means that consumers in some areas might enjoy price reductions, but that there would be compensatory increases in others. That will happen also in the privatised electricity industry beyond the north of Scotland area, unless the Government accept the Lords amendment or make comparable provision. The Government expect it to be that way and even want it to be that way. I doubt
      816
      whether many Conservative Members who normally sit on the Back Benches but who are not present tonight realise that they voted for such an arrangement.
      The concept of higher charging will take one of two forms, or both. The electricity companies may pick out some of the smallest communities that are the most expensive to serve and penalise them, or they may operate adverse tariffs over a wider area, against larger sections of the rural community. I take the example of a small area, Holy Island, in my constituency. It is served by a special cable, and when the south of Scotland electricity company is established, it would be open to it to impose a higher tariff.
      The same could apply to a comparable area, the Isles of Scilly, but for one factor—the Prime Minister's bête noire of Europe. The Isles of Scilly laid a new cable so that they could be served by mains electricity, which is cheaper than the high-cost, locally-generated electricity that they used before. However, the European regional development fund made it a condition of the grant that made that scheme possible that for the life of that cable—a period of 40 or 50 years—the Isles of Scilly would be charged only the same tariff as that imposed on the board's other areas.
      The hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris), who is also present, was involved in that process and will know of that decision. He must appreciate that only his constituents in the Isles of Scilly are protected, but others of his rural constituents could be charged higher tariffs. The company may say, "We shall have to look after the consumers on the Isles of Scilly because of the terms of the ERDF grant, but we can put up the prices in other parts of the St. Ives constituency as we can do, in Cornwall, Northumberland in mid-Wales."
      The electricity companies' alternative approach could be to operate a higher price structure outside the major urban areas, where they would want to compete more aggressively. Higher tariffs would apply not just to one or two remote rural communities but across a broad band of rural areas outside the major conurbations. Either way, a penalty will be exacted from rural consumers who have no choice of other fuel and who are the victims of the monopolistic character of energy supply.
      In most cases, rural customers will not have access to gas, which is why the electricity companies will he able to milk them for higher tariffs. The only alternatives for consumers are Calor gas and oil, and they will not have access to the major competitor to electicity—gas—that will be the cause of such price wars as arise in urban communities. Consumers who are unable to make the switch to another fuel, and to benefit from the competition between those other fuels and electricity, will be penalised.
      Farming, the small business sector, tourism and all the other activities on which rural communities depend will face higher electricity charges. And the small industries which have been developed in rural areas and which are the cornerstone of any strategy for rural Britain will be among those most adversely affected by higher tariff differentials. That has been been recognised by the National Farmers Union, which has written to hon. Members protesting vehemently at the possibility of differential tariffs against rural areas. The electricity consultative council for the south of Scotland area has written in similar terms, saying:
      "Our concern relates particularly to rural electricity consumers whether Domestic, Commercial or Industrial, in the South of Scotland who may be involved in higher

      817
      electricity charges resulting, for example, from additional expenditure on refurbishing transmission or distribution systems which are subject to more severe weather conditions than those in urban areas. It is the view of the Council that remote rural areas in the South of Scotland require no less protection than what is proposed for the North of Scotland area and there should be no possibility of discrimination between tariffs for the same class of consumer living in different areas of the South of Scotland."
      Incidentally, the same applies to consumers of the South of Scotland board who live in my constituency in England, because they also will be served by the company that replaces it. The same will apply throughout England and Wales.
      The other place did an excellent job when it defeated the Government on this part of the Bill. The Government, in their reference to and discussion of the amendments before us tonight, have simply taken refuge in technicalities and referred to the one amendment which would give the director general an obligation to take into account the needs of consumers in rural areas. That amendment alone would impose no obligation on the companies not to discriminate against rural areas. It is not sufficiently strong to protect the rural consumer from adverse tariffs which may already be planned for them by some of the people who will run those companies.
      In the absence of anything better, I ask the House to stand by the judgment of the other place. There are a great many people in the other place who know a great deal more about the countryside than most members of the Government and most of the people who devised the Bill. The Government's defeat in the other place was the result of a recognition of rural problems, which is still not apparent in the actions of Ministers.
      The Government still have time tonight to accept more of the Lords amendments and not seek to overturn them. I believe that the Government's attitude is a slap in the face for country dwellers throughout England, Wales and the south of Scotland. The House should not allow them to do it.
      Mr. Hardy: I agree emphatically with the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), and I underline the powerful arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams), who represents a large rural constituency.
      The Minister should understand that some Labour Members represent county seats in England. My constituency is a county seat because I argued at the Boundary Commission hearing that it should be. Even in my constituency, which is in a metropolitan area, I have small settlements and cottages here and there, off the beaten track, and I am extremely worried about the people who live there. After the five-year transition period—the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed reminded the House that there is no guarantee that we will have to wait until the five years is over—there could be serious developments. When people want to make a profit out of the electricity supply industry, those who live some distance away from a conurbation will be at risk.
      I am surprised that the Government have decided to treat the other place with contempt. As the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed said, the noble Lords who took
      818
      part in that debate know what they are talking about. They understand the anxieties in rural and not-so-rural areas of Britain.
      The Minister should have taken the time to watch television this weekend. They were burning an effigy of one of his right hon. Friends.
      Mr. James Hill: Hear, hear.
      Mr. Hardy: I felt sorry for the Minister concerned, whose effigy was burnt in one of Britain's most true-blue areas. The hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) is not paying much attention, but it happened not far from his constituency. I had not expected to read that Conservative Ministers' effigies had been burnt in counties such as Hampshire, but it happened, and with good reason. The people responsible know that their areas are not being served well by an Administration who have hitherto pretended to care about rural Britain.
      9.30 pm
      Only a week or two ago, I took part in a debate in the House about a problem related to this—the housing problem. In huge parts of rural Britain, the cost of housing is now such that people who were born in a certain village, perhaps descended from generations of forebears who have lived there, can no longer afford to live there themselves. Now, even if they can afford the rent, they will not be able to afford the fuel. The Government are disregarding the yeomen to look after the yuppies, and the Bill is an example of their shifting priorities.
      I am worried about people living in such places as Lea Brook and Street in the parish of Wentworth, from which my constituency takes its name. I am also worried about slightly larger communities such as Hooton Roberts, which has 80 or 90 electors. I am worried about communities a little larger than that as well. As the squeeze for profit develops in the electricity supply industry, the community at risk may become larger and larger. The industry will certainly be eager to supply London; I do not know whether it will be eager to supply Wentworth, and I certainly do not think that in five years' time the people of Wentworth—the village and perhaps the constituency—should feel entirely confident that they will pay no more than those living in Sheffield, Manchester, Birmingham or London.
      If the Government begin to panic—there seems to be a good deal of panic in the air at present—to make sure that the people of Hampshire will not continue to burn effigies, they may decide to make electricity cheaper in the south than in the north. It is all very well for the hon. Member for Test to welcome such a prospect; I heard him shout, "Hear, hear," when I suggested that there was a serious risk. The fact remains that we have been subsidising the south of England for a long time in any case, because we have been bearing the cost of loss of transmission.
      Mr. Morgan: Seven per cent.
      Mr. Hardy: My hon. Friend is right.
      Because it is a national service, we have been prepared to accept the burden, but now that we see the real risk—as a result of all the effigies being burnt all over the south of England—Nye are entitled to be a little worried, fearing that additional burdens may be imposed on us. I hope that the Minister will reassure us, first, that the boards will be told emphatically that the five-year transition period constitutes a pledge that will not be broken, and, secondly,

      819
      that the electricity supply industry will be asked as a matter of urgency to ensure that that period is extended to at least 10 years—long enough, at any rate, to cover the political life of every Conservative Member.
      Thirdly, we should like an assurance that the Government are beginning to understand that the rural areas already face serious problems—problems of access, cost, housing and transport. Some of the older inhabitants of such areas may rapidly develop an inclination to take up witchcraft; the Secretary of State may wish to ponder the fact that, before long, the broomstick may be the only viable form of transport in some parts of Britain hitherto regarded as salubrious.
      I recognise that the Government face serious problems in relation to country dwellers. More farmers are going bankrupt in this year of grace, under this Administration, than ever before.
      The Government must recognise that the priorities that the other place embraced a few weeks ago have more political wisdom than the criticism that the Minister offered on the amendments when he said that they were wrecking amendments. I wish they were. Above all, I should like the Government to recognise that they may be wrecking but they are wise, and it would be wise of the Government to accept them.
      Mr. Wallace: I had not intended taking part in the debate, because my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) argued cogently and effectively the reasons why the House should agree with the amendment proposed by the other place to protect the interests of rural consumers. However, the Minister's response to my intervention was so unsatisfactory that it is necessary for me to put some points on the record and to seek a further response from him.
      I welcome the fact that a special provision on common tariffs has been made for the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board area. This has been granted by the Government because they no longer see fit to include in the legislation a clause imposing a statutory duty on the company supplying electricity to the Highlands and Islands to take account of social and economic factors affecting that area. I accept that that makes this area different from others, but my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed and other hon. Members argued compellingly that rural consumers and those in other areas should be treated equally. I ask the Minister to consider their argument.
      Even the special treatment given to the hydro board falls short because of the cost of connection for new consumers of that board. Lords amendment No. 8 provides some protection for consumers in my constituency and elsewhere who face high connection costs. In my intervention and on Report, I instanced the case of a constituent who had been faced with a bill of over £60,000 for connection. He lives in an area which, for historical and archaeological reasons, is designated a conservation area, so the wires and lines must be placed underground, adding to the cost. On Report, the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) instanced other cases of consumers who were asked to pay £60,000. Since then, one of my constituents from the island of Stronsay has told me of a bill of more than £13,000. By no stretch of the imagination can people on modest incomes and pensioners readily find such amounts. In reply to my intervention, the Minister said that other means of help would be available.
      820
      When pressed, he mumbled something about social security assistance. I do not think that he intended that to be a full answer.
      I took up with the Minister of State, Scottish Office the case of my constituent with the £60,000 bill, and the hon. Gentleman took some time to reply. I do not complain about that, because the time was undoubtedly spent by him and his officials in trying to find what assistance might be available. The best that they could come up with was a £600 grant and £600 loan from the Crofters Commission. That is inadequate. It can be argued that this is an inadequacy of the present system, but there is nothing in the Bill to give consumers in the north of Scotland and elsewhere any confidence that under the new system connection charges will be reasonable and within the scope of most ordinary people.
      I found one ray of hope, which I hope that the Minister will consider. Clause 19 (1) refers to the power to recover expenditure and states:
      "Where any electric line or electrical plant is provided by a public electricity supplier in pursuance of section 16(1) above, the supplier may require any expenses reasonably incurred in providing it to be defrayed by the person requiring the supply of electricity to such extent as is reasonable in all the circumstances."
      The implication of "to such extent" is that the whole amount does not necessarily have to be recovered from the consumer. I should like to elicit from the Minister the circumstances in which he would consider it unreasonable for the cost to be defrayed by the consumer. Will the Minister consider that seriously? The present prices are prohibitive. Many people cannot afford to be connected to the mains electricity supply. They cannot benefit from facilities such as off-peak heating, and have to depend on generators, which can be unsatisfactory.
      Undoubtedly, the Minister will ask the House to vote against Lords amendment No. 8, which would provide the only protection for rural consumers. In his reply, will he give some hope to those faced with substantial bills for connection charges?
      Mr. Morgan: It falls to me to make the last contribution from the Opposition on this amendment. It is an old principle of Damon Runyon's New York that, "The opera ain't over until the fat lady sings." I say that without disrespect to the Prime Minister.
      It is clear from the debate that the Government's treatment of shareholders and consumers is different. By rejecting Lords amendment No. 1, the Government are saying that they cannot discriminate in favour of any group of consumers, yet they made it clear earlier that they would do anything to discriminate in favour of shareholders. That is the problem and that is why the Bill will redound to the Government's disadvantage at the next general election.
      Mr. Michael Spicer: The amendments highlight a difference between the philosophies of the Government and the Opposition parties. Either one agrees that competition will benefit the consumer and will put a downward pressure on prices or one does not.
      Mr. Beith: What about the northern board?
      Mr. Spicer: I have answered the hon. Gentleman about the northern board. It has been decided that it merits special treatment.

      821
      If one accepts that competition between the area boards will bring benefits to consumers—who can contract elsewhere for their electricity—it stands to reason that they should be able to charge prices to combat the effect of that competition. So long as the prices bear a relationship to cost, that will have the effect of bringing prices down in urban areas. We have talked about deprivation in rural areas, and in other circumstances the Opposition would talk about deprivation in urban areas, too. There will be a general downward pressure.
      I must answer the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) about the policy of common tariffs. I assure him that the period will be five years. Thereafter, the policy of allowing the area boards to charge prices which relate to costs and allow them to compete will apply. That will be to everyone's benefit, because prices will come down. [Interruption.] No. I gave the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) the answer, that the converse is possible. If we allow cherry-picking—where the best customer areas are taken away—the area boards will be left with rural customers and much the same overheads. The effect of that on rural customers would be increased prices. There would be a narrower customer base associated with much the same overheads. That would be bad for rural customers.
      I accept that there is a philosophical difference. We believe that competition will be in the direct interest of consumers. It will place a downward pressure on prices which will be a good thing for rural, as well as for urban, customers.
      The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) assumed that the Government would invite the House to reject Lords amendment No. 8. In fact, we suggest that the House should accept that amendment. That is an important concession to the hon. Gentleman's argument and to the argument made in another place. In direct answer to the proposition made in respect of the regulator, I remind the hon. Gentleman that that amendment will require the regulator in carrying out his duties to take into account the interests of rural customers. That enormous concession on the Government's part directly meets some of the anxieties that have recently been expressed.
      I hope that hon. Members will think again on the basis of that major concession, although I agree that it does not completely meet the philosophical argument voiced by Opposition Members about competition, because the Government believe in competition, and competition runs right through the Bill.
      I do not wish to be presumptuous, but this may be the last occasion on which I shall have the honour of addressing the House on this matter, and it gives me great pleasure to reiterate the importance of competition. The abolition of the common tariff assumption is fundamental to our restructuring of the industry. We believe that that is fundamentally good and in the interests of consumers.
      I ask the House to reject the Lords amendments with the exception of Lords amendment No. 8.
      Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
      The House divided: Ayes 291, Noes 194.

      Division No. 319]

      [9.46 pm

      AYES

      Adley, Robert

      Forth, Eric

      Alexander, Richard

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Allason, Rupert

      Franks, Cecil

      Amess, David

      Freeman, Roger

      Amos, Alan

      French, Douglas

      Arbuthnot, James

      Gale, Roger

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Gardiner, George

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Ashby, David

      Gill, Christopher

      Atkins, Robert

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Atkinson, David

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Batiste, Spencer

      Gorst, John

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Gow, Ian

      Bellingham, Henry

      Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

      Bendall, Vivian

      Greenway, Harry (Eating N)

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Benyon, W.

      Gregory, Conal

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Ground, Patrick

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Hague, William

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Boswell, Tim

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

      Hannam, John

      Bowis, John

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

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Hayes, Jerry

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Brazier, Julian

      Heddle, John

      Bright, Graham

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

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

      Hill, James

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Hind, Kenneth

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Holt, Richard

      Burns, Simon

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Burt, Alistair

      Howard, Michael

      Butler, Chris

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

      Butterfill, John

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Carrington, Matthew

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Cash, William

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Chapman, Sydney

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Chope, Christopher

      Hunter, Andrew

      Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Irvine, Michael

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Irving, Charles

      Conway, Derek

      Jack, Michael

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Jackson, Robert

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Janman, Tim

      Cope, Rt Hon John

      Jessel, Toby

      Couchman, James

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Cran, James

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Curry, David

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

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

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Key, Robert

      Day, Stephen

      Kilfedder, James

      Dorrell, Stephen

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Dover, Den

      Knapman, Roger

      Dunn, Bob

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Durant, Tony

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Knowles, Michael

      Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Fallon, Michael

      Lang, Ian

      Favell, Tony

      Latham, Michael

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Fookes, Dame Janet

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Forman, Nigel

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Lightbown, David

      823

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Lord, Michael

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Luce, Rt Hon Richard

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Lyell, Sir Nicholas

      Shelton, Sir William

      McCrindle, Robert

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Maclean, David

      Shersby, Michael

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Malins, Humfrey

      Speed, Keith

      Maples, John

      Speller, Tony

      Marlow, Tony

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Squire, Robin

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Mates, Michael

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Stern, Michael

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Stevens, Lewis

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Miller, Sir Hal

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Mills, Iain

      Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Stokes, Sir John

      Mitchell, Sir David

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      Moate, Roger

      Sumberg, David

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Summerson, Hugo

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Moore, Rt Hon John

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Morris, M (N'hampton S)

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Moynihan, Hon Colin

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Mudd, David

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Neale, Gerrard

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Needham, Richard

      Thorne, Neil

      Nelson, Anthony

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Thurnham, Peter

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Townend, John (Brldlington)

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Tracey, Richard

      Norris, Steve

      Tredinnick, David

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Trippier, David

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Trotter, Neville

      Page, Richard

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Paice, James

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

      Viggers, Peter

      Patnick, Irvine

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

      Waldegrave, Hon William

      Patten, John (Oxford W)

      Walden, George

      Pawsey, James

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Waller, Gary

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Ward, John

      Portillo, Michael

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Warren, Kenneth

      Price, Sir David

      Wells, Bowen

      Raffan, Keith

      Wheeler, John

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Whitney, Ray

      Redwood, John

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Renton, Tim

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Riddick, Graham

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Wolfson, Mark

      Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

      Wood, Timothy

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      Woodcock, Dr. Mike

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Yeo, Tim

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Rost, Peter

      Rowe, Andrew

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Rumbold, Mrs Angela

      Mr. Kenneth Carlisle and Mr. Tom Sackville.

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Allen, Graham

      Ashton, Joe

      Alton, David

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Anderson, Donald

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Barron, Kevin

      824

      Battle, John

      Hood, Jimmy

      Beckett, Margaret

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Beith, A. J.

      Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Hoyle, Doug

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

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Blair, Tony

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Boateng, Paul

      Illsley, Eric

      Boyes, Roland

      Ingram, Adam

      Bradley, Keith

      Janner, Greville

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Johnston, Sir Russell

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      Buckley, George J.

      Kennedy, Charles

      Caborn, Richard

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

      Callaghan, Jim

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Lamond, James

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      Leighton, Ron

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Lewis, Terry

      Canavan, Dennis

      Litherland, Robert

      Cartwright, John

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      McAllion, John

      Clay, Bob

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Clelland, David

      McCartney, Ian

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Macdonald, Calum A.

      Cohen, Harry

      McKelvey, William

      Coleman, Donald

      McLeish, Henry

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Maclennan, Robert

      Corbett, Robin

      McWilliam, John

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Madden, Max

      Cousins, Jim

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Cox, Tom

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Cryer, Bob

      Meacher, Michael

      Cummings, John

      Meale, Alan

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Michael, Alun

      Darling, Alistair

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

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

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Dewar, Donald

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Dixon, Don

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Dobson, Frank

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Doran, Frank

      Mullin, Chris

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Murphy, Paul

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Nellist, Dave

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Eadie, Alexander

      O'Brien, William

      Eastham, Ken

      Patchett, Terry

      Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

      Pendry, Tom

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

      Pike, Peter L.

      Fatchett, Derek

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Fearn, Ronald

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Fisher, Mark

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Flannery, Martin

      Radice, Giles

      Flynn, Paul

      Randall, Stuart

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Redmond, Martin

      Foster, Derek

      Richardson, Jo

      Fraser, John

      Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

      Galloway, George

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      Rogers, Allan

      Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Rowlands, Ted

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Ruddock, Joan

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Salmond, Alex

      Gordon, Mildred

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Gould, Bryan

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Graham, Thomas

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Short, Clare

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Grocott, Bruce

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

      Hardy, Peter

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

      Haynes, Frank

      Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

      Henderson, Doug

      Soley, Clive

      Hinchliffe, David

      Spearing, Nigel

      Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Stott, Roger

      Home Robertson, John

      Straw, Jack

      825

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

      Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

      Turner, Dennis

      Wilson, Brian

      Vaz, Keith

      Winnick, David

      Wall, Pat

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Wallace, James

      Worthington, Tony

      Walley, Joan

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Warden, Gareth (Gower)

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

      Mr. Frank Cook and Mr. Allen McKay.

      Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Lords amendment No. 8 agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 23 and 24 disagreed to.
      Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendments Nos. 1, 21, 23, 24 and 81 to 89: Mr. Kevin Barron, Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory, Mr. Ian Lang, Mr. John Maxton and Mr. Michael Spicer. Three to be the quorum—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]
      To withdraw immediately.
      Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords amendments reported, and agreed to: to be communicated to the Lords.

  PETITIONS

    East London Assessment Studies
    10.2 pm
    Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I wish to present a petition on behalf of my constituents and those of my hon. Friends the Members for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott), and for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore), and of those in neighbouring constituencies. I am constrained by the rules of the House in not being able to read out all 24 petitions. They relate to the east London assessment studies, which have among their proposals the driving of a major road through north and east London. There are also separate petitions protesting about the construction of an Archway motorway through the constituency of Hornsey and Wood Green and extending into my constitency of Islington, North.
    I shall read one of the petitions as an example of local residents' concern about road building. It is one that I wholeheartedly endorse, as do my hon. Friends who are here this evening. It says:
    To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
    The Humble Petition of residents of Corsica Street, Calabria Road, Liberia Road, Gallia Road, Fergus Road and Grosvenor Avenue in Islington, London N.5,
    Sheweth that there is an East London Assessment Study, commissioned by Her Majesty's Department of Transport, which proposes a number of solutions to the problems of transport in North and East London, among which is the building of new roads.
    Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House will urge the Secretary of State for Transport to take note that: We, the undersigned, are greatly concerned at the proposals of the East London Assessment Studies to build new roads in Islington. We feel that road building is not a permanent solution, is wasteful and damaging, destroying our communities and our environment. We would like to see greater emphasis on traffic management schemes, more expenditure on public transport and encouragement to use it, with the aim of reducing the amount of traffic on London's roads rather than increasing it. We demand a transport policy which safeguards the quality of our environment and gives weight to the needs of residents, pedestrians, cyclists rather than just the motorist.
    And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, &c. That is supported by 23 other petitions, which contain similar demands, and are signed by more than 3,000 people. I wholeheartedly support them.
    To lie upon the Table.

  Midwives (Leicester)
  10.4 pm
  Mr. Keith Vaz: I wish to present a petition on behalf of sister Millington and staff nurse Baird of 14C, Hospital close, Leicester, staff midwife Katrina Barnett of 7B Hospital close, Leicester and 23 other midwives at Leicester general hospital in Evington who were outraged last week when Leicestershire health authority announced that midwives at the Leicester royal infirmary were to get incentive payments of £1,000 each.
  The midwives at the general hospital were prepared to resign en masse. They believe that all midwives in Leicestershire should be treated equally and I understand

  827
  that since the petition was raised the health authority has now agreed to extend the payments to the Leicester general hospital.
  The midwives consider that the crisis of staff shortages, which at the general hospital means overtime payments for 480 hours a month, can be solved only by a proper salary regrading and not by the application of auction-like tactics to our Health Service.
  Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House encourage the Secretary of State for Health to instruct the Leicestershire health authority to review the salary structure of midwives in the district.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Channel Tunnel (Rail Link)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]
  10.5 pm
  Mr. Bob Dunn: I am most appreciative of the opportunity to discuss the implications of the high-speed rail link for north-west Kent. I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the time that he has spent previously and will spend tonight in debating this issue with me.
  I am also grateful for the company of some of my right hon. and hon. Friends who represent the county of Kent—my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley), my hon. Friends the Members for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson), for Medway (Dame P. Fenner), for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) and for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) and also for the company of my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson), who takes a great interest in this matter.
  It would be wrong for me to let the opportunity pass without placing on record the thanks of Members representing Kent to our right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) who today left office at the Department of Transport. He was at all times a most perfect gentleman and an extremely courteous Minister with whom to deal. I also welcome to that post my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Parkinson) who, I dare say, will meet us soon to discuss the vexed problem that faces my constituents and those of other Members who represent Kent.
  I also pay tribute to the many hundreds, if riot thousands, of my constituents who have suffered for a year stress and anxiety, personally and collectively, caused by the wretched proposals that have been brought forward, I believe inadvisedly, by British Rail.
  I speak for the constituency of Dartford and the five communities within it, South Darenth and Horton Kirby, Sutton at Hone, Longfield, New Barn and Southfleet, which are the most severely affected by the proposals to construct a high-speed rail link in and through Dartford.
  Those communities are the most affected and yet, thus far, they appear to be receiving least help. Of all parts of the track, that part that I represent, the area roughly between the M25 and Istead Rise, is worse off today in terms of the impact, stress and damage of the proposals than even a month ago following the significant concessions made at the portals at Swanley and the lesser concession made to the portal placement at Istead Rise.
  It is clear that the high-speed rail link has no benefits for the people of north-west Kent or the commuters of Dartford who face the most difficult and badly administered service within Network SouthEast, the Dartford line. It is indisputable that those of us in the House or those representing the county council, the borough and district councils, the parish councils or the various community-based action groups have found it difficult, if not impossible, to obtain the range of information from British Rail about the route and all its implications in order that we, the people of Kent, can properly evaluate the options available to us. These proposals will massively damage the people of Kent, socially, economically and environmentally, and British Rail has not responded as constructively as it might have to our request.

  829
  Tunnelling is clearly the main answer to our difficulty. British Rail has told us that the cost of tunnelling between Swanley—or the M25—and Istead Rise would be £410 million, as opposed to £289 million for constructing a surface line. So the difference between the two options means that, as at June 1989, tunnelling would cost £121 million more than a surface line.
  British Rail has admitted of late that its opposition to tunnelling is based largely, if not solely, on the cost. In my view, direct tunnelling would save £20 million, thus reducing the gap to £100 million. Further, British Rail appears to have assumed London, not Kent, tunnelling costs for the mere five miles of tunnel between the M25 and Istead Rise, as the track goes through Dartford. This is important, because the substrata of London are a ragbag of ingredients—some sand, some clay and some other admixtures—whereas tunnelling through Dartford would go through good-quality chalk. Kent tunnelling costs are cheaper per mile than London costs. Taking that into account and bearing in mind that we have been given no idea of likely expenditure on environmental protection, the tunnelling option for Dartford becomes much more attractive and must be seriously taken into account by British Rail and by the House and the Department of Transport.
  Mr. Mark Wolfson: I am sure that these suggestions do not come only from my hon. Friend's head: they will have been based on the views of consultants who are experts in their field.
  Mr. Dunn: This point comes not only from me but from consultants, action groups and British Rail. It is an accurate point and it must be taken into account by British Rail.
  My constituency faces further problems on the environmental front, caused by the potential placement of construction sites in Sutton at Hone and in other sites in and around New Barn. I refer to the movement of spoil. The A225 to Farningham, and perhaps into Dartford, will become a major route carrying a potential 2,000 vehicle movements a day, removing spoil from the construction site.
  The same applies to the construction sites liable to be placed near the New Barn road between communities of Istead Rise and New Barn itself. We face the problems of the movement of spoil for at least six years after the passage of the legislation. Three million tonnes of the materials necessary for construction need to be moved to Kent, and about 15 million tonnes of spoil need to be moved out.
  Our county faces a major problem of environmental survival. We would not be thanked by those who will come after us if we did not expect the House, the Government and the Department of Transport to recognise the anxieties that I have advanced and that my hon. Friends, if they catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, will also discuss.
  There is a problem for the farmer and the business man and for elderly people living in private rented accommodation. All those aspects need to be covered and, yet a mere 15 weeks from the presentation of the Bill we are no wiser than we were last week or last month in terms of getting information from British Rail. The only option for north-west Kent is tunnelling.
  Dame Peggy Fenner: British Rail is already tunnelling through the village of Hailing in my constituency. It has to do that because the tunnel is under the north downs. British Rail is proposing a viaduct over the Medway. We already have five crossings of the Medway and another would create a visual impact that one should not expect. The Medway towns are among the most highly populated in the area and every scrap of the environment that is not urban environment is vital. In such parts of Kent, tunnelling is the answer. We need to consider the cost, but it should not be considered before the environment. I seek an assurance from my hon. Friend the Minister that the environment will come first. This link will be for always and the people of Kent should not be asked to shoulder the burden of a spoilt environment.
  Mr. Dunn: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her contribution. She makes the point more effectively than I could have done.
  We have not been well used by British Rail in this matter. We are anxious to ensure that the project is right, from its start on the Kent coast to its termination in the centre of London. I raise these matters because they must be dealt with now. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will not be able to say much now, but it would be wrong of me to allow the House to go into the summer recess without placing on record my concern about my constituents and the general concern that we all have for the future of the county of Kent.
  10.17 pm
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) for initiating this debate. He is a tireless champion on behalf of his constituents who are perhaps now the most seriously affected by the British Rail proposals. He and I share the representation of the village of New Barn which remains exposed to the line, albeit in deeper cutting. Bringing complete protection to that village could be achieved either by constructing the line via the progressive working of cut and cover or by extending the bore from Thirty-Acre Shaw to beyond the New Barn road. That would be a great improvement and would also benefit my constituents at Istead Rise.
  Another advantage of carrying out construction in this manner would be that the necessary construction sites would be moved further westward saving both lstead Rise and Southfleet from such disturbance and from the removal of spoil which could be taken northwards on the disused railway line. Not least among that spoil would be high-quality chalk which could be taken to the Northfleet cement works. If implemented, the proposals would lead to a desecration of the beautiful Kentish countryside in north-west Kent, and lip service to the environment will not be enough.
  10.19 pm
  Sir John Stanley (Tonbridge and Mailing): I thank my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) for allowing me one minute of his precious time in this Adjournment debate. I have three points to put to my hon. Friend the Minister. First, will he continue to urge British Rail to listen to the people of north-west and mid-Kent, and will he in particular urge it to consider the real environmental concerns expressed by my hon. Friends the Members for Dartford and for Medway (Dame P. Fenner)

  831
  and others? In particular, the section between the River Medway and the A229 road is still not acceptable environmentally and I hope that my hon. Friend will continue to register that with British Rail.
  Secondly, will my hon. Friend the Minister resist any attempt by British Rail to get for itself deemed planning consent for the Mid-Kent Parkway station through the private Bill procedure. That development should be the subject of formal planning procedures and it would be an abuse to seek planning consent through the private Bill procedure.
  Thirdly, will my hon. Friend urge British Rail to take more seriously the profound noise disturbance that is likely to be created on existing railways from transcontinental freight trains? British Rail can take steps with various acoustic baffling devices and so on to mitigate the noise disturbance on the designated freight routes and it should do so.
  10.20 pm
  Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): It would appear that the only way that I can get tunnelling in any part of my constituency is if there is a motorway service area, because it is more important to protect such areas than it is to protect real people. Kent is bruised by what I think are the dying throes of a dinosaur—the private Bill procedure which was invented to enable 19th century railway entrepreneurs to build a railway. It is a quite inappropriate procedure for building modern railways. Some 19,000 miles of railway are projected to be built within the European Community between now and the end of the century. It is a major part of the transport provision, and it is inappropriate for it to be excluded and treated wholly separately. I understand why the Government step back from this, but it cannot continue.
  We need to look closely—not only for our county but for all the counties affected by future railway building—at compensation. It would be disgraceful if farms were to be expropriated at market value, and later British Rail was able to claim a major capital gain by selling the land back at an inflated price. I hope that my hon. Friend will take that point on board.
  Secondly, it would be inappropriate for Kent county council to have to carry all the costs of access to the Mid-Kent Parkway station, which has been foisted on it in contravention of its county structure plan. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will agree that British Rail should contribute to the cost.
  Thirdly, I echo what has been said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley) about noise. The noise intensification of enormous freight trains running all through the night instead of occasional freight trains once or twice a night requires that compensation and protection should be available not only to the people of Kent, but, as this enormous explosion in freight being carried by rail spreads across the country, to the whole country. It is essential that my hon. Friend should give us some consolation on this matter.
  10.23 pm
  The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Michael Portillo): I do not remember an Adjournment debate in which six of my right hon. and hon. Friends have spoken and that is a testimony to the great importance of this
  832
  subject in the county of Kent. I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) on having had the chance to initiate this Adjournment debate, and thank him for doing so. He has been assiduous in pursuing the interests of his constituents and I can fairly say that barely a day has gone past in recent months without my hon. Friend taking an opportunity to let me know his latest concerns and to press me further to see what I can do to soften the blow of this proposed project on his constituency.
  My hon. Friend will not mind if I pay tribute to my other right hon. and hon. Friends who have spoken because they have also been most pressing on Ministers and British Rail in trying to achieve the best for their constituents. I thank my hon. Friend for his generous words about my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon), who cares deeply about these matters. His mind was deeply engaged on how the project could best be carried forward with justice being done for all concerned. I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Parkinson), the Secretary of State for Transport, will be only too keen that I should brief him as quickly as possible on the matters that have been discussed between my hon. Friend and I over recent months.
  I wish my right hon. and hon. Friends to be aware of the tremendous influence that they have had already on the matters that we are discussing. I do not wish them at any time to downplay that. They are all aware that important changes have been made to the proposal. I understand that they wish the changes to go further, but the changes are important and many of them have been largely because of the pressure that my right hon. and hon. Friends have sustained over a long period. They all know that the cost of the project now, at £1·7 billion, includes a large sum—probably about £500 million—that has been provided entirely for environmental protection.
  Even since the project was launched in March with the new proposals and the rather higher price tag, extra costs have been allowed to mount. It has been announced that the tunnelling will be somewhat longer than in the original March project. The extra tunnelling costs amount to £53 million, inclusive of property purchase and resale, to extend the London tunnel beyond the M25 and to move the portal of the north downs tunnel further west to the A227. These changes have arisen largely because of the pressure of my right hon. and hon. Friends.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford thinks that the least help has been given to his constituency. To some extent I would dispute that. He will know that there have been important changes in his constituency as well as in others. For example, the viaduct that was originally to have run to the north of the existing railway will now run through the south, so saving about 80 properties and removing the need to take part of the gardens of 70 properties. British Rail is still considering the height of the viaduct and what would be suitable there.
  I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends—and I know that this is extremely difficult for them—to keep some sense of proportion in these matters. We are talking about a project that will result in trains running through Kent. They are not new monsters. Again, partly due to pressure by my right hon. and hon. Friends, the maximum speed of the trains will be about 140 mph or maybe 145 mph. It will not be the 186 mph that was proposed originally. The speed at which they will run will be fairly comparable to the speeds

  833
  of trains operating now, or that may operate shortly. With new technology, these trains may not be any noisier than present trains. Indeed, they may be a little quieter. In a number of instances we are talking about them passing close to villages which trains already pass. I do not want to play down the difficulties that are being experienced in the constituencies of my right hon. and hon. Friends. I merely ask them to maintain some sense of proportion, if they are able to do so.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford talked about lack of certainty at this stage. As I have said to him on a number of occasions, people in Kent want certainty so that they know whether they are affected by the scheme. On the other hand, they want genuine consultation. It is extremely difficult to have certainty and real consultation. I think that to some extent my right hon. and hon. Friends may have been surprised by the extent to which British Rail has been willing since the March date to consider different proposals, and I am sure that at least some of the changes have been welcomed.
  There is obviously a dispute between my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford and British Rail about the cost of tunnelling and what would be the extra cost of putting the tunnel all the way through his constituency. The latest figure I have as British Rail's estimate of the cost of the longer tunnel compared with the preferred route is £122 million—which my hon. Friend disputes. I take the view that my hon. Friend's points should be exhaustively examined by British Rail and that he should be given satisfactory answers to them all.
  Mr. Dunn: Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will allow me to correct him. The figure I used as being the difference in cost between tunnelling and laying a track on the surface was, to be pedantic, £121·6 million. I then knocked off from that figure other cost benefits that would accrue.
  Mr. Portillo: Very well. I did not mean to misrepresent my hon. Friend in any way. In any event, he arrived at a different net figure, and his arguments should be exhaustively addressed. He will appreciate that if, after examination, the net cost of tunnelling is found to be very large, obviously British Rail will be reluctant to adopt his proposal. The project, at one point estimated to cost £7 billion, is less viable than when it was estimated to be considerably less. British Rail is concerned to complete the project, because it believes strongly in the provision of a new rail link across Kent and to London, to the benefit of the entire country, but it is concerned also to ensure that that project will be viable.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford is concerned also about the movement of spoil and about the construction site. Such matters are often discussed during the passage of a private Bill, and I hope that it will be possible to reach an accommodation either during the passage of the Bill or in discussions beforehand.
  834
  I noted carefully the short interventions of my hon. Friends the Members for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) and for Medway (Dame P. Fenner), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley) raised a number of specific points. My right hon. Friend wants me to guarantee that British Rail will continue listening to the people of Kent. I hope that the tone of my remarks this evening leads him to believe that my view is that British Rail should do so, and there are a number of examples of British Rail's willingness to adapt its proposals to take account of the views expressed.
  My right hon. Friend is concerned that the private Bill procedure should not be used as a means of obtaining planning permission in respect of issues far wider than simply the Mid-Kent Parkway station itself. I agree with him. It is implicit in British Rail's approach that it wants to discuss the wider planning implications of Mid-Kent Parkway station with Kent county council. While recognising that that will create difficulties in respect of the structure plan, Kent county council is at least content with that method of proceeding.
  As to noise disturbance on existing routes, of course there is always the risk, if one lives near a railway or road, that more intensive use will be made of it as time passes. My right hon. Friend appreciates, I am sure, that it is difficult to compensate people for such changes. He asked me about specific physical measures, and I shall certainly raise that aspect with British Rail.
  Mr. Wolfson: I appreciate the point made by my hon. Friend the Minister concerning increased rail activity over a period of time, but the difference in this case is that there will be a rapid marked increase in activity only two or three weeks after the tunnel is opened. The change will be dramatic.
  Mr. Portillo: I am not so sure about that. I suppose that there will be a change when the tunnel is opened, but it might take some time for the freight to build up. In any case, I am not sure that there would not be analogies in other areas. Compensating people for changes in intensity of use is a difficult subject, but I note what my hon. Friend says.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) believes that the private Bill procedure is inappropriate. He will be aware that for the moment no other procedure is available for the building of a railway line. He raised what I hope he will forgive me for describing simply as a big subject—compensation. Not only my Department but the Department of the Environment will want to consider his remarks carefully. My hon. Friend also raised a point about the Mid-Kent Parkway station. That is a matter appropriate for discussion between Kent county council and British Rail, who are proceeding on that basis.
  I thank my right hon. and hon. Friends for their great courtesy in raising these matters. I congratulate them on the meticulous way in which they have always represented the interests of their constituents.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes to Eleven o'clock.

PRIME MINISTER

  Single European Market
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister what is her estimate of the number of jobs likely to be lost in the United Kingdom arising from the Single European Market of 1992; and what are the estimates available from the European Community.

  The Prime Minister
  The European Commission's own estimates last year predicted that United Kingdom employment would rise by around 1·5 per cent. as a result of completing the single market. This country's success in creating new jobs will depend on how well and how quickly individual firms respond to the new challenges which will face them. Under this Government's policies of enterprise, deregulation and incentive, there has been sustained economic growth and record business investment. British industry is thus well placed to take advantage of the opportunities which the single market will offer.

  Attorney-General
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister what is her policy as to whether the Attorney-General should possess a legal qualification; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  The Attorney General is the principal legal adviser to the Crown in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, with the statutory duty to superintend the two Directors of Public Prosecutions and the director of the Serious Fraud Office. The Attorney-General appears personally on behalf of the Crown in appropriate cases. Accordingly, it is essential that he should be legally qualified, and the Attorney-General is a member of the Bar of England and Wales. He is given by statute, by virtue of his membership of the Bar of England and Wales, the same rights of audience in Northern Ireland as members of the Bar of Northern Ireland.

  Colin Wallace
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister how many documents were received in relation to Colin Wallace and sent by or on behalf of Colin Wallace to No. 10 Downing street for onward transmission to the Hughes inquiry into the Kincora boys' home; how many were sent on to Judge Hughes; and what are the reasons for the difference between the two figures.

  The Prime Minister
  A file of papers relating to Mr. Colin Wallace was submitted to my office on 1 November 1984, but was returned to the sender on 24 November. No complete record of the documents was retained. No question arose at that stage of the papers being intended for onward transmission to the Hughes inquiry. When it was subsequently requested that the papers should be sent to the inquiry, such documents as had been copied and retained were duly made available.

  Mr. Derrick Gregory
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will make one last urgent appeal to the Malaysian Government not to carry out the execution of Mr. Derrick Gregory.

  The Prime Minister
  As I am sure my hon. Friend is aware, Mr. Derrick Gregory was executed in the early hours of 21 July. I regret that the Malaysian Government were not able to accept the plea for clemency we made on humanitarian grounds.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  National Union of Teachers
  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent discussions he has had with representatives of the National Union of Teachers; and what was discussed.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend met representatives of the National Union of Teachers on 11 July to discuss future pay determination machinery.

  School Leavers
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many pupils with five or more good GCEs left school last year at 16 years of age and did not continue in full-time education.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  In the academic year 1987–88, some 22,500 16-year-old pupils left school in England with five or more grades A-C in the GCSE (including any equivalent grades gained at O-level and CSE previously), with no intention of continuing their full-time education.

  Teacher Numbers
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he is taking to ensure that there will be sufficient teachers qualified in all the necessary subjects to teach the national curriculum in its further stages from September 1990.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend is taking the requirements of the national curriculum fully into account in setting the intakes to initial teacher training, in revising the criteria for initial teacher training courses, in planning the LEA in-service training grant scheme and education support grants and in managing the action programme on teacher supply.

  Teacher Shortages (Leicestershire)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what measures he is taking to provide himself with an accurate picture of teacher shortages in Leicestershire.

  Mr. Butcher
  The Department collects data on vacant posts from local education authorities each January. Consultations are continuing on information to be collected regularly from authorities and schools to monitor the national curriculum and other policies. Proposals on information about teachers, their deployment and movements will emerge from these consultations.

  Nursery Schools
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has any plans to increase the funding for local education authority-run nursery school places.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 4 July to the hon. Member for Truro (Mr Taylor) at column 121.

  Student Loans
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects the top-up loans for students scheme to make a cumulative net saving.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what he estimates will be the first year in which the top-up loans scheme for students will make a cumulative net saving in public expenditure, assuming(a) 80 per cent., (b) 90 per cent. and (c) 100 per cent. take-up of the loans scheme and allowing for all costs of defaults, write-offs, and all administrative costs of the loans administration vehicle and his Department, the start-up costs of the loans administration vehicle; and his estimate of the costs of the interest subsidy to students.

  Mr. Jackson
  My answer on 21 March,Official Report, columns 497–99, showed the costs and savings associated with top-up loans on the basis of 80, 90 and 100 per cent. take-up. Those figures took account of default and write-off. They also showed the effect of the interest subsidy; if higher interest were charged, repayments would be larger, depending on the rate selected. Those figures did not include administrative costs.

  On that basis, the scheme will show savings for the taxpayer as follows:

  take-up

  80 per cent.

  90 per cent.

  100 per cent.

  Savings first exceed outgoings

  2002

  2006

  2010

  Cumulative saving first arises

  2013

  2018

  2022

  Administrative costs have not been estimated beyond 1995. However, on the illustrative assumption that they average 20 million a year, savings would first accrue in 2003, 2009 and 2010 on 80, 90 and 100 per cent. take-up respectively, and cumulative savings would arise in 2014, 2021 and 2026 respectively. Inclusion of administrative costs will have only a marginal effect on the date at which the scheme breaks even.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science by how much he expects the recurring costs of student loans administration to rise(a) in total and (b) per account, in each year beyond 1995.

  Mr. Jackson
  The preparatory work on the administration of top-up loans has not so far included an assessment of operating costs after 1995; as is the case before 1995, I would expect costs to rise less fast than the total number of accounts with which the company will be dealing.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has accepted the conclusion of the Price Waterhouse study on student loans that 1995 is typical of the scheme in full operation.
  442
  Mr. Jackson
  By 1995 the loans scheme will have been fully established, and it will be in the state of steady expansion which will be typical of its operation for a substantial number of years; so the choice of 1995 as a basis for calculating operating costs was entirely reasonable.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he expects to complete the detailed analysis and cost-time estimates scheduled for August 1989 in the Price Waterhouse study on student loans.

  Mr. Jackson
  The next stage of detailed analysis on the administration of the top-up loans scheme is now under way; it is due to be completed by the end of September.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) if he will estimate the costs of(a) marketing to counter a poor take-up rate, (b) incentives and enthusiastic debt collection to counter a default rate, and (c) providing arm's-length return on investment to counter a poor level of participation or high level of exit, to counter the operational risks to the student loans scheme set out in the Price Waterhouse study;

  (2) if he will estimate the costs of (a) reimbursement of nugatory expenditure if legislation is not passed or delayed, (b) marketing of the student loans scheme to counter student opposition and (c) protection of banks participating in the event of a change of Government policy or change of Government; and by how much he expects the latter cost to rise by 1991–92, to counter the external risks to the student loans scheme set out in the Price Waterhouse study.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Price Waterhouse initial feasibility study identified these items as potential risks. More detailed work on the administration of the top-up loans scheme is now under way: that work, and the associated negotiations with the financial institutions, will no doubt address at least some of the items listed, but it is too early to say what conclusions will be reached.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) if he will estimate the number of accounts in default in each year from 1990 to 2027, assuming the Government's estimates of student numbers rising to 1·15 million by 1995 and to at least 2·5 million by 2027, and a default rate of 10 per cent.;

  (2) if he will estimate the total numbers of repayments, defaults and deferrals on the top-up loans scheme for students in each year from 1991 to 1995 and for each year afterwards for which figures are available on the basis of the table in appendix VII, statement 3 of the Price Waterhouse study;

  (3) if he will publish the basic statistical data and working assumptions about student take-up, default rates and repayment profiles which he provided for the Price Waterhouse study on student loans.

  Mr. Jackson
  The following tables were supplied to Price Waterhouse. They show respectively estimated numbers of accounts, and the sums involved in 1990 prices. Table 1 shows in addition estimated numbers of accounts in default, deferring and making repayments. The tables are based on the same assumptions as annex E of Cm. 520, including estimates of graduate incomes based on historic data; faster growth in graduate incomes will reduce the level of deferment.
  443

  Table 1

  Top-up loans: number of accounts (thousands)

  of which:

  Academic year

  Drawing loan

  of which: New

  Due to repay

  (1) Making repayment

  (2) Defaulting

  (3) Claiming deferral

  Total number of accounts

  1990

  427·6

  427·6

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  427·6

  1991

  424·2

  148·5

  152·8

  55·0

  6·1

  91·7

  577·0

  1992

  415·2

  145·6

  305·6

  110·1

  12·2

  183·4

  720·8

  1993

  406·9

  143·6

  458·9

  192·7

  21·4

  244·8

  865·8

  1994

  400·4

  141·7

  607·2

  273·6

  30·4

  303·2

  1,007·5

  1995

  395·5

  140·1

  752·2

  374·0

  41·6

  336·6

  1,147·6

  1996

  394·6

  143·0

  834·9

  418·1

  46·5

  370·3

  1,229·5

  1997

  402·8

  150·2

  915·8

  461·1

  51·2

  403·4

  1,318·6

  1998

  414·3

  153·4

  965·8

  489·1

  54·3

  422·3

  1,380·1

  1999

  424·1

  153·6

  1,019·8

  519·0

  57·7

  443·1

  1,443·9

  2000

  427·4

  152·6

  1,057·4

  530·9

  59·0

  467·5

  1,484·8

  2001

  427·4

  152·6

  1,157·4

  596·9

  66·3

  494·2

  1,584·8

  2002

  427·4

  152·6

  1,257·9

  664·0

  73·8

  520·1

  1,685·4

  2003

  427·4

  152·6

  1,315·5

  693·6

  77·1

  544·8

  1,742·9

  2004

  427·4

  152·6

  1,374·3

  724·9

  80·5

  568·9

  1,801·7

  2005

  427·4

  152·6

  1,425·9

  743·5

  82·6

  599·8

  1,853·3

  2006

  427·4

  152·6

  1,477·7

  762·1

  84·7

  631·0

  1,905·1

  2007

  427·4

  152·6

  1,506·2

  759·8

  84·4

  662·0

  1,933·6

  2008

  427·4

  152·6

  1,601·1

  817·3

  90·8

  693·0

  2,028·5

  2009

  427·4

  152·6

  1,694·9

  873·9

  97·1

  723·9

  2,122·3

  2010

  427·4

  152·6

  1,811·0

  950·5

  105·6

  754·9

  2,238·4

  2011

  427·4

  152·6

  1,865·7

  971·9

  108·0

  785·8

  2,293·1

  2012

  427·4

  152·6

  1,942·9

  1,013·7

  112·6

  816·5

  2,370·3

  2013

  427·4

  152·6

  1,996·7

  1,041·5

  115·7

  839·4

  2,424·1

  2014

  427·4

  152·6

  2,050·3

  1,069·2

  118·8

  862·2

  2,477·7

  2015

  427·4

  152·6

  2,088·8

  1,083·3

  120·4

  885·1

  2,516·2

  2016

  427·4

  152·6

  2,112·1

  1,097·5

  121·9

  892·7

  2,539·5

  2017

  427·4

  152·6

  2,135·6

  1,111·7

  123·5

  900·4

  2,563·0

  2018

  427·4

  152·6

  2,151·2

  1,118·9

  124·3

  907·9

  2,578·6

  2019

  427·4

  152·6

  2,167·1

  1,126·0

  1251

  916·1

  2,594·5

  2020

  427·4

  152·6

  2,190·7

  1,139·7

  126·6

  924·4

  2,618·1

  2021

  427·4

  152·6

  2,207·3

  1,153·4

  128·2

  925·8

  2,634·7

  2022

  427·4

  152·6

  2,224·1

  1,167·2

  129·7

  927·3

  2,651·5

  2023

  427·4

  152·6

  2,225·7

  1,167·2

  129·7

  928·8

  2,653·1

  2024

  427·4

  152·6

  2,227·1

  1,167·2

  129·7

  930·2

  2,654·5

  2025

  427·4

  152·6

  2,227·6

  1,167·2

  129·7

  930·7

  2,655·0

  2026

  427·4

  152·6

  2,227·6

  1,167·2

  129·7

  930·7

  2,655·0

  2027

  427·4

  152·6

  2,227·6

  1,167·2

  129·7

  930·7

  2,655·0

  Table 2

  Top-up loans: Grants and repayments

  (£ million, 1990 prices)

  Repayments

  Academic year

  Gross loan outlay

  No deferral/ default

  Deferral, no default

  Allowing for 10 per cent, default

  Actual repayments

  1990

  167·4

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  1991

  193·2

  6·0

  2·4

  ·2

  2·2

  1992

  215·2

  24·0

  9·6

  1·0

  8·6

  1993

  235·8

  54·4

  23·0

  2·3

  20·7

  1994

  255·7

  94·2

  42·5

  4·2

  38·2

  1995

  275·2

  138·9

  67·4

  6·7

  60·6

  1996

  296·7

  174·5

  92·2

  9·2

  83·0

  1997

  324·6

  194·3

  113·7

  11·4

  102·3

  1998

  355·6

  204·4

  131·4

  13·1

  118·3

  1999

  385·5

  208·4

  145·5

  14·5

  130·9

  2000

  409·6

  211·7

  157·2

  15·7

  141·5

  2001

  430·0

  233·0

  173·4

  17·3

  156·1

  2002

  449·8

  272·8

  196·0

  19·6

  176·4

  2003

  469·1

  296·4

  213·3

  21·3

  191·9

  2004

  487·8

  302·4

  225·1

  22·5

  202·6

  2005

  505·8

  307·7

  234·7

  23·5

  211·2

  2006

  523·4

  311·7

  241·7

  24·2

  217·5

  2007

  540·4

  313·2

  244·9

  24·5

  220·4

  2008

  540·4

  339·2

  256·5

  25·7

  230·9

  2009

  540·4

  392·0

  279·4

  27·9

  251·5

  2010

  540·4

  445·6

  306·0

  30·6

  275·4

  2011

  540·4

  480·3

  328·6

  32·9

  295·8

  2012

  540·4

  494·6

  346·8

  34·7

  312·2

  2013

  540·4

  506·8

  366·2

  36·6

  329·5

  2014

  540·4

  516·9

  382·5

  38·3

  344·3

  2015

  540·4

  525·2

  396·3

  39·6

  356·6

  444 445

  Repayments

  Academic year

  Gross loan outlay

  No deferral/ default

  Deferral, no default

  Allowing for 10 per cent, default

  Actual repayments

  2016

  540·4

  531·5

  407·4

  40·7

  366·7

  2017

  540·4

  536·0

  417·3

  41·7

  375·6

  2018

  540·4

  538·7

  425·0

  42·5

  382·5

  2019

  540·4

  539·9

  430·5

  43·0

  387·4

  2020

  540·4

  540·3

  436·3

  43·6

  392·7

  2021

  540·4

  540·4

  442·8

  44·3

  398·5

  2022

  540·4

  540·4

  448·9

  44·9

  404·0

  2023

  540·4

  540·4

  452·8

  45·3

  407·6

  2024

  540·4

  540·4

  454·5

  45·5

  409·1

  2025

  540·4

  540·4

  455·9

  45·6

  410·3

  2026

  540·4

  540·4

  457·0

  45·7

  411·3

  2027

  540·4

  540·4

  457·8

  45·8

  412·0

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will estimate the numbers of students repaying loans in each year from 1990 to 2027 on the basis of 80, 90, and 100 per cent. take-up, assuming an increase in the numbers of students from 1·15 million in 1995 to 2·5 million by 2027 and repayment periods of five, 10 and 15 years, respectively.

  Mr. Jackson
  Estimated numbers of graduates making repayments are shown in the table, for the take-up rates specified. In other respects the table is based on the assumptions used in annex E of Cm 520, including the assumption that the repayment period increases progressively from five to 10 years.

  Loan repayment numbers (thousands)

  Year

  80 per cent.

  90 per cent.

  100 per cent.

  take-up

  take-up

  take-up

  1990

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  1991

  55·0

  61·9

  68·8

  1992

  110·1

  123·9

  137·6

  1993

  192·7

  216·8

  240·9

  1994

  273·6

  307·8

  342·0

  1995

  374·0

  420·8

  467·5

  1996

  418·1

  470·4

  522·6

  1997

  461·1

  518·7

  576·4

  1998

  489·1

  550·2

  611·4

  1999

  519·0

  583·9

  648·7

  2000

  530·9

  597·3

  663·6

  2001

  596·9

  671·5

  746·1

  2002

  664·0

  747·0

  830·0

  2003

  693·6

  780·3

  867·0

  2004

  724·9

  815·5

  906·1

  2005

  743·5

  836·4

  929·4

  2006

  762·1

  857·4

  952·6

  2007

  759·8

  854·8

  949·8

  2008

  817·3

  919·5

  1,021·6

  2009

  873·9

  983·1

  1,092·4

  2010

  950·5

  1,069·3

  1,188·1

  2011

  971·9

  1,093·4

  1,214·9

  2012

  1,013·7

  1,140·4

  1,267·1

  2013

  1,041·5

  1,171·7

  1,301·9

  2014

  1,069·2

  1,202·9

  1,336·5

  2015

  1,083·3

  1,218·7

  1,354·1

  2016

  1,097·5

  1,234·7

  1,371·9

  2017

  1,111·7

  1,250·7

  1,389·6

  2018

  1,118·9

  1,258·8

  1,398·6

  2019

  1,126·0

  1,266·8

  1,407·5

  2020

  1,139·7

  1,282·2

  1,424·6

  2021

  1,153·4

  1,297·6

  1,441·8

  2022

  1,167·2

  1,313·1

  1,459·0

  2023

  1,167·2

  1,313·1

  1,459·0

  2024

  1,167·2

  1,313·1

  1,459·0

  2025

  1,167·2

  1,313·1

  1,459·0

  2026

  1,167·2

  1,313·1

  1,459·0

  2027

  1,167·2

  1,313·1

  1,459·0

  446
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will estimate the total cost of defaults and the cost per defaulting account on student loans in 1995 on the basis of the estimates set out in appendix VI, statement 1 of the Price Waterhouse study.

  Mr. Jackson
  On the basis of the assumptions set out in annex E of the White Paper "Top-up Loans for Students" (Cm 520), including a default rate of 10 per cent., the cost of default in 1995 would be £6·7 million. That is equivalent to £161 per defaulting account.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will estimate the total number of student loan deferrals and write-offs in each year from 1991 to 1995 and for each year thereafter for which figures are available on the basis of the table in appendix VIII, statement 3, of the Price Waterhouse study.

  Mr. Jackson
  I refer the hon. Member to my other replies today showing estimated numbers claiming deferment of repayments. For the costings in Cm 520, no allowance was made for write-offs of debts arising from death. Numbers of loans written off because deferment continues for 25 years are estimated as follows:

  Number of write-offs

  Year

  Number

  2016

  15,300

  2017

  15,300

  2018

  15,300

  2019

  14,800

  2020

  14,500

  2021

  21,600

  2022

  21,300

  2023

  21,300

  2024

  21,600

  2025

  22,400

  2026

  22,900

  2027

  22,900

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) if he will estimate, and give an itemised breakdown of(a) marketing and publicity costs, (b) university administration costs and (c) other costs to his Department in each year up to 2027, which were excluded from the cost estimates in the Price Waterhouse study on student loans;

  (2) if he will publish an equivalent to table 2 on page 12 of the Price Waterhouse study on student loans for each year from 1990 to 2027.

  Mr. Jackson
  This information is not available.
  447
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the occasions on which his officials participated in the Price Waterhouse study on student loans, specifying the nature of their contributions.

  Mr. Jackson
  Officials from the Department provided the Price Waterhouse team with a variety of information on both the Government's policy on top-up loans—as set out in the White Paper "Top-up Loans for Students"—and the analyses underlying the costings set out in that White Paper. Officials also discussed the findings of the study with the consultants. There were frequent contacts while the study was being carried out.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will place in the Library the independent assessments contributed by the banks which

  Table 1—Summary of Costs1

  Start-up costs

  Recurring costs

  Cost category

  Low

  High

  Low

  High

  £

  £

  £

  £

  Systems

  1,580,000

  2,656,000

  1,577,000

  2,249,000

  Staff

  250,000

  370,000

  3,300,000

  4,860,000

  Professional fees

  1,300,000

  1,700,000

  200,000

  250,000

  Premises

  3,275,000

  4,250,000

  750,000

  1,000,000

  Branch costs

  —

  —

  2,500,000

  3,000,000

  Other

  1,862,000

  2,533.000

  2,039,000

  2,649,000

  Operating costs

  8,267,000

  11,509,000

  10,366,000

  14,008,000

  £

  £

  Depreciation on start-up costs

  827,000

  1,151,000

  Interest on initial investment

  537,000

  748,000

  Debt collection agency fees

  2,780,000

  4,480,000

  Total vehicle-related cost to government

  14,510,000

  20,387,000

  1All figures in 1989 £'s.

  It should be noted that certain of the costs indicated, for example those identified as depreciation on start-up costs and interest on initial investment, will not arise if start-up funding is provided by grant rather than loan; and that the reference to debt collection agency fees is to the possible use—which will be the subject of further discussion—of debt collection agencies to collect repayments from graduates who are in default. The cost of normal loan recovery is included in the £10·4 million to £14 million estimate of recurring costs.

  On the basis of the estimates of operating costs included for the years 1990–1995 in the Price Waterhouse report, and excluding the depreciation, interest and debt collection agency items, the operating cost per account would be as follows:

  Year

  Operating costs (£ million)

  Estimated number of accounts

  Operating cost per account

  £

  1990

  8·5–11·5

  430,000

  20–27

  1991

  8·8–11·6

  577,000

  15–20

  1992

  9·1–11·7

  721,000

  13–16

  1993

  9·5–11·9

  866,000

  11–14

  1994

  9·9–13·3

  1,008,000

  10–13

  1995

  10·4–14·0

  1,148,000

  9–12

  Figures for the years after 1995 are not yet available.
  448
  provided the basis for the students loans administration vehicle costings set out in the Price Waterhouse feasibility study on top-up loans for students.

  Mr. Jackson
  The feasibility study by Price Waterhouse drew on a variety of sources of information.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State tor Education and Science if he will publish the table summarising start-up and recurring running costs of the student loans administration vehicle on page 11 of the Price Waterhouse study, and estimate the cost per account, for each year from 1990 to 2027, taking into account the statement in the Price Waterhouse study that annual costs will increase as the number of students repaying loans increases.

  Mr. Jackson
  Following is a copy of the table referred to.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if the same repayment regime will apply to graduates whose banks opt to leave the proposed loans administration vehicle in the Price Waterhouse study on student loans.

  Mr. Jackson
  I would not expect any banks to cease to participate, but a graduate's obligation to repay, together with the opportunity for deferment in the case of low income, will remain in force in any case.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what commitments in respect of bearing all credit risk he has entered into, or plans to enter into, as set out in section 1(3) of the Price Waterhouse study on student loans.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Government have made it clear that they are ready to stand behind the cost of default on the top-up loans scheme: that cost was explicity taken into account in the costings published in the White Paper "Top-up Loans for Students". We envisage that the company administering the loans scheme will receive, as part of its fee, an incentive to maximise repayments.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what guarantees of reimbursement of start-up costs he has given, or plans to give, to the banks in the event of legislative defeat or substantial alteration of the forthcoming student loans Bill.

  Mr. Jackson
  My right hon. Friend said in his statement on 19 June that the Government would meet the costs of detailed preparatory work by the Committee of London and Scottish Bankers and by the company.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to have secured
  449
  the agreements for ownership of the loans administration vehicle, cost reimbursement and the participation of the banks scheduled for May-June 1989 in the Price Waterhouse study on student loans.

  Mr. Jackson
  My right hon. Friend announced in his statement on 19 June that a scheme had been designed which was agreed to be a cost-effective and feasible means of introducing top-up loans in September 1990; and that it was clear that, subject to the satisfactory outcome of the contractual negotiations, a sufficient number of financial institutions would wish to participate from the outset to ensure that the company would be viable.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he plans to accept the criteria(a) that loans be kept off the balance sheets of participating banks and (b) that loans be funded by the Government, including default liability, for devising a loans administration vehicle as set out in the Price Waterhouse study.

  £ million

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Cash

  AFRC

  9·7

  10·3

  10·1

  9·5

  9·5

  8·9

  8·8

  9·9

  Other

  0·6

  0·6

  0·7

  0·7

  1·0

  1·5

  2·0

  2·2

  Total

  10·3

  10·9

  10·8

  10·2

  10·5

  10·4

  10·8

  12·1

  1988–89 prices

  AFRC

  14·0

  13·9

  13·0

  11·7

  11·1

  10·1

  9·4

  9·9

  Other

  0·9

  0·8

  0·9

  0·9

  1·2

  1·7

  2·1

  2·2

  Total

  14·9

  14·7

  13·9

  12·6

  12·3

  11·8

  11·5

  12·1

  Grants from the AFRC are in respect of both recurrent and capital expenditure and consist of both grant-in-aid from the DES Science Budget and commissions from MAFF.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the employment at each site of the Institute for Horticultural Research in each year since 1982; and what is his estimate of the effect of the Barnes review implementation on employment at each site.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Institute of Horticultural Research came into existence in 1986 and was based on four former institutes of the Agricultural and Food Research Council. The numbers of staff employed at the four sites on 1 April in the years 1982–85 were as follows:

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  East Mailing

  338

  340

  329

  299

  Littlehampton

  261

  261

  253

  233

  Wye College

  7

  7

  7

  6

  Wellesbourne

  223

  224

  220

  197

  Figures are not available for each site for the years 1986–88, but the total number of staff of the institute were:

  Number

  1986

  630

  1987

  579

  1988

  562

  Currently the numbers of permanent staff are:
  450
  Mr. Jackson
  The White Paper "Top-up Loans for Students" made it clear that the cost of funding top-up loans, allowing for default, would fall to the Exchequer. The formation of a separate company to administer the loans scheme, as described in my right hon. Friend's statement on 19 June, means that there is no question of loans figuring on the balance sheet of participating financial institutions.

  Institute of Horticultural Research
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the sources of funds for the Institute of Horticultural Research distinguishing between statutory work grants, grant-in-aid, and contributions from the Agriculture and Food Research Council in each year since 1982 both in current and standard prices.

  Mr. Jackson
  Details of the sources of funding of the Institute of Horticultural Research are as follows:

  Number

  East Mailing (including Wye)

  236

  Littlehampton

  182

  Wellesbourne

  169

  The number employed at each site in future will depend on the organisation of horticultural research. This has been considered by a working group which put forward a number of options to my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State for Scotland and the chairman of the AFRC. These are at present under consideration.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the achievements of his Department and his policies in helping small businesses over the last 12 months compared with the previous 12 months; and if he will publish the performance indicators by which his Department monitors those achievements and the statistical results of such monitoring.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  It is estimated that during 1988–89 the Department purchased goods to the value of £6·1 million (£3·8 million previous year) of which some £2·4 million benefited small firms (£1·3 million previous year).
  451
  Approximately 40 per cent. of our services—minor works, cleaning, transportation and so on—continue to be provided by small firms.

  Performance indicators and a computerised procurement monitoring system are currently being developed. Meantime the Department continues to operate a policy of including small firms on tender lists whenever an appropriate opportunity arises.

  General Teaching Council
  Mr. Speed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what discussions he has recently had with the teaching unions about the setting up of a general teaching council for England and Wales.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  No such discussions have been held with the teacher unions.

  Medical Research
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list in the Official Report the information he has as to the amounts spent by (a) private companies and (b) charities on medical research in each of the last 10 years, or the latest periods for which figures are available; and what is his estimate of the United Kingdom proportion of spending on medical research this represents.

  Mr. Jackson
  [holding answer 19 July 1989]: Information is not collected centrally on the spending of private companies or charities on medical research. The majority of larger medical charities are members of the Association of Medical Research Charities, and I understand from the association that spending on medical research by their member organisations in recent years has been as follows:

  £ million

  1982–83

  72·6

  1983–84

  76·8

  1984–85

  86·6

  1985–86

  108·8

  1986–87

  110·2

  1987–88

  137·6

  1988–89

  148·2

  Assessment
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has received advice from the Schools Examinations and Assessment Council about assessing and reporting achievement in the light of national curriculum requirements.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  [pursuant to his reply, 5 May 1989, c. 258]: The School Examinations and Assessment Council has offered advice about the development, implementation and operation of the national curriculum assessment system. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I welcome the council's outline proposals, and look forward to receiving its more comprehensive proposals in December 1989.

  I have placed copies of the council's letter and my reply in the Libraries of both Houses.

WALES

  Residential Education
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many children are receiving out-of-county special residential education in Wales, and if he will give the per capita cost to each county over the past 10 years.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Information about children receiving out-of-county special residential education is not collected centrally. However the number of Welsh children receiving out-of-county special residential and non-residential education in maintained and independent schools in England and Wales over the past 10 years is as follows:

  Maintained schools2

  Independent schools1 2

  1978–79

  497

  225

  1979–80

  549

  155

  1980–81

  443

  90

  1981–82

  461

  179

  1982–83

  380

  194

  1983–84

  419

  98

  1984–85

  391

  129

  1985–86

  360

  93

  1986–87

  327

  131

  1987–88

  207

  144

  1 Includes those children educated otherwise than at school.

  2 Includes both children who are the subject of a statement and those who have not been statemented.

  Corresponding expenditure figures are not available.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the achievements of his Department and his policies in helping small businesses over the last 12 months compared with the previous 12 months; and if he will publish the performance indicators by which his Department monitors those achievements and the statistical results of such monitoring.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  This Department continues to attach a high priority to the promotion of enterprise and to helping small businesses. General economic policies at a national level, national enterprise support policies and initiatives that are unique to Wales are all helping to make Wales a place where small businesses can flourish. Performance indicators including job creation and costs appear in the Government's public expenditure White Paper and the annual reports of the relevant sponsored bodies concerned. In Wales the latest available figures show that by 1987 the total number of businesses registered for VAT was 78,719; an increase of 11·8 per cent. on 1979. The Department's specific policies to encourage enterprise in Wales are:

  Gateway Network
  Launched in 1987 to provide a high quality advice and information service. Gateway network was expanded in 1988 with the inclusion of all of the main banks in Wales to make the service available from an even greater number of organisations. Evaluation by officials indicates a high level of use and customer satisfaction while identifying potential areas for improvement and expansion.

  Support for Local Enterprise Agencies
  Three local enterprise agencies have been approved in Wales during the last 12 months bringing the total to 23. Grants towards their running costs under the grants for local enterprise agencies in Wales scheme totalled £330,000 in 1988–89 (£116,000 in 1987–88).
  453
  Enterprise Wales
  Launched in January 1988, the consultancy initiatives have proved extremely popular. More than 1,600 companies have already applied and this equates to about 6 per cent. of the United Kingdom's share: for higher than would be expected given the size of the Welsh economy. In 1988–89 we exceeded our targets for both business reviews (by 65 per cent.) and applications referred to scheme contractors (by 42 per cent.).

  Regional Selective Assistance, Regional Enterprise Grant
  Small businesses continue to take advantage of the help available under regional selective assistance. In the year to the end of June 1989, 145 small firms (employing less than 200 people) accepted offers of RSA totalling £11·5 million. This compares with 68 small firms accepting offers of £4·9 million in the previous 12 months. Since April of last year firms employing fewer than 25 people have been eligible for regional enterprise grant: to date 265 offers have been made worth £2·2 million.

  WDA Advisory Services
  In 1988–89 the WDA's business development unit handled 12,000 requests for advice; 12 per cent. up on 1987–88. Overall the Unit handled over 52,000 general inquiries, an increase of 20 per cent. over the previous year.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Afghan Refugees
  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make further funds available for Afghan refugees in Pakistan.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  We have just agreed a further contribution of £3 million to international relief work for Afghan refugees in Pakistan. This brings our contribution to the support of Afghan refugees to a total of £15 million over the last 18 months.

  Brazil
  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any plans to help Brazil with its tropical rain forest problems.

  Mr. Wood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last visited Brazil; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the outcome of the recent visit of the right hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Patten) to Brazil; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has for a programme of environmental co-operation with Brazil.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  I visited Brazil from 4 to 9 July and signed a memorandum of understanding on a programme of technical co-operation in environmental matters, including rain forest conservation. We are now pressing ahead with various specific proposals which the Brazilians have put to us.

  Sri Lanka
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what amount of overseas aid is being given to Sri Lanka for 1989.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  On the assumption that there is no further deterioration in the security situation, we expect to spend around £18 million in 1989.

  Aid (Developing Countries)
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the United Kingdom's current aid investment in developing countries; and what is the comparable figure for other major countries.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  In 1988 United Kingdom official development assistance totalled £1,485 million and private direct investment in developing countries is provisionally estimated at £1,400 million. Comparable figures for 1988 are not yet available for other major countries. The following table contains the 1987 figures for all member countries of the development assistance committee of the OECD.

  Net official development assistance and direct investment in developing countries from all DAC member countries: 1987

  £ million

  DAC member countries

  oda

  Direct investment

  Australia

  383

  372

  Austria

  123

  n/a

  Belgium

  418

  145

  Canada

  1,150

  -50

  Denmark

  524

  65

  Finland

  264

  18

  France

  3,982

  425

  Germany

  2,679

  403

  Ireland

  31

  n/a

  Italy

  1,596

  229

  Japan

  4,548

  4,528

  Netherlands

  1,278

  158

  New Zealand

  53

  16

  Norway

  543

  6

  Sweden

  839

  56

  Switzerland

  334

  -99

  United Kingdom

  1,160

  1,802

  United States of America

  5,458

  4,891

  Total

  25,363

  12,965

  Source: DAC Chairman's Report 1988 with United Kingdom figures (and hence totals) slightly revised.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the level of economic aid to Zimbabwe.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Zimbabwe has received more than £200 million in British aid since independence. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister pledged further project aid totalling £25 million during her meetings with President Mugabe last October and her visit to Zimbabwe in March.

  Rain Forests
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in what ways he is working with other Governments to prevent depletion of the world's tropical rain forests.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Both the European Council meeting in Madrid and the recent Paris summit acknowledged the serious problems posed by tropical deforestation. The summit participants, whilst recognising the sovereignty of developing nations, urged sustainable use of tropical forests; recommended greater and quicker implementation of the tropical forestry action plan; appealed to members
  455
  of the International Tropical Timber Organisation to join their efforts to ensure conservation of the forests; and pledged financial and technical co-operation to conserve forests.

  Soft Loans
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects to announce the conclusions of the review into the future of the soft loan facility scheme.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  I expect to announce the conclusions of this review in the autumn, following the public expenditure survey.

  IDA (Replenishment)
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current negotiations for the replenishment of the World Bank's International Development Association.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The third meeting of the IDA deputies on the ninth replenishment of IDA resources was held in Copenhagen on 6 and 7 July. Further meetings are scheduled for Washington in September and Kyoto in November. The Paris summit communiqué stressed the importance which participants attached to a substantial replenishment of IDA resources.

  Aid (Annual Review)
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much it cost to publish the annual review of British overseas aid in 1988.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  A total of 5,000 copies of "British Overseas Aid 1987" were produced in 1988 at a unit cost of £5·89.

TRANSPORT

  Rear Seat Belts
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many serious injuries were sustained by rear seat passengers in road accidents in 1986, 1987 and 1988.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Too many.

  The following table shows the number of casualties in cars, how many of these were recorded as being in the rear seat, and how many rear seat passengers were recorded as wearing seat belts, for 1986 and 1987. Only those casualties who were killed or seriously injured (KSI) are included. The figures for 1988 are still provisional, and cannot be disaggregated in this way.

  Casualties in cars or vans: Great Britain 1986, 1987

  1986

  1987

  Total killed

  2,364

  2,279

  Total KSI

  30,902

  30,346

  In rear seat:

  Killed

  363

  362

  KSI

  4,998

  4,696

  Wearing seat belt:

  Killed

  14

  18

  KSI

  229

  260

  Rail Electrification
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many miles of railway line, including underground service, there are in England, Wales and Scotland, respectively; and how many miles of these have so far been electrified.

  Mr. Portillo
  British Rail maintains the relevant statistics on the basis of railway regions, so separate figures for Wales and England are not available.

  Route mileages at 31 March 1989 were as follows (electrified portion shown in brackets):

  Route mileage

  Electrified portion

  England and Wales

  British Rail

  8,616

  (2,443)

  London Regional Transport

  245

  (245)

  Docklands Light Railway

  7

  (7)

  Tyne and Wear Metro

  35

  (35)

  Total

  8,903

  (2,730)

  Scotland

  British Rail (Scottish Region)

  1,698

  (276)

  Strathclyde Passenger Transport Executive

  7

  (7)

  Total

  1,705

  (283)

  British Rail plans to electrify a further 245 route miles by October 1992.

  Road Signs
  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress he is making with the Road Traffic Signs Regulations with regard to more realistic tolerances of design, construction and maintenance.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 1981 (SI 1981 No. 859) are currently being reviewed. Representations received in consultation to date do not suggest difficulties in meeting the requirements of the current regulations. If my hon. Friend has any specific points in mind, perhaps he will write with the details so that they can be considered in the review.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the achievements of his Department and his policies in helping small businesses over the last 12 months compared with the previous 12 months; and if he will publish the performance indicators by which his Department monitors those achievements and the statistical results of such monitoring.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Overall responsibility for helping small businesses rests with the Department of Employment, which provides a range of measures to stimulate their development.

  The Department of Transport is concerned to ensure that transport infrastructure is adequate and to lift the burden on businesses caused by unnecessary regulation so that all businesses can flourish.

  A2-M2
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has concerning delays experienced by motorists on the A2-M2 in the last month; what were the comparable figures for delays in the five previous years; and what proposals he has to reduce those delays in future years.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The information is as follows:

  Delays within last month

  M2

  Junctions 3–4

  Minor delays

  Junctions 5–7

  Peak period (6–9.30 am)

  Tailbacks 3–4 miles

  London-bound carriageway

  Usually clear within 1 hour

  Evening peak

  At times 2 mile tailback

  Coastbound carriageway

  A2

  During the last two weeks of June there were four instances of the carriageway of A2 near Bean breaking up due to heat; emergency repairs caused serious congestion.

  Longest delays

  The worst incidence of queuing has occurred on fine weekends when tailbacks have reached seven miles.

  Previous five years

  The only information readily available is:

  1987–88 Junctions 5–7—Peak hour delays of up to 20 minutes. No delays off peak.

  1988–89 Junctions 5–7—Peak hour delays up to about 20 minutes. Off peak three to four minutes.

  Weekend delays for traffic returning from the coast have involved tailbacks of up to four to five miles.

  Proposals to reduce delays in future years

  (a) Current five-year programme of major maintenance on M2 will be completed by 1992; on A2 west of M2 by 1993, and on A2 east of M2 by 1994.

  (b) Contracts which will result in delays will be let on lane rental basis to minimise construction periods.

  (c) Greater use will be made of advance signing.

  (d) Every effort is, and will continue to be employed on designing works to avoid delays consistent with safety.

  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his estimate of the cost of widening the carriageway of the A2-M2 section north of Canterbury to three lanes.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  There are no present plans to widen the A2 south of Canterbury to dual three-lanes, so estimated costs are not available.

  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the cost of the current maintenance work being carried out on the A2-M2 two-lane section north of Canterbury.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The figure is £8·7 million.

  A20
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the current position with regard to the A20 proposed road improvements between Dover and Folkestone.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The scheme for the improvement of the A20 from the M20 at Folkestone to the Eastern docks at Dover is being prepared in two sections.

  Authority for the western section from M20 to Court Wood is provided by the Channel Tunnel Act. Authority
  458
  for the eastern section from Court Wood to Dover is being sought by orders under the Highways Act which were the subject of public inquiries held in 1988. The inspector's report is being carefully considered. It is hoped to announce decisions on these by the early autumn this year.

  Subject to the satisfactory completion of the outstanding statutory procedures, the aim is to complete both sections in time for the opening of the Channel tunnel in 1993.

  Drivers (Probationary Plates)
  Mr. David Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received seeking the introduction in Great Britain of probationary plates for qualified but inexperienced drivers.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Various suggestions for probationary number plates are put to us from time to time. There is no evidence that such schemes reduce casualty rates.

  A number of schemes were introduced in other countries during the 1960s. None has so far been successfully evaluated. In New Zealand, for instance, the scheme has now been abandoned.

  A P plate system is in use in Northern Ireland, where the legal system for road traffic law enforcement is different. The casualty rate in Northern Ireland over the last five years has been consistently higher than in Great Britain, despite the P plate scheme.

  Dock Workers
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many registered dock workers have accepted redundancy following abolition of the national dock labour scheme; and what is(a) the number and (b) the percentage of registered dock workers (i) at each port and (ii) nationally.

  Mr. Portillo
  At 21 July 1989, 2,288 former registered dock workers had been made redundant or been given notice of redundancy following the abolition of the dock labour scheme. This represents 25 per cent. of the number of RDWs at 3 July 1989, when the scheme was abolished. I understand that at some ports some former registered dock workers made redundant have been re-employed by a different employer; and at other ports dock work is now being carried out by existing employees who were not registered dock workers. The position in each port is as follows.

  Ports

  Number of registered dock workers made redundant

  Percentage of registered dock workers in the port

  Aberdeen

  149

  100

  Ayr

  14

  100

  Barry

  20

  31

  Bristol

  2

  0·4

  Cardiff

  157

  96

  Charleston

  1

  100

  Fleetwood

  4

  9

  Fowey

  44

  100

  Garston

  79

  73

  Goole

  72

  44

  Grimsby and Immingham

  442

  60

  Hull

  242

  36

  Ipswich

  32

  27

  Kings Lynn

  40

  75

  459

  Ports

  Number of registered dock workers made redundant

  Percentage of registered dock workers in the port

  Liverpool

  69

  5

  London

  393

  23

  Lowestoft

  27

  90

  Manchester

  42

  26

  Newport

  82

  42

  Par

  28

  100

  Plymouth

  11

  37

  Sharpness

  2

  4

  Southampton

  210

  31

  Swansea

  78

  89

  Tees and Hartlepool

  37

  7

  Wisbech

  11

  92

  Irradiated Fuel
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if the flasks used for transportation of irradiated fuel from the reactors at United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, Harwell, fully meet the International Atomic Energy Authority's impact and thermal standards; if he will make public the results of tests performed to confirm the safety of these transport flasks; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The flasks used by UK AEA Harwell have been assessed and certified by experts in this Department as fully complying with the IAEA design and test requirements. The test results are the property of the UKAEA, and are supplied to the Department on a commercial-in-confidence basis.

  Scottish Lowlands Airports
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he has considered the implications for Scottish lowland airports policy of the proposals by United Airlines for flights between Washington, Chicago and Glasgow; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he has considered the implications for Scottish lowlands airports policy of the announcement by United Airlines that it has no intention of proposing flights from the United States of America to Prestwick airport.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Scottish lowland airports policy remains as set out in the 1985 White Paper "Airports Policy" and most recently confirmed in my right hon. Friend's announcement on 8 May,Official Report, column 343.

  Abbotsinch Airport
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many airlines have applied to operate transatlantic flights to and from Glasgow Abbotsinch airport; and if he will list the names of such airlines.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Civil Aviation Authority at present has applications from two airlines, Air Europe and Air 2000, for such licences. The Department does not have any outstanding requests from foreign carriers for permits to operate transatlantic services to and from Glasgow.

  M1
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will instruct his Department's contractors to take immediate steps to improve traffic flow 460
  and reduce inconvenience to road users arising out of the road works on the north bound carriageway of the M1 between junctions 11 and 12.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The maintenance work taking place on the M1 is divided into several phases. The current phase involves offside lane closures. Throughout this phase there will be three lanes available to southbound traffic. Northbound traffic will have two lanes available except on Fridays, when three lanes will be made available between 12 noon and 10 pm. Future phases of the work will involve the use of contraflow during which there will be two lanes available in both directions. The traffic management arrangements use the minimum road space necessary for the safe and efficient working on the site.

  A1
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many man hours have been spent by his officials dealing with proposals to improve the A1 between Wetherby and Dishforth with orders 198; and what have been the costs involved.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The information requested is not readily available.

  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many of his officials have been handling the proposed improvements under orders 198 for the A1 between Wetherby and Dishforth; and where they are located.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Department's work on this scheme has been handled primarily in the Leeds regional office where 18 staff have been involved at some stage.

  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about the delay in reaching decisions about improvements to the A1 between Wetherby and Dishforth as they relate to orders 198.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The joint decision by the Secretaries of State for Transport and for the Environment took longer than usual to make because the independent inspector recommended a substantial change to the published proposals. This was for the addition of discontinuous hard shoulders not in compliance with normal departmental standards for all-purpose trunk roads.

  The outcome is that the scheme is to be revised to incorporate not only hard shoulders but other design changes, with the intention of bringing this stretch of road up to near-motorway standard.

  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the safety of motorists using the A1 between Wetherby and Dishforth.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We are conscious of the need to make conditions as safe as possible for motorists. On this length of trunk road, special attention has been paid to eliminating potentially hazardous turning movements. Over the past two years 13 gaps in the central reserve have been closed and three overbridges provided.

  Central reserve safety fencing has also been erected recently over most of this stretch. The final section will be installed later this year as part of the Dishforth interchange scheme.
  461
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will set out evidence of the volume of traffic using the A1 between Wetherby and Dishforth since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The recorded annual average daily flow of traffic using the A1 between Wetherby and Dishforth is as follows:

  Year

  Traffic Flow (vehicles per day)

  1981

  28,500

  1982

  30,400

  1983

  28,600

  1984

  33,600

  1985

  33,970

  1986

  34,100

  1987

  37,800

  1988

  43,100

  The information on earlier years is not readily available.

  The traffic flows substantiate the Department's proposals for widening to a dual three-lane carriageway.

  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects that the improvements to the A1 between Wetherby and Dishforth will now be completed.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Subject to the satisfactory completion of the outstanding statutory and other processes, we hope that these improvements can be completed in the mid-1990s. The works will need to be staged over a four-year period to limit the traffic disruption over this 16-mile stretch of road.

  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the inspector's report on the public inquiries held between 17 November and 11 December 1987 into orders 198 for the improvement of the A1 between Wetherby and Dishforth was received in his office.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The inspector's report was received in March 1988.

  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether tendered prices were received by contractors for previously proposed works of improvement to the A1 between Wetherby and Dishforth under orders 198; and what was the cost of providing tender documents.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  This scheme has not been developed to a point where tenders could be invited. This is because the compulsory purchase order had still to be published before acquisition of the necessary land. No tender costs have, therefore, been incurred.

  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will set out the dates orders 198 proposing improvements to the A1 between Wetherby and Dishforth were published, the number of hours the public inquiries held between 17 November and 11 December 1987 were in session and the costs.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Draft orders were published for this scheme in May and July 1987. The public inquiry sat for approximately 98 hours. Details necessary to give the cost of the inquiry is not available.
  462
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish the number and description of reported accidents on the length of the A1 between Wetherby and Dishforth in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The reported accidents along this length of the A1 since 1981 are:

  Year

  Fatal

  Serious

  Slight

  1981

  5

  23

  18

  1982

  2

  22

  35

  1983

  0

  21

  17

  1984

  2

  17

  26

  1985

  0

  24

  34

  1986

  6

  20

  28

  1987

  3

  23

  21

  1988

  3

  13

  35

  Information before that date is not readily available.

  Trunk Road Improvements
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has any proposals for speeding up the implementation of improvements to main trunk roads.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We have set targets for reducing the average time taken to progress a scheme from entering the road programme to opening for traffic by the order of a quarter. In introducing the changes we have taken care to ensure that the rights of interested parties will not be affected.

  Cycleways
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will set out his proposals for improving the number of cycleways; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Cycleways and cycletracks can be important elements in creating safer routes for cyclists.

  Responsibility for improving conditions for cyclists rests with individual highway authorities.

  The Department offers technical advice on the design and construction of cycling facilities, based on a continuing programme of research.

  Comprehensive guidance from the Department was contained in a local transport note published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office in June. Entitled "Making Way for Cyclists" it covers a wide range of planning, design and legal issues.

  East London River Crossing
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he is now able to announce the result of the review of the design for the Thames bridge for the East London river crossing scheme.

  Mr. Channon
  Yes. The consultants for the scheme were asked to investigate whether there is an alternative design for the bridge which would be practicable, acceptable within the broad order of costs of the bridge originally proposed by the Department, would satisfy the objectives of the scheme and keep options open for the future use of London city airport. The consultants have recommended that a box girder bridge with a shorter main span of 240 metres would satisfy all these requirements. Having considered the consultants' report on the review which I
  463
  initiated, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and I agree with their recommendation. A letter announcing this decision is being sent to interested parties.

  We take particular note of the Royal Fine Art Commission's comment that the design of this bridge should be of the highest quality. We shall be consulting the commission further on the design.

  The decision to review the bridge design followed our consideration of the report from the inspector who conducted the local inquiries between September 1985 and December 1986. The inspector considered that a dual three-lane standard would eventually be needed. With the bridge design originally proposed, it would not have been possible to provide three full-width lanes. With the new bridge design it will be possible to do so.

  The inspector recommended that a cycleway be provided across the bridge. With the new bridge design this will be included. Objections were also received concerning the implications for the future use of London city airport of the height of the towers of the original bridge. The new bridge design should avoid this difficulty.

  Draft orders will shortly he published to put the new proposals into effect. There will he the usual opportunity for people to make representations or object to these proposals and if necessary a further public inquiry into the new bridge proposals will be held.

  Without prejudice to any decisions that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and I may be called upon to take in the future, and subject to the completion of the statutory procedures, it is hoped the bridge will be in place by the mid-1990s.

  Copies of the consultants' report on the review of the design of the bridge, together with our decision letter, are being placed in the Library.

ENVIRONMENT

  Grants
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many companies in receipt of a cash grant from his Department to establish a business in a particular place have discontinued such business within five years of establishment.

  Mr. Trippier
  Two companies who received urban development grants for the regeneration of inner-city sites have since ceased their business operations. This represents less than 1 per cent. of all completed schemes.

  Water Supply (North Sheffield)
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will consider lifting the ceiling on capital investment currently operating in the Yorkshire water authority in order to help it improve the quality of water supply to parts of north Sheffield; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has received no requests from the Yorkshire water authority to increase its capital ceiling for this year. The authority has a substantial investment programme aimed at improving the water supply to all its customers. One of the advantages of privatisation is that my right hon. Friend will no longer set any ceilings on 464
  capital investments. Once in the private sector, Yorkshire Water will be able to spend whatever is needed to achieve the necessary standards for its customers.

  Empty Properties (Wandsworth)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the number of empty properties in the London borough of Wandsworth on 1 July.

  Mr. Trippier
  The latest available information was provided by the London borough of Wandsworth in its April 1988 housing investment programme return (HIP1), a copy of which is in the Library.

  Housing Associations
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will list the housing associations in the London area which have signed a programme agreement to go onto tariff arrangement; and what assessment he has made of how the procedure is working.

  Mr. Trippier
  It is for the Housing Corporation to enter into such agreements, and I have asked it to provide the hon. Member with a list. It is too early to make a detailed assessment of the new procedures, but the corporation will continue to keep them under review.

  Workington Enterprise Zone
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment from what date amendments relating to the prohibition of housing development in the Workington enterprise zone were effective.

  Mr. Trippier
  The modification to the planning scheme to bring housing back under full planning control in zones 2, 4 and 5 took effect on 14 March 1989.

  Planning Inspectorate
  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his proposals to create an independent planning inspectorate on an agency basis.

  Mr. Howard
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 21 December last year, he is considering whether the planning inspectorate should become an executive agency. As an agency, the inspectorate would continue to be part of the Department of the Environment accountable to the Secretary of State. The change in status would not alter the inspectorate's functions nor the Secretary of State's statutory responsibilities for the planning system.

  Planning Appeals
  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish in the Official Report the number of planning appeals lodged each year since the implementation of sections 36 and 37 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971.

  Mr. Howard
  The information requested is listed in the table.
  465

  Section 36 and 37 planning appeals

  Year

  Number

  1971

  9,818

  1972

  14,408

  1973

  18,326

  1974

  13,324

  1975

  11,690

  1976

  11,656

  1977

  10,833

  1978

  11,609

  1979

  12,990

  1980

  16,208

  1981

  16,637

  1982

  13,900

  1983

  13,699

  1984

  16,192

  1985

  17,053

  1985–86

  17,839

  1986–87

  19,856

  1987–88

  22,482

  1988–89

  28,659

  Note: From April 1985 the Department's published figures on appeal performance have covered financial rather than calendar years.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many planning appeals have been(a) allowed and (b) refused by his Department for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 20 July 1989]: information requested is listed in the table:

  Planning Appeals

  Year

  Allowed

  Dismissed

  1979

  2,602

  6,331

  1980

  4,044

  9,086

  1981

  4,721

  9,730

  1982

  4,003

  8,912

  1983

  3,633

  7,588

  1984

  3,773

  7,870

  1985

  5,477

  9,162

  1985–86

  5,581

  8,549

  1986–87

  6,208

  9,405

  1987–88

  6,955

  11,519

  1988–89

  7,734

  13,327

  Note:—From April 1985 the Department's published figures on appeal performance have covered financial rather than calendar years.

  Architects
  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has received any representations concerning the definition of the word architect in the context of the Architects (Registration) Act 1931 and the Architects Registration Act 1938.

  Mr. Trippier
  The subject has been discussed informally with my officials by representatives of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors.

  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will initiate discussions with relevant parties, including the Office of Fair Trading with a view to reviewing the various Acts of Parliament under which architects can practice in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Trippier
  My noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry recently issued a White Paper "Opening Markets: New Policy on Restrictive Trade 466
  Practices" which proposes new legislation to prevent such practices. The new legislation would extend to professional bodies including those representing architects. My Department will co-operate fully with the Department of Trade and Industry and with the Office of Fair Trading in any review of the architectural profession.

  Direct Labour Organisation
  Mr. Thornton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list for each financial year between 1983–84 and 1986–87 the number of local authority direct labour organisations which undertook(a) general highway works and works in connection with the construction or maintenance of a sewer, (b) new construction, other than general highway or sewer works the cost of which in the estimation of the authority or development body exceeded £50,000, (c) new construction, other than general highway or sewer works, the cost of which in the estimation of the authority or development body did not exceed £50,000 and (d) building maintenance within the meaning of the Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act 1970, other than in connection with highways or the maintenance of a sewer.

  Mr. Gummer
  The number of local authority direct labour organisations which undertook each category of work between 1983–84 and 1986–87 is indicated in the following table. Authorities exempted from the legislation on de minimis grounds are excluded.

  I

  II

  III

  IV

  1983–84

  268

  72

  86

  301

  1984–85

  280

  67

  81

  320

  1985–86

  290

  84

  105

  315

  1986–87

  287

  81

  98

  304

  I—General Highways/Sewer Works

  II—New Construction over £50,000

  III—New Construction under £50,000

  IV—Building Maintenance

  Ozone Layer
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions are taking place with Governments of eastern European countries to promote co-operation to protect the ozone layer; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  International co-operation to protect the ozone layer is primarily through the Vienna convention on the protection of the ozone layer and the Montreal protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer. Although not all eastern European countries are parties to these agreements, all are invited to meetings of the parties, and all attended the recent Helsinki meeting of the parties to the Montreal protocol. They were invited to the saving the ozone layer conference in London in March, and all but one attended.

  Acton Town Centre
  Sir George Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will announce his decision on the public inquiry into Acton town centre.

  Mr. Chope
  I hope that the decision will be issued before the end of July.

  World Bank Environment Programme
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to meet with the director of the environment programme of the World Bank.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  No. The director of the environment programme of the World Bank called on the Overseas Development Administration on 19 July.

  Super-insulated Houses
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has made any study of the application of super-insulated houses developed in Canada and Scandinavia for construction in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Trippier
  In conjunction with the Building Research Establishment, my Department keeps under review the cost-effectiveness of developments in low-energy housing in other countries, including Canada and Scandinavia. The use of very high levels of insulation in these countries is related both to the severe external climate and to the relatively high levels at which internal temperatures are normally maintained. In general, this would he unlikely to he cost-effective in the different conditions which exist in this country.

  United Nations Environment Programme
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the outcome of the governing council of the United Nations environment programme meeting held between 15 to 26 May in Nairobi, in terms of decisions which affect(a) the United Kingdom and (b) the European Community.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  At the governing council of UNEP in May the opening ministerial statement was made by my noble Friend the Minister for Housing, Environment and Countryside, who led the United Kingdom delegation. His calls for a framework convention on climate change and for the strengthening of UNEP to undertake this and other important global environmental tasks were generally endorsed by the other Ministers attending. A number of countries agreed to increase their financial support of UNEP following the lead of the United Kingdom which has more than doubled its contribution this year. The main governing council decisions of importance to both the United Kingdom and the European Community concerned future work on climate change, including our proposal for a framework convention, agreement on a convention to safeguard genetic diversity, an improved understanding of the concept of sustainable development, and constructive proposals to the General Assembly on preparations for a major United Nations conference on environment and development in 1992.

  Domestic Rates
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimates he has for the total amounts raised by domestic rates in(a) Somerset, (b) Dorset, (c) Devon and (d) Wiltshire in the last three financial years for which comparable figures are available.

  Mr. Gummer
  The figures sought are:468

  £ million

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  Somerset

  67

  76

  85

  Dorset

  109

  120

  129

  Devon

  135

  154

  172

  Wiltshire

  78

  86

  95

  Note: Figures are net of rate relief grant and gross of rebates. The figures for 1989–90 are based on budgets.

  Travellers (Permanent Sites)
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether there have been any changes to Government policy on the provision of permanent sites for gipsies and travellers since his answer to the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) of 6 February,Official Report, columns 856–58; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  No. We are concerned to assist and encourage authorities to fulfil their duties under the Caravan Sites Act 1968. In two cases, Hertfordshire and Surrey, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has used his powers under the Act to direct that such provision should be made as quickly as possible.

  Carnwath Report
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to implement part or all of the Carnwath report on enforcing planning control.

  Mr. Howard
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply on 24 May to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond)Official Report, volume 153, column 942.

  Local Government Finance, Lambeth
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what element of the poll tax in Lambeth would represent rent arrears assuming no change in the current level of rent arrears in Lambeth and assuming repayment of those housing rent arrears from the general rate fund will spread over a period of five years.

  Mr. Gummer
  I assume that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the community charge. The latest available information from the council shows its housing rent arrears were some £12·6 million at 31 March 1988. It is the authority's responsibility to collect those arrears. But if it does not, we estimate the cost to the community charge payer would be some £13 per annum if spread over five years.

  Recycled Paper
  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps to enable local authorities to purchase recycled paper at a price higher than that for equivalent non-recycled paper without incurring financial or other penalties.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  No. Local authorities have a duty to their ratepayers to obtain the best value for money in their purchasing of all supplies, including paper. This duty does not preclude them from purchasing recycled paper, or paper with a significant proportion of recycled fibre. Many people who have changed to them have found
  469
  that such products fully meet their requirements and are cheaper, or no more expensive, than those which they used before.

  Rent Arrears, Corby and East Northamptonshire
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list in the Official Report the total rent arrears at the latest convenient date, and the number of current and former tenants in arrears in the districts of (a) Corby and (b) East Northamptonshire.

  Mr. Trippier
  A list of local authorities showing reported cumulative rent arrears at 31 March 1988 was placed in the Library on 1 March 1989. Corresponding information for the position at 31 March 1989 is not yet available.

  Information about the number of current and former tenants in arrears with rent, rates or other charges, where reported, is contained in the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy publication "Housing Rents Statistics at April 1988", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Right to Buy, Corby and East Northamptonshire
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the number of accepted right-to-buy applications being dealt with, but not yet completed, at the end of March in the districts of(a) Corby and (b) East Northamptonshire.

  Mr. Trippier
  The latest return received from Corby district shows 1,075 applications in the pipeline at the end of June 1988; East Northamptonshire has reported 182 such applications at the end of March 1989.

  Green Belt
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many acres of countryside now have green belt status; and what was the comparable figure for 10 years ago.

  Mr. Chope
  In 1979 there were about 1·8 million acres of approved green belt in England. Today there are around 4·5 million acres.

  Sir Rhodes Boyson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) on 19 April,Official Report, columns 36–7, he will indicate the policy he now intends to apply when considering applications from local authorities under section 5 of the Green Belt (London and Home Counties) Act 1938 for his consent to their disposal of property held under that Act in cases where disposal arises under other legislation.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 21 July 1989]: Since 1984 my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's policy on the use of his powers under the 1938 Act has been based on a statement made in November 1984 by the former Secretary of State for the Environment about the future ownership of land held under the 1938 Act by the former Greater London council.

  At the time of the 1984 statement, the Secretary of State considered that transfer of a 1938 Act property from local authority to private ownership under the right-to-buy provisions of the Housing Act 1980, and subsequently of the Housing Act 1985, did not require his consent under
  470
  section 5 of the 1938 Act. In March 1988, however, the High Court ruled that the provisions of section 5 continued to operate notwithstanding that other legislation also applied to the transfer. My right hon. Friend has reconsidered the policy expressed in the 1984 statement in the light of the High Court judgment and of his further experience in the consideration of applications under the 1938 Act.

  My right hon. Friend now takes the view that the policy of enabling council tenants to buy their own homes, as given effect by the Housing Acts, is a matter which he can properly take into account when considering applications under section 5 of the 1938 Act. He takes the same view in respect of the right of leaseholders to acquire the freehold of their homes under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967.

  In determining applications under the 1938 Act my right hon. Friend's primary concern will continue to be to ensure that the land concerned continues to fulfil the objectives of the 1938 Act and of green belt policy as set out in planning policy guidance note 2. Bearing in mind the safeguards provided by strict planning controls over development in the green belt, and the need to consider each case on its individual merits, my right hon. Friend is confident that his ability to secure these objectives will be unaffected by his acceptance that the aims of right-to-buy and leasehold reform legislation may contribute to the factors that he will accept as justifying the granting of his consent under section 5 of the 1938 Act.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received on the effects of the poll tax registration procedures on personal privacy.

  Mr. Gummer
  The Government have no plans to introduce a poll tax and there are no poll tax registration procedures.

  I have received a number of representations about the extent of information requested by registration officers in compiling their community charges registers. It is clear that many registration officers have not followed the detailed advice sent to them on this matter. This may well require some change to their procedures if they are to comply with the Data Protection Act 1985. I have every confidence that the community charge arrangements fully protect the personal privacy of all citizens.

  Local Authorities (Housing Stock Transfers)
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the local authorities currently in process of transferring their housing stock to housing associations under the Housing Act 1985.

  Mr. Trippier
  Broadland district council has applied to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for consent to dispose of its housing to a housing association.

  I understand that Newbury district council and South Wight borough council have conducted ballots of their tenants about proposals to transfer housing to housing associations, but we have not received applications from those authorities. I am also aware that Medina borough council and Rochester-upon-Medway city council are in the process of balloting their tenants about proposals to transfer housing, in the latter case to an industrial and provident society.
  471
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the local authorities currently in process of transferring their housing stock under the tenants' choice provisions of the Housing Act 1985.

  Mr. Trippier
  Since April, one tenants' choice application has been served, on Westminster city council. Many other tenants' groups and potential new landlords are in preliminary discussions with the Housing Corporation.

  Mortgage Arrears
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last discussed the question of mortgage arrears with the major banks and building societies.

  Mr. Trippier
  Ministers and officials at the Department of the Environment frequently meet representatives of the banks and building societies and discuss a range of issues, including arrears.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) of 19 July, concerning illustrative figures on the community charge, what was the cost of compiling the figures under(a), (b) and (c).

  Mr. Ridley
  The information needed to produce the tables was already available within the Department. The cost of the computer runs to produce the three tables was less than £50.

  Project Funding (Tottenham)
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list by department all amounts granted in Government and European Community funds to projects in Tottenham, together with the name of the organisation receiving funds and the purpose for which it was granted; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Council Rents
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will place in the Library due documents showing projected rents for council tenants throughout the United Kingdom arising from setting rents according to property capital values; what rents were projected for tenants of Bradford metropolitan district council; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Department of Environment has made no such projections. The Government have as yet made no decision on the overall national guidelines for rent income and management and maintenance expenditure which would be an essential part of any such projection.

  Total housing investment programme allocations: £ thousands

  1978–79

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  11989–90

  Luton

  5,084

  5,430

  4,139

  3,992

  5,579

  4,247

  4,396

  4,021

  3,129

  3,304

  2,904

  2,110

  Norwich

  11,396

  9,884

  9,360

  6,661

  9,085

  8,500

  7,640

  6,868

  5,981

  5,837

  4,606

  3,569

  Stevenage

  3,284

  3,592

  2,687

  2,353

  2,935

  2,881

  2,604

  2,320

  2,020

  1,894

  1,383

  1,152

  Cambridge

  4,226

  3,742

  2,969

  2,511

  4,290

  5,124

  3,845

  3,336

  3,029

  2,669

  2,359

  1,747

  Peterborough

  4,254

  3,778

  3,191

  2,941

  4,352

  3,596

  3,875

  3,372

  2,823

  2,849

  2,171

  1,739

  Rifle Range (House of Lords)
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the cause of the delay in completing the programme of work to the rifle range under the House of Lords; and when this will be available for use.

  Mr. Chope
  I regret that this work has taken so long but it is now almost complete. Subject to a satisfactory inspection by the safety authority, the rifle range should he ready for use again by the middle of August.

  Seals
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the research projects on the effect of pollution on seals, and on the links between pollution and seal health; if he will give the spending on each; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 18 July 1989]: Within the past year, the Department of the Environment has commissioned three new research projects which examine the impact of contamination on seals, including possible effects on immuno-competence, as part of its North sea research programme with values in 1988–89 as follows:

  contaminant effects monitoring using seals (£10,000)

  possible links between environmental pollutants and seal disease (£35,000); and

  thymulin in seals (£10,000).

  The Department is also commissioning further work on contaminants and the marine food chain which will cost over £450,000 this year.

  Other relevant aspects of seal research including monitoring, analysis of contaminants and diet are contained in the research programmes of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the sea mammal research unit of the Natural Environment Research Council.

  HIP Allocations
  Mr. Irvine
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what have been the housing investment programme allocations in each of the last 12 years for(a) Basildon, (b) Cambridge, (c) Chelmsford, (d) Ipswich, (e) Luton, (f) Norwich, (g) Peterborough and (h) Stevenage.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 19 July 1989]: The information requested is listed in the table. Since 1981–82 local authorities have been able to supplement their allocations by expenditure financed from capital receipts. Nationally, two thirds of local authorities' spending power on housing in 1989–90 is expected to come from capital receipts.
  473

  1978–79

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  11989–90

  Ipswich

  5,393

  5,414

  4,562

  4,397

  6,551

  6,991

  6,314

  5,384

  4,528

  4,331

  3,877

  2,843

  Basildon

  5,414

  6,114

  4,972

  2,438

  3,672

  2,742

  3,399

  2,580

  1,975

  1,988

  1,505

  1,222

  Chelmsford

  2,900

  3,002

  2,244

  1,831

  2,624

  2,759

  2,690

  2,478

  2,185

  1,978

  1,685

  1,223

  1 Allocations issued to date.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Lester
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his latest estimate of the number of homeless single people in London; and what action he has taken to tackle the problem.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 19 July 1989]: Information on the number of single homeless is not collected centrally. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is reviewing the homelessness legislation and hopes to announce conclusions soon.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Lester
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to ensure that everybody in full-time education or training will be treated alike for the purposes of the community charge.

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 19 July 1989]: Full-time students will pay only 20 per cent. of the personal community charge while those in training who are on low incomes will be eligible to claim rebates of up to 80 per cent.

  Algae
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he is taking to deal with harmful blooms of algae in the Thames, Humber, Tyne and Forth estuaries; what steps he is taking to prevent further eutrophication in British waters; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 19 July 1989]: The authorities responsible for the Thames, the Humber, the Tyne and the Forth have informed the Department that there are no problems from harmful algal blooms in the estuaries of these rivers. Further, a recent survey carried out by water authorities and river purification boards has confirmed that eutrophication is not a problem in United Kingdom coastal waters and estuaries and where algal blooms have historically occurred there is no increase in their frequency. However, the responsible authorities are keeping the situation under review.

  Landfill Gas Sites
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the implications for the ozone layer and the greenhouse effect of discharges of gases from landfill sites; and what steps he is taking to mitigate these effects.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 19 July 1989]: From reviews and research work commissioned by the Department, it can be concluded that methane has a secondary stratospheric role, tending to reduce ozone in the upper stratosphere, but to increase it in the lower stratosphere. Methane is a strong greenhouse gas which currently contributes about 14 per cent. globally to the
  474
  greenhouse effect. Additionally methane contributes to ozone formation in the lower atmosphere which in turn also contributes to the greenhouse effect.

  Landfill sites are estimated to contribute about 20 per cent. of total United Kingdom emissions of methane from both natural and manmade sources. Combustion of methane produced carbon dioxide which is much less potent than methane as a greenhouse gas on a molecule-for-molecule basis.

  There are 26 schemes already using methane from landfill in operation with another 13 in the offing. In addition the Department is carrying out research on inhibition of methane production and oxidation of methane at landfill sites.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will announce the commencement date of the review he is proposing into methane in landfill.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 21 July 1989]: Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution commenced a review into the extent of methane generation in current and closed landfills on 18 December 1987. The report is expected soon.

  Dog Registration, Manchester
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what study his Department has made of Manchester city council's proposals for a dog registration scheme, details of which have been sent to him by the city's director of environmental health; if there is any action he will be taking; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 20 July 1989]: I will consider the letter to which the hon. Member refers when I receive it. We do not believe, however, that a national dog registration scheme is the answer to problems of dog control. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recently announced proposals for giving local authorities new powers and duties for dealing with these problems. We will be issuing a consultation paper shortly.

  Footpaths
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he intends to provide extra funding for the Countryside Commission to bring all footpaths into good order.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 20 July 1989]: Decisions on funding for 1990–91 have not yet been taken.

  Fiddlers Ferry
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent figures he has on sulphur emissions from Fiddlers Ferry power station.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 20 July 1989]: I am advised by the CEGB that emissions of sulphur dioxide for 1988 were about 150,000 tonnes.

  Nature Conservancy Council
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) where the scientific work on estuaries, heathlands, woodlands, peatland and ornithology will be based once the proposed re-organisation of the Nature Conservancy Council is completed;

  (2) whether he intends to keep intact the Nature Conservancy Council's chief scientist's directorate.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 20 July 1989]: Detailed discussions are now taking place to determine the organisation, complement and geographical location of the bodies which will succeed the Nature Conservancy Council. The Government will ensure that each of the bodies has access to appropriate scientific expertise and hopes that it will be possible for all members of NCC's existing permanent staff to be offered posts by the successor bodies.

  Community Charge, Nottingham
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of what the community charge in Nottingham will be in May 1990.

  Mr. Gummer
  The level of the community charge in Nottingham in 1990 depends on the expenditure levels set by both Nottingham city council and Nottinghamshire county council. I have made no estimate of these and cannot forecast what the community charge might be. Illustrative estimates of charges had the new system been in operation this year were placed in the Library on 19 July.

  Consultative Council on Local Government Finance
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his policy in respect of smoking by participants at meetings of the consultative council on local government finance.

  Mr. Ridley
  [holding answer 20 July 1989]: My policy is freedom within the law.

  Departmental Working Hours
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment during what hours his office is normally open to inquiries from hon. Members and others.

  Mr. Ridley
  [holding answer 20 July 1989]: My office is always open to inquiries during normal working hours—and often well beyond.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment why the office of the Minister for Housing, Environment and Countryside was unmanned on Friday 14 July from 12 noon until 3.30 pm.

  Mr. Ridley
  [holding answer 20 July 1989]: I understand that my noble Friend is writing to my hon. Friend.

  Royal Parks
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has concerning the numbers of applications for permission to use royal 476
  parks property for filming, photography and sound recordings which are dealt with each week by the press office facilities officer of his Department.

  Mr. Ridley
  [holding answer 20 July 1989]: My Department's press office facilities officer—in consultation with the parks and police authorities—deals with about 14 requests a week to use the royal parks, Trafalgar Square, Parliament square and Grosvenor square for the purposes of filming cinema and television dramas, documentaries, commercials and outside broadcasts; and about 30 applications a month for fashion and advertising photography which includes requests for annual passes.

  Major news companies, based in London, hold annual passes for frequent news features and commentaries on camera, mainly on Abingdon street gardens.

  Sound broadcasts are infrequent.

  Bottle Banks
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the proportion of bottle banks per head of population for each London borough.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 20 Jul) 1989]: I understand from the British Glass Manufacturers' Confederation that at the end of March the position was as follows:

  Population per bottle bank (000)

  Barking

  16·6

  Barnet

  60·92

  Bexley

  110

  Brent

  36·41

  Bromley

  59·2

  Camden

  11·47

  Croydon

  20·63

  Ealing

  22·49

  Enfield

  11·52

  Greenwich

  15·4

  Hackney

  26·7

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  16·49

  Haringey

  8

  Harrow

  19·92

  Havering

  15·87

  Hillingdon

  39·27

  Hounslow

  33·16

  Islington

  11

  Kensington and Chelsea

  68

  Kinston upon Thames

  16·72

  Lambeth

  20·42

  Lewisham

  9·67

  Merton

  20·68

  Newham

  21

  Redbridge

  19

  Richmond upon Thames

  8·51

  South wark

  27·12

  Sutton

  18·9

  Tower Hamlets

  21

  Waltham Forest

  26·94

  Wandsworth

  26·8

  Westminster

  8·8

  Clinical Hospital Waste
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether his Department has taken any action on the recommendation by the Environment Select Committee's second report on toxic waste that landfill sites no longer be used to dispose of clinical hospital waste.
  477
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Government response (Cm. 679 April 1989) to the Environment Committee report indicated that clinical wastes should be managed in accordance with guidelines in waste management paper No. 25 which advises that landfill is suitable for only a restricted range of clinical wastes. This advice is currently under review.

  African Elephants
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the intention of Her Majesty's Government as regards entering a reservation on behalf of Hong Kong at the CITES meeting in October when consideration is given to appendix I listing of African elephants.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 20 July 1989]: The Government support the case for the transfer of the African elephant to appendix I. We are in discussion with Hong Kong on the effect of such listing. All relevant issues will be discussed at the conference of the parties to CITES at Lausanne in October.

  Inland Waters (Jet-skis)
  Mr. Onslow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consultation he has had with the Nature Conservancy Council, the Countryside Commission, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the National Anglers' Council and other interested bodies on the environmental impact of the use of jet-skis and similar devices on rivers and other inland waters; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 21 July 1989]: No consultation has taken place with these bodies on the use of jet-skis.

  Housing Starts
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table showing housing starts in each region in the quarter to April, showing the percentage change in starts from the quarter ended April 1988.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 21 July 1989]: Housebuilding starts for regions in England in the three months to April 1989 and the corresponding period a year earlier are given in the table.

  Housebuilding starts in thousands

  February to April

  1988

  1989

  Percentage change

  North

  2·4

  2·5

  + 2

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  4·4

  4·2

  -4

  East Midlands

  5·8

  4·7

  -19

  East Anglia

  4·4

  3·5

  -19

  South East:

  Greater London

  3·5

  4·0

  + 13

  Rest of South East

  16·5

  12·0

  -27

  South West

  6·9

  5·4

  -22

  West Midlands

  5·5

  4·0

  -28

  North West

  4·7

  4·8

  + 1

  England

  54·1

  45·1

  -17

  Housing Action Trust (Southwark)
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the policies of the proposed housing action trust in Southwark on rent arrears.

  Mr. Trippier
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave her on Wednesday 19 July at column 213.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if the proposed housing action trust in Southwark would be able to accept transfer applications from Southwark council tenants;

  (2) what effect would the creation of the proposed housing action trust in Southwark have on the rehousing, if places became available, of those tenants of the North Peckham and Gloucester grove estates, currently on Southwark council waiting lists.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 21 July 1989]: These would be matters for discussion between Southwark council and a trust.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment in the event of a housing action trust being created, what requirement would be placed on the trust to accept a share of homeless cases in Southwark.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 21 July 1989]: Where a local housing authority requested a trust's assistance in discharging certain of its responsibilities towards the homeless, section 70 of the Housing Act 1988 would require the trust to co-operate in rendering reasonable assistance.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of the membership of the proposed housing action trust board in Southwark would be tenants from either the Gloucester grove or North Peckham estates.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 21 July 1989]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave her on 19 July, at column 213.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he intends to take to ensure the independence of action of the members of the proposed housing action trust board in Southwark.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 21 July 1989]: The trust would itself be responsible for day-to-day decisions. Members will also be appointed for a number of years, fixed in advance. I would expect all of them to play a full part in helping to achieve a trust's objectives.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether there will be any limitations on the time the proposed housing action trust in Southwark could continue to exist.

  Mr. Trippier
  Section 88 of the Housing Act 1988 requires a housing action trust to use its best endeavours to secure that its objects are achieved as soon as practicable.

  Council Rents
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will list the estimated council rent rises assessed by his Department on the formula relating them to local house values.
  479
  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 21 July 1989]: The policy announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 14 June concerned a proposed mechanism for determining annual rent guidelines for local authorities by reference to the value of their housing stock. The mechanism does not in itself imply any particular levels of rents.

  Gipsy Sites
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many designated gipsy sites there are in England and Wales; and if he will list them by county area.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 21 July 1989]: The number of local authorities in England which are designated under the Caravan Sites Act 1968 is as follows: 94 shire districts, 10 metropolitan districts and 22 London boroughs. In these areas local authorities currently provide 130 sites for gipsies. There are a further 128 gipsy sites provided by local authorities in areas that have not been designated under the Caravan Sites Act. There are also some authorised privately operated sites in some areas, but information is not available on numbers of these.

  My Department publishes a list of gipsy sites provided by local authorities in England and I will send a copy to the hon. Member. Gipsy sites in Wales are the responsibility of the Welsh Office.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Recycled Paper
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if, pursuant to his answer of 4 July,Official Report, column 154, he will make it his policy to take into account environmental considerations when deciding what is to qualify as first-class stationery; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The Accommodation and Administrative Sub-Committee is already fully aware of the need to take into account the environmental implications of decisions concerning the type of paper used in the House. Apart from its instructions to Her Majesty's Stationery Office and the authorities of the House to be kept informed of developments in relation to the use of recycled paper, the Sub-Committee is also engaged in consultations with the Department of Trade and Industry about the suitability of using paper containing recycled material for first class stationery.

  Green Card Requests
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will look into ways of shortening the time it takes for green card requests for personal interviews to reach hon. Members.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee recently agreed to a revised form of green card which is designed to facilitate speedier handling. Responsibility for the day-to-day management of this service lies, however, with the Serjeant at Arms and if the hon. Member has any specific complaint or suggestion to make he is advised in the first instance to consult the Serjeant at Arms.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Director of Public Prosecutions
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Attorney-General when he last met the Director of Public Prosecutions; and what matters were discussed.

  The Solicitor-General
  On 10 July. We discussed a matter of departmental interest.

  European Court of Human Rights
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Attorney-General when he last visited the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

  The Attorney-General
  I represented the Government at the oral hearing of the Soering case on 24 April this year.

  Legal Profession (Reform)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Attorney-General (1) if he has received any representations from the Leicestershire Law Society concerning the effects on the network of national solicitors' offices of the proposals in "The Future of the Legal Profession"; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he has received any representations from the Leicestershire Law Society concerning the takeover rate by insurance companies, building societies and other such institutions of estate agent firms; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  The Lord Chancellor has received representations from the Leicestershire Law Society in connection with his Green Papers on the future of the legal profession. The White Paper "Legal Services: A Framework for the Future" (Cm 740) published on 19 July describes the Government's decisions on the proposals in the Green Papers and its plans for legislation.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will list the organisations which have responded to the document entitled "The Future of the Legal Profession"; which organisations(a) favour and (b) oppose the proposals; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  The Lord Chancellor's three Green Papers published in January—"The Work and Organisation of the Legal Profession", "Contingency Fees" and "Conveyancing by Authorised Practitioners"—have been treated collectively as his papers on the future of the legal profession. They contained a variety of proposals and options. Over 2,000 responses were received from individuals and organisations. They included comments for and against some or all of the points raised. There would therefore be little benefit to be gained from seeking to construct a list of those for and against them as a whole. The White Paper "Legal Services: A Framework for the Future" (Cm. 740) published on 19 July contains a synopsis of the responses. The Lord Chancellor has also arranged, where authors have consented, for copies of all responses (except those which dealt only with personal cases) to be made available for inspection in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament, in the Supreme Court library and on written application, in his Department's headquarters.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the achievements of his Department and his policies in helping small businesses over the last 12 months compared with the previous 12 months; and if he will publish the performance indicators by which his Department monitors those achievements and the statistical results of such monitoring.

  The Attorney-General
  As the Government's principal legal adviser, I should regard it as my duty to provide ministerial colleagues with legal advice relating to small businesses if required. However, my Department, in the nature of its work, has no direct or particular responsibility towards small businesses as such.

  Malicious Communications Act 1988
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Attorney-General how many prosecutions were brought under the Malicious Communications Act 1988 in the London metropolitan area; and what was their outcome.

  The Attorney-General
  I regret that such information is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

EMPLOYMENT

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the total number and proportion of 16 and 17-year-olds in the northern region and Durham in full-time employment or recognised training schemes or unemployed.

  Mr. Cope
  Data for each of the groups requested, on a comparable basis, is available only from the labour force survey. Preliminary estimates from the 1988 LFS are shown in the following table:

  16 and 17 year olds—Northern region Spring 1988, thousands and percent

  000's

  Per cent.3

  (i) employees and self-employed in full-time1 employment

  15

  16·2

  (ii) on government employment and training programmes

  16

  17·2

  (iii) unemployed2

  11

  11·8

  1 Based on respondents own assessments, not on the number of hours worked.

  2 ILO/OECD definition.

  3 As percentage of all 16 and 17 year olds.

  Source: 1988 LFS, Preliminary results.

  The LFS is a survey of private households based on a sample large enough to provide estimates at national and regional level. However, it cannot provide estimates for smaller areas, such as Durham.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish in the Official Report the number and percentage increase or decrease in employment in the United Kingdom and the European Community as a whole between 1979 and the latest year for which figures are available, giving the total, full-time employment and part-time employment separately.
  482
  Mr. Lee
  Employment estimates are not yet available for many EC countries after 1987. The changes in total civilian employment for the United Kingdom and the EC as a whole between 1979 and 1987 are shown in the table. A breakdown of these figures between full-time and part-time employment is not available.

  Change in Civilian Employment: 1979 to 1987

  Thousand

  per cent.

  United Kingdom

  -19

  -0·1

  EC12

  + 701

  + 0·6

  Sources: United Kingdom (ED), Other EC countries (EUROSTAT)

  Youth Training Scheme
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give, for Great Britain and each training agency area or employment service or careers service area, the number of people of YTS eligible age, at the latest available date, registered with jobcentres or the careers service who were awaiting an offer of a YTS place.

  Mr. Lee
  Only local careers services hold information on the total number of young people awaiting the offer of a YTS place. There is no central record.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if training and enterprise councils may vary the financial terms and conditions of trainees on (i) ET or (ii) YTS; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  The detailed arrangements for ET and YTS under training and enterprise councils are currently under consideration. Announcements will be made in due course.

  Construction Training
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what were the average earnings for construction workers in the various trades in the south-east London area over the last five years.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Information is not available at the level of detail requested.

  Training (Accidents)
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the accident rate per 100,000 trainees on employment training.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The provisional rate for all accidents in employment training is 556 per 100,000 trainees.

  TVEI
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has for the expansion of the technical and vocational education initiative scheme.

  Mr. Cope
  The extension of the technical and vocational education initiative (TVEI) was announced in July 1986, setting aside £900 million over a ten-year period. Since 1987, 48 education authorities have already begun to introduce TVEI into their schools and colleges. Another 32 authorities will join this September and by the early 1990s, all schools and colleges will be participating and all pupils aged 14–18 should be influenced by TVEI.

  Tourist Attractions (Cornwall)
  Mr. Mudd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the top 20 tourist attractions in Cornwall in numbers visiting or attending; and if he will indicate the numbers, in each instance, for the previous comparable year.

  Mr. Lee
  The English Tourist Board's annual survey of visits to attractions gives the following figures for Cornwall in 1987 and 1988:

  Number of visits

  1987

  1988

  Truro Cathedral

  250,000

  250,000

  Mount Edgcumbe Country Park

  —

  200,000

  St. Agnes Leisure Park

  200,000

  200,000

  World in Miniature, Goonhavern

  195,000

  200,000

  Dobwall's Theme Park

  135,000

  190,000

  Newquay Zoo

  143,482

  186,000

  St. Michael's Mount

  172,975

  175,815

  Tintagel Castle

  135,935

  134,386

  Tescan Ltd (Tannery) Redruth

  —

  112,000

  Cotehele House

  79,937

  81,456

  Trelissick Garden, Nr Truro

  69,522

  75,244

  Pendennis Castle, Falmouth

  63,412

  70,739

  Goonhilly Satellite Earth Station

  56,684

  63,000

  Dairyland, Newquay

  60,000

  56,940

  Tintagel Old Post Office

  49,673

  55,048

  Trerice

  53,241

  52,250

  Callestock Cider Farm, Penhallow

  21,544

  50,000

  Monkey Sanctuary, Looe

  53,700

  48,000

  Padstow Tropical Bird Garden

  30,000

  43,000

  Charlestown Visitor Centre

  38,700

  40,250

  Action Plans completed by ET Training Agents: September 1988 to March 1989

  Agreed Action Plans

  Area Office

  September 1988

  October 1988

  November 1988

  December 1988

  January 1989

  February 1989

  March 1989

  South East Region

  Berkshire and Oxfordshire

  242

  798

  0

  922

  514

  450

  418

  Buckinghamshire and Hertfordshire

  219

  294

  763

  411

  429

  520

  500

  Essex

  227

  550

  525

  1,051

  632

  748

  989

  Hampshire and Isle of Wight

  411

  487

  679

  409

  717

  670

  772

  Kent

  32

  610

  1,159

  488

  714

  652

  596

  Surrey

  102

  223

  174

  615

  190

  0

  196

  Sussex

  0

  682

  900

  470

  555

  652

  695

  London Region

  Inner London North

  505

  1,196

  1,545

  1,606

  1,651

  1,799

  2,090

  Inner London South

  510

  655

  616

  539

  645

  718

  736

  London East

  793

  735

  805

  670

  972

  1,117

  1,092

  London North

  732

  857

  935

  846

  858

  970

  996

  London South

  280

  320

  479

  340

  423

  542

  543

  London West

  591

  867

  811

  676

  900

  912

  952

  South West Region

  Avon

  238

  361

  411

  327

  453

  506

  489

  Devon and Cornwall

  665

  692

  1,244

  795

  1,294

  615

  1,192

  Dorset and Somerset

  418

  478

  386

  332

  342

  516

  471

  Gloucester and Wiltshire

  357

  546

  560

  433

  390

  479

  536

  West Midlands Region

  Birmingham and Solihull

  935

  1,026

  1,201

  756

  1,553

  1,685

  1,382

  Coventry and Warwickshire

  378

  617

  576

  322

  638

  812

  748

  Dudley and Sandwell

  818

  769

  899

  1,021

  978

  1,059

  1,416

  Staffordshire

  541

  906

  434

  1,145

  1,128

  929

  1,192

  The Marches, Hereford/Worcester

  0

  710

  677

  954

  406

  613

  1,330

  Wolverhampton and Walsall

  0

  1,055

  1,913

  308

  706

  821

  754

  Health and Safety
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he intends to make any regulations to provide for annual reports published under the Companies Act 1967 to contain information about the arrangements for securing the health, safety and welfare at work of employees of a company and its subsidiaries as provided in section 79 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974.

  Mr. Nicholls
  My right hon. Friend has asked the Health and Safety Commission to advise him whether regulations should be made under section 235 of the Companies Act 1985 which replaced the 1967 Companies Act and section 79 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974.

  Employment Training
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what organisations have been granted ET training agent contracts; what were the planned volumes of trainees between September 1988 and March 1989; what are the planned volumes between April 1989 and August 1989; how many trainees have been referred to ET training agents; and how many action plans have been agreed at the end of each month since September 1989, for each Training Agency area.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [pursuant to his reply, 12 June 1989, c. 285–90]: I regret that there was an error in the original reply. The error is in table 2—Action plans completed by Employment Training training agents: September 1988 to March 1989. The figures provided for Northern region were monthly cumulative figures rather than in-month totals. The correct figures for the table are as follows:
  485

  Agreed Action Plans

  Area Office

  September 1988

  October 1988

  November 1988

  December 1988

  January 1989

  February 1989

  March 1989

  East Midlands and Eastern Region

  Bedfordshire and Cambridgeshire

  502

  484

  520

  331

  400

  426

  362

  Derbyshire

  704

  742

  743

  501

  582

  677

  743

  Leicestershire and Northamptonshire

  499

  607

  604

  551

  718

  719

  736

  Lincolnshire

  192

  251

  267

  154

  296

  359

  313

  Norfolk and Suffolk

  586

  625

  652

  426

  753

  641

  961

  Nottinghamshire

  602

  909

  853

  669

  937

  923

  851

  Yorkshire and Humberside Region

  Bradford, Calderdale and Kirklees

  758

  944

  1,439

  911

  1,123

  1,186

  1,316

  Humberside

  858

  821

  791

  847

  949

  970

  938

  North Yorkshire and Leeds

  621

  826

  752

  743

  777

  1,035

  1,002

  Sheffield and Rotherham

  1,078

  1,387

  1,382

  961

  1,459

  1,236

  1,043

  Wakefield, Doncaster and Barnsley

  861

  1,154

  1,296

  990

  1,501

  1,547

  1,265

  North West Region

  Cheshire

  809

  826

  901

  588

  773

  951

  699

  Cumbria

  267

  280

  406

  269

  315

  377

  373

  Lancashire

  937

  1,050

  955

  943

  1,090

  1,164

  1,279

  Central Manchester

  597

  685

  945

  936

  954

  984

  837

  Greater Manchester North

  395

  699

  711

  423

  821

  834

  894

  Greater Manchester East

  484

  904

  784

  488

  604

  875

  913

  Merseyside

  630

  1,386

  1,715

  1,504

  1,995

  2,315

  2,220

  Northern Region

  Cleveland

  1,404

  1,229

  1,141

  799

  1,624

  1,764

  1,503

  County Durham

  1,027

  894

  897

  626

  1,014

  1,254

  1,060

  Northumberland, North Tyneside and Newcastle

  602

  962

  1,104

  849

  1,086

  1,258

  1,275

  Sunderland, South Tyneside and Gateshead

  1,356

  1,266

  1,325

  1,323

  1,349

  1,536

  1,488

  Wales

  Dyfed and West Glamorgan

  524

  759

  922

  749

  909

  930

  949

  Gwent

  268

  348

  536

  282

  747

  779

  681

  Gwynned, Clwyd and Powys

  309

  458

  545

  546

  573

  679

  497

  Mid and South Glamorgan

  826

  935

  1,073

  856

  951

  1,302

  1,301

  Scotland

  Ayrshire, Dumfries and Galloway

  550

  706

  895

  832

  802

  1,003

  826

  Central and Fife

  429

  459

  710

  603

  594

  832

  573

  Glasgow City

  828

  958

  1,263

  1,160

  1,198

  1,463

  1,915

  Grampian and Tayside

  937

  817

  825

  726

  918

  1,018

  1,267

  Highlands and Islands

  158

  207

  301

  351

  397

  400

  308

  Lanarkshire

  301

  649

  710

  480

  639

  800

  803

  Lothian and Borders

  604

  766

  1,269

  757

  805

  824

  940

  Renfrew, Dumbarton and Argyll

  339

  397

  607

  576

  770

  1,000

  1,122

  Note: Some months show no agreed action plans because of computer difficulties. Action plans agreed in the months are recorded in subsequent months.

  Child Care
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, what measures he is taking to encourage the provision of child care facilities in the work place; and what information he has on how many firms and Government offices currently provide such facilities.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 5 July 1989]: My right hon. Friend takes every opportunity to encourage employers to help employees combine work and family responsibilities. Work place nurseries are one possible way of helping parents with childcare although it will not necessarily be the most appropriate in all cases. Other possibilities include help with childcare costs in the local home area and rearrangement of working hours and holidays to fit in with school hours and terms.

  My right hon. Friend does not have comprehensive information on the extent of employer-assisted childcare outside Government Departments but the indications are
  486
  that such provision is growing. In the Civil Service 15 departments provide holiday play schemes for the children of their staff. Two new inter-departmental schemes began in Westminster during the spring 1989 half-term. In addition two schemes were launched by the DSS during the Easter holidays: one at the Elephant and Castle and one, with the Department of Employment, in Coventry. The Departments of Employment and Social Security have set up "care-parents" schemes and the Ministry of Defence and the Home Office are both developing nursery schemes for the under-fives.

  I also take a full part in the ministerial group on women's issues which is currently considering the whole question of childcare provision and which recently issued a five-point plan designed to pave the way for the provision of childcare to suit family needs.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Army-Police Operations
  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many helicopter flying hours were available during June in support of army police operations from Newtownbutler and Rosslea Royal Ulster Constabulary stations in south-east Fermanagh.

  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many helicopter flying hours were required in support of the operation to dismantle the Lacky bridge permanent vehicle checkpoint.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  It is not the practice to comment on operational matters of this sort.

  Terrorist Activity (Fermanagh)
  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people have died as a result of terrorist activity in south-east Fermanagh since 1970.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  Since 1970, 30 persons are believed to have died as a result of terrorist activity in the south-east Fermanagh area.

  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many terrorists have been convicted of murders in south-east Fermanagh since 1970.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  Two.

  Helicopters (Fermanagh)
  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if there are any plans to increase the number of helicopter flying hours available for army-police operations to be carried out from Newtownbutler and Rosslea Royal Ulster Constabulary stations.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  This is an operational matter for local security force commanders, in the light of the current terrorist threat and security force operations to meet that threat. If the threat increases in any given area, additional helicopter hours can be allocated to that area.

  Lacky Bridge Checkpoint
  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if the opinion of elected representatives or the community leaders in south-east Fermanagh was sought before dismantling the Lacky bridge permanent vehicle checkpoint.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  Operational security matters are not normally the subject of advance public consultation but this matter was given careful consideration and consultation between the chief constable and the general office commanding in the light of all available information.

  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what consultation was carried out with the Royal Ulster Constabulary concerning the dismantling of the Lacky bridge permanent vehicle checkpoint; and what was the Royal Ulster Constabulary's response to the decision to dismantle.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  As in all security issues this matter was the subject of careful consideration between the chief 488
  constable and the general office commanding. It is not the practice to comment on the details of consultations on security matters.

  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what was the cost(a) to the Army and (b) to the Royal Ulster Constabulary of the operation to dismantle the Lacky bridge permanent vehicle checkpoint;

  (2) what would be, at current prices, the cost of re-establishing the Lacky bridge permanent vehicle checkpoint.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  It is not the practice to comment on the cost of security operations. But there was no significant additional cost incurred by the Army during the operation to dismantle the Lacky bridge permanent vehicle checkpoint. The Royal Ulster Constabulary was not involved.

  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the Lacky bridge permanent vehicle checkpoint was dismantled; and which elected representatives in Fermanagh and South Tyrone were notified from the Northern Ireland Office by letter or otherwise of the intention to do so.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  The permanent vehicle checkpoint at Lacky bridge was dismantled between 4 and 7 July. It was my intention to speak to the hon. Gentleman prior to this happening but he became aware of it in advance from another source.

  Checkpoints (Fermanagh)
  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when permanent vehicle checkpoints were erected in south-east Fermanagh; and how many terrorist murders have been committed in that area since that time.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  Permanent vehicle checkpoints were erected in the south-east Fermanagh area in October 1980; since that time six murders are believed to have been carried out by terrorists.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the achievements of his Department and his policies in helping small businesses over the last 12 months compared with the previous 12 months; and if he will publish the performance indicators by which his Department monitors those achievements and the statistical results of such monitoring.

  Mr. Viggers
  The Government are committed to maximising the contribution that small firms can make to strengthening the Northern Ireland economy. A major priority is to help the Province's small businesses to prepare for the completion of the single European market. The publicly funded local enterprise development unit (LEDU) offers support to firms employing up to 50 who are establishing or expanding their businesses. For the year ended 31 March 1989, LEDU achieved record levels of activity, surpassing for the eighth successive year the performance of previous years in terms of jobs promoted.

  The main performance indicators used, and the results achieved for the past two years, are as follows—
  489

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Number of jobs promoted

  4,570

  5,004

  Cost per job promoted

  £4520

  £4518

  Percentage public contribution to total project cost

  36 per cent.

  32 per cent.

  Trading Standards Officers
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many trading standards officers there are in each local authority area.

  Mr. Viggers
  The trading standards service in Northern Ireland is a central Government function and is the responsibility of the Department of Economic Development.

  Branch headquarters are located at Newtownbreda near Belfast and there are local offices in Armagh, Ballymena, Coleraine, Enniskillen, Londonderry and Newry. The inspectorate, known as trading standards officers, comprises 20 qualified staff including the chief inspector. Of these, 13 are located at headquarters and the remainder at the outstations.

  Permanent Secretaries (Correspondence)
  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the people whom he does not permit to correspond with the permanent secretaries of the various Northern Ireland departments.

  Mr. Tom King
  None. I should however be grateful if, in accordance with the normal well-understood practice, hon. Members who wish to raise with Northern Ireland departmental headquarters matters for which Ministers are responsible to Parliament would correspond with the appropriate Minister rather than with an official. I have requested permanent secretaries to draw this to the attention of an hon. Member if he is not following the usual procedure and to ask him to correspond directly with the responsible Minister. This will ensure that matters which are raised by constituents through their Members of Parliament receive the most prompt and proper attention.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Immigration
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for each of the past five years, and the figure for the current year to date, of refusals to enter the United Kingdom in which primary purpose is part or the whole reason for(a) husbands, (b) wives, (c) fiancés and (d) fiancés seeking entry to join their partners with existing rights of stay in the United Kingdom, for each immigration post abroad.

  Mr. Renton
  The information requested is available only for posts in the Indian subcontinent and is given in the following table. Where the numbers are small, the figures for individual posts have been combined. Information on refusals which takes account of successful appeals is not compiled for periods shorter than 12 months.
  490

  Spouses and fiance(e)s in the Indian sub-continent refused1 entry clearance to the United Kingdom solely or partly because the primary purpose of the marriage was to obtain admission to the United Kingdom

  Number of persons

  11984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  New Delhi (including Calcutta)

  Husbands

  80

  50

  120

  110

  100

  Fiances

  320

  230

  270

  190

  170

  Wives

  —

  —

  2—

  2—

  10

  Fiancees

  —

  —

  20

  40

  50

  Bombay (including Madras)

  Husbands

  60

  50

  110

  120

  100

  Fiances

  120

  150

  210

  160

  160

  Wives

  —

  —

  2—

  10

  10

  Fiancees

  —

  —

  2—

  20

  20

  Dhaka

  Husbands

  20

  50

  30

  30

  80

  Fiances

  2—

  2—

  10

  2—

  10

  Wives

  —

  —

  —

  —

  20

  Fiancees

  —

  —

  2—

  —

  2

  Islamabad (including Karachi)

  Husbands

  70

  50

  120

  270

  480

  Fiances

  310

  320

  350

  320

  430

  Wives

  —

  —

  2—

  2—

  10

  Fiancees

  —

  —

  2—

  20

  2—

  Total Indian sub-continent

  Husbands

  230

  190

  370

  530

  760

  Fiances

  750

  710

  840

  680

  770

  Wives

  —

  —

  10

  20

  40

  Fiancees

  —

  —

  30

  80

  80

  1 Data for 1984 relate to person refused initially; data for subsequent years take account of successful appeals.

  2 Five or fewer.

  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many immigration inspectors are employed by his Department and where each is based; what is the comparable rank of(a) an immigration inspector and (b) officials taking decisions on deportation or leave to remain (i) in Lunar house and (ii) elsewhere within the Home Office; and what grade officer was required to take a decision to make a deportation order before he delegated his deportation decision-making functions to immigration inspectors.

  Mr. Renton
  [holding answer 17 July 1989]: On 30 June 1989, 52 immigration inspectors were in post at the following locations:

  Number

  Immigration Service Headquarters

  10

  Heathrow Terminal 1

  4

  Heathrow Terminal 2

  4

  Heathrow Terminal 3

  4

  Heathrow Terminal 4

  4

  Intelligence Unit, Harmondsworth

  3

  Technical Unit, Harmondsworth

  1

  Appeals Unit, Harmondsworth

  1

  Training Unit, Harmondsworth

  1

  Gatwick

  4

  Gatwick North

  2

  Isis House

  2

  Glasgow

  1

  Leeds Bradford Airport

  1

  Manchester

  1

  Birmingham

  1

  Harwich

  1

  Dover East

  3

  Dover West

  2

  Southampton

  1

  491

  Number

  Cardiff

  1

  Total

  52

  The level at which decisions are taken in immigration cases varies according to the complexity of the type of case. However, decisions to issue a notice of intention to deport under section 3(5)(a) of the Immigration Act 1971 may be taken by officials of at least inspector level in the immigration service (whose grade equivalent is senior executive officer) or at least higher executive officer level in the deportation section. Similar decisions under section 3(5)(b) and (c) may be taken at not less than senior executive officer level in the deportation section. Decisions to grant further leave to remain may be taken by officials of at least administration officer level in the Immigration and Nationality Department; and decisions to refuse leave to remain may be taken at not less than executive officer level. The levels at which decisions are taken in the deportation section remain the same as they were before the decision to delegate certain functions to immigration inspectors.

  Privacy Committee
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what factors influenced the decision to limit the Privacy Committee's terms of reference to the problems of privacy caused by the press and media; what areas indicated in his original announcement of the Committee on 21 April,Official Report, column 593, are not included; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  As I made clear in the debate on 21 April at column 593 the precise terms of reference of the committee to review privacy and related matters were then still under consideration. They have been limited to the press because it is the activities of some sections of that industry that have caused such wide concern recently, and because the Government considered that the review should be carried out speedily.

  HIV (Prisons)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners are known to be HIV positive; and in which prisons they are held.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  On 30 June 1989, 63 prisoners were known to be HIV antibody positive from tests carried out before or after they came into custody. Of these prisoners, nine were located in establishments in the north region, 10 in the Midland region, five in the south-west region and 39 in the south-east region. For reasons of medical confidentiality, it is not our practice to disclose the number of current cases in individual establishments.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many tests for HIV antibodies were carried out in prisons in England and Wales in the last year for which figures are available; and how many were positive;

  (2) what steps are taken to encourage prisoners to volunteer for HIV antibody testing;

  (3) what steps are taken to safeguard the confidentiality of the results of HIV positive antibody tests in prisons.
  492
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  HIV antibody tests are freely available to prisoners, as they are to people in the outside community. Whether a test is advised in an individual case is a matter for the clinical discretion of the prison medical officer. In the 12 months ended 30 June 1989, 30 positive results were reported from tests carried out after the prisoners concerned came into custody. Negative results are not reported. Medical officers and their health care staff apply the normal rules of medical confidentiality to the test results and related diagnoses.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many times the AIDS videos for(a) prison staff and (b) prisoners have been shown in each prison establishment in England and Wales since they have been available.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Information in the form requested is not available. The staff training video is shown to all new entrant prison officers, and governors have been set a target for the training year ending March 1990 of showing it to all operational staff who have not attended a showing previously. The minimum target for the same year for showing the educational video for prisoners to those who wish to see it is to arrange at least one showing to every prisoner who has been or is expected to be in custody for four weeks or longer.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if it is his policy to restrict the location and activities of HIV positive prisoners; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what is the purpose of current viral infectivity restrictions in Her Majesty's prisons in England and Wales.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Our policy is to enable identified HIV antibody positive prisoners who are well to play as full a part in prison life as possible. However, having regard to the responsibilities of the prison service towards other prisoners and to staff, it has been thought right in the circumstances obtaining in England and Wales to enable medical officers to take precautions which may limit access to some regime activity. The main recommended restriction is location in single accommodation or communal accommodation shared with other identified HIV antibody positive prisoners. The medical officer may also restrict participation in activities which run the risk of physical injury such as work with machinery or sharp objects, and physical contact sports.

  The system of viral infectivity restrictions (VIR), which is also applied to prisoners with other infective conditions, has a secondary purpose of enabling local management to disclose a prisoner's VIR status, but not the actual diagnosis, to operational staff who are considered to have a "need to know". Experience in England and Wales is that this practice has been valuable in giving psychological reassurance to staff.

  Further guidance on the application of VIR is planned to encourage local management to place more VIP. prisoners in non-specialised locations and to widen opportunities for participation in normal regime activity.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what arrangements are made for clinical and psychological monitoring and care of HIV positive prisoners in England and Wales;

  (2) what arrangements are made for the continuing care of HIV positive prisoners after their release from prison;
  493
  (3) what counselling is available for HIV positive and AIDS prisoners.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The health care management of HIV antibody positive prisoners, including arrangements to ensure as far as possible that appropriate health care continues after release, is a responsibility of prison medical officers which they exercise in consultation with appropriate NHS specialists taking account of broad policy guidelines from the director of prison medical services. For the provision of counselling services they have access both to prison service staff who have been trained in HIV counselling and to outside agencies which provide such services.

  The director of prison medical service plans to issue further guidance on the clinical care of HIV infected prisoners. The importance of psychological monitoring will be stressed.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his policy for the provision of care and support units for prisoners with AIDS-related illness.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The need is recognised for medical facilities in each prison service region which will be capable of giving short or longer-term care and support to prisoners with AIDS, AIDS-related illness or other infectious illness, whose condition does not require admission to the specialised facilities of the National Health Service. A purpose-designed unit is planned for Brixton prison. Hospital accommodation with suitable facilities at other establishments will also be used to fulfil the care and support function.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current programme for training of prison staff at all levels in relation to their responsibilities

  Isis House

  (i)

  (ii)

  (iii)

  (iv)

  (v)

  (vi)

  Illegal entrants

  Deportation orders served

  Seaman deserters

  Overstayers and workers in breach

  Notices of intention to deport served on those in (iv and v)

  1988

  January

  97

  19

  —

  48

  27

  February

  83

  12

  1

  50

  33

  March

  82

  19

  —

  61

  33

  April

  82

  8

  1

  42

  25

  May

  103

  22

  3

  53

  42

  June

  82

  17

  —

  52

  33

  July

  56

  5

  1

  49

  33

  August

  68

  13

  —

  55

  49

  September

  57

  21

  —

  65

  59

  October

  70

  16

  —

  79

  69

  November

  93

  16

  2

  134

  128

  December

  72

  12

  —

  119

  106

  (i)

  (ii)

  (iii)

  (iv)

  (v)

  (vi)

  Illegal entrants

  Deportation orders served

  Seaman deserters

  Overstayers

  Workers in breach

  Notices of intention to deport served on those in (iv) and (v)

  (iv)

  (v)

  1989

  January

  48

  19

  2

  61

  39

  61

  36

  February

  96

  12

  1

  68

  71

  66

  68

  March

  78

  17

  —

  81

  28

  76

  27

  April

  99

  20

  2

  70

  30

  69

  28

  May

  67

  19

  —

  59

  27

  58

  22

  June

  63

  17

  —

  46

  20

  46

  15

  494
  for the care of prisoners who have been diagnosed HIV positive, including those who may have developed AIDS-related illness.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Locally organised training programmes directed at operational staff provide basic health and safety information and ana understanding of the nature of AIDS and HIV infection at a level appropriate to their task of managing infected prisoners with no signs or symptoms of illness. Most training of health care staff is also arranged locally but will often include attendance at external courses and detachments to local NHS hospitals. External AIDS counselling courses have been attended by prison service staff from a variety of disciplines.

  The director of prison medical services plans to develop further training programmes for medical officers and other health care staff tailored to their specific needs.

  Immigration Offences
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many suspected immigration offenders against whom action was taken by officers in each month since January 1988, at(a) Isis house and (b) Harmondsworth were (i) alleged illegal entrants, (ii) the subjects of deportation orders, (iii) seaman deserters, (iv) overstayers, (v) people working in breach of conditions and (vi) claimed British nationality; and how many in each category were served with notices of intention to deport (1) by officers within the immigration service and (2) by officials within the immigration and nationality department.

  Mr. Renton
  The available information is set out in the table:
  495

  Immigration Service intelligence and investigation unit

  (i)

  (ii)

  (iii)

  (iv)

  (v)

  (vi)

  Illegal entrants

  Deportation orders served

  Seaman deserters

  Overstayers

  Workers in breach

  Notices of intention to deport served on those in

  (iv)

  (v)

  1988

  January

  73

  13

  0

  24

  25

  72

  0

  February

  72

  11

  0

  21

  36

  March

  99

  12

  1

  27

  34

  April

  253

  27

  0

  66

  63

  53

  0

  May

  June

  July

  208

  16

  1

  n/a

  n/a

  94

  (iv+v)

  August

  September

  October

  271

  20

  1

  n/a

  n/a

  185

  (iv+v)

  November

  December

  1989

  January

  108

  5

  0

  37

  57

  153

  109

  February

  107

  7

  1

  63

  47

  March

  146

  8

  0

  54

  43

  April

  123

  8

  1

  35

  21

  99

  40

  May

  76

  13

  2

  41

  14

  June

  101

  10

  1

  27

  23

  n/a=Not available.

  Notes:

  No figures are available to show the number of offenders who may have claimed British nationality.

  Column (ii) Some of those served with a deportation order may also have been served with a notice of intention to deport previously but no details are available.

  Column (vi) All notices were served by members of the Immigration Service either before 1 August 1988 on the authority of an official in the Immigration and Nationality Department (IND), or after 1 August 1988 on the authority of an Immigration Inspector or an official within IND. The breakdown of information on a port basis is not available and could not be obtained without disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many times in each month since January 1988, immigration officers at(a) Isis house and (b) Harmondsworth took action as a result of (i) police call-outs, (ii) denunciations, (iii) Home Office file inquiries, (iv) information provided by other Government agencies,

  Isis House

  Offenders identified from the following sources:

  (i)

  (ii)

  (iii)

  (iv)

  (v)

  Police call-outs

  Denunciations

  Home Office files

  Other inquiries and Government agencies

  Major or middle tier operations

  1988

  January

  80

  46

  17

  21

  —

  February

  80

  51

  15

  —

  4,320

  March

  90

  67

  17

  —

  12

  April

  71

  47

  11

  4

  —

  May

  70

  35

  20

  11

  45

  June

  85

  50

  16

  —

  —

  July

  55

  30

  10

  6

  —

  August

  73

  43

  —

  20

  —

  September

  100

  30

  7

  6

  —

  October

  100

  40

  15

  10

  —

  November

  170

  49

  20

  6

  —

  December

  Information not available

  1989

  January

  111

  13

  21

  3

  21

  February

  156

  38

  18

  2

  37

  March

  118

  29

  21

  36

  3

  April

  137

  26

  21

  40

  —

  May

  105

  34

  25

  15

  —

  June

  108

  19

  23

  12

  —

  496
  (v) information arising from a major or middle tier operation and (vi) information arising as a consequence of another inquiry.

  Mr. Renton
  The available information is set out in the table:
  497
  Notes:

  Column (iv)—This column relates to both information derived from other Government agencies and from other inquiries.

  Column (v)—Some of these cases were referred for action by the Immigration and Nationality Department headquarters—eg the figure of 4,320 relates to students enrolled at a college under investigation in February 1988.

  Immigration service intelligence and investigation unit, Harmondsworth

  Offenders identified from the following sources

  (i)

  (ii)

  (iii)

  (iv)

  (v)

  (vi)

  Police call-outs

  Denunciations

  Home Office files

  Other Government agencies

  Major or middle tier operations

  Other enquiries

  1988

  January

  87

  24

  53

  n/a

  20

  0

  February

  69

  27

  40

  n/a

  18

  2

  March

  75

  23

  55

  n/a

  18

  3

  April

  203

  58

  113

  n/a

  34

  1

  May

  June

  July

  216

  61

  131

  n/a

  41

  3

  August

  September

  October

  270

  75

  102

  n/a

  60

  0

  November

  December

  1989

  January

  95

  40

  15

  n/a

  28

  16

  February

  134

  36

  24

  n/a

  3

  18

  March

  94

  30

  24

  n/a

  54

  9

  April

  117

  14

  18

  n/a

  0

  27

  May

  83

  21

  20

  n/a

  3

  7

  June

  97

  12

  15

  n/a

  20

  9

  Asylum-Seekers
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how often and in what circumstances the immigration and nationality department discloses information held on computer about asylum-seekers and their families to(a) past, current or prospective employers and employees, (b) other members of their families, (c) advisers and advice workers, (d) the Department of Social Security, (e) other Government Departments, (f) police forces, (g) judges, magistrates and the courts, (h) the prison and probation services, (i) education establishments, (j) public libraries, the press and media, (k) the registrar general and (l) hon. Members of the House of Lords; and whether asylum-seekers are told that information collected from and about them is liable to be disclosed in this way.

  Mr. Renton
  Information on individual asylum seekers is treated in strict confidence. Information which is held on the refugee index is used for statistical purposes and as an aid to case workers in the Home Office's refugee unit. There is no disclosure from it outside Government of information on individual cases.

  Toxteth (Policing)
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Chief Constable of Merseyside as to what action he is taking in response to the report of Lord Gifford, concerning police involvement in drug trafficking.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  No formal allegations concerning the involvement of police officers in drug trafficking are made by Lord Gifford in his report.
  498
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he intends to take in the light of the findings of Lord Gifford's inquiry into policing in Toxteth, a copy of which has been sent to him.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend does not consider that Lord Gifford's report presents an objective and balanced assessment of the considerable progress made in improving police community relations in Liverpool 8 since 1981. Nor does he consider that there is a case for the establishment of an official inquiry into policing of the area.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he expects any prosecutions to arise in the light of Lord Gifford's allegations concerning trafficking of drugs in Toxteth.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The question of whether a prosecution should be brought in any particular case is entirely one for the Crown prosecution service in the light of the evidence obtained by the police.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the achievements of his Department and his policies in helping small businesses over the last 12 months compared with the previous 12 months; and if he will publish the performance indicators by which his Department monitors those achievements and the statistical results of such monitoring.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Over the past 12 months, the Home Office has helped small firms by improving the information, access and opportunities necessary to enable them to tender for our business. We have issued a booklet
  499
  entitled "Selling to the Home Office", which provides details of our typical purchasing needs and guidance for potential suppliers on where and how to make the initial approach. The purchasing powers of local offices throughout England and Wales have also been increased; minimising procedures and extending opportunities for small firms.

  Home Office performance indicators on purchasing are directed at getting better value for the money we spend, and do not differentiate between the size of firms to which contracts are awarded or provide statistical information about business placed with small firms.

  Telephones (Prisoners' Access)
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department at what times of day grant of access to telephones is made at(a) each open prison, (b) each category C prison and (c) designated female and young offender establishments; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Cardphones for inmates' use have so far been generally installed only at open establishments. The times at which inmates have access to them are a matter for the governors concerned, but the main periods during which they can be used(a) on weekdays and (b) at weekends are as follows:

  HMP Askham Grange (a) 6 pm—9 pm (b) 9 am—9 pm; HMP/Y0I Drake Hall (a) 5.45 pm/9.30 pm—(b) 8 am—9.30 pm; IIMP/HMY0I East Sutton Park (a) 11.50 am—1.05 pm, 4.30 pm—9.00 pm (b) 8.00 am—9.00 pm; HMYOI Finnamore Wood (a) 6.15 pm—8.15 pm (b) 12 noon—4.45 pm; HMP Ford: all times other than midnight—7.45 am and periods of employment; HMP Foston Hall (a) 5.30 pm—8.30 pm (b) 10.30 am—8.30 pm; HMYOI Guys Marsh (a) and (h) 5.30 pm—8.30 pm; HMYOI Hatfield (a) 6.00 pm—8.45 pm; (b) times differ according to location within establishment; HMYOI Hewell Grange (a) 5.30 pm—8.00 pm (b) (Saturday) 10.30 am—12 noon, (Sunday) 5.30 pm—8.00 pm; HMP Highpoint (a) 6.00 pm—11.00 pm (b) all day; HMYOI Hollesley Bay Colony (a) and (b) 6.00 pm—8.00 pm; HMP Kirkham (a) and (b) 12 noon—12.45 pm, 5.00 pm—8.45 pm; HMP Leyhill (a) and (h) 7.30 am—9.00 pm; HMP Lindholme (a) and (b) all day to 10.45 pm, excluding periods of employment; HMYOI Lowdham Grange (a) 5.00 pm—8.30 pm (b) all day; HMP Morton Hall (a) and (b) 11.30 am—1.15 pm, (Monday—Thursday) 4.30 pm—10.15 pm, (Friday—Sunday) 4.30 pm—11.00 pm; HMP North Sea Camp (a) 5.30 pm—8.30 pm (b) 8.30 am—8.30 pm; LIMP Rudgate (a) 5.30 pm—8.30 pm (b) 12.30 pm—4.00 pm, 5.00 pm—8.30 pm; HMP Spring Hill (a) 12 noon—1.00 pm, 5.00 pm—10.00 pm, (b) 9.00 am—10 pm; HMP Standford Hill (a) and (b) 7.40 am—8.20 am, 12 noon—1.00 pm, 4.00 pm—9.00 pm; HMYOI Thorn Cross (a) 6.00 pm—8.00 pm (b) plus (Friday) 9.00 am—12 noon, 6.00 pm—8.00 pm, (Friday only) 2.00 pm—5.30 pm; HMYOI Usk (a) 6.00 pm—8.30 pm (b) 10.30 am—11.45 am.

  Mr. Bermingham:
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the maximum value of phonecard permitted for purchase by prisoners, and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The maximum value is £2. All inmates may however hold two cards, or more at the discretion of the governor.

  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the ratio of telephones to prisoners at(a) each open prison, (b) each category C prison and (c) designated female and young offender establishments; and if he will make a statement.
  500
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Cardphones for the use of inmates have so far been generally installed only at open establishments. The average numbers of inmates to each cardphone is approximately as follows:

  HMP Askham Grange 59; HMP/HMYOI Drake Hall 75; HMP/HMYOI East Sutton Park 75; HMYOI Finnamore Wood 293; HMP Ford 89; HMP Forston Hall 207; HMYOI Guys Marsh 145; HMYOI Hatfield 221; HMY0I Hewell Grange 133; HMP Highpoint (Category D only) 71; HMYOI Hollesley Bay Colony 465; HMP Kirkham 168; HMP Leyhill 189; HMP Lindholme 51; HMYOI Lowdham Grange 127; HMP Morton Hall 85; HMP North Sea Camp 220; HMP Rudgate 125; HMP Spring Hill 102; HMP Standford Hill 72; HMYOI Thorn Cross 116; HMYOI Usk 75.

  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which prisons are eligible to install telephones for prisoners do not yet have them; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The following establishments are due to install cardphones for the use of inmates before the end of this year:

  HMP Acklington; HMP Aldington; HMP Blantyre House; HMYOI Buckley Hall; HMP/HMYOI Bullwood Hall; HMP Camp Hill; HMYOI Campsfield House; HMP Channings Wood: HMP Cookham Wood; HMYOI Deerbolt; HMYOI Dover; HMYOI Eastwood Park; HMP Erlestoke; HMYOI Everthorpe; HMP Featherstone; HMYOI Feltham; HMYOI Glen Parva; HMP Gloucester (Cat C Unit Only); HMP Haverigg; HMP Highpoint; HMYOI Huntercombe; HMYOI Kirklevington Grange; HMP Lancaster; HMP Littlehey; HMYOI The Mount; HMP/HMYOI New Hall: HMYOI Northallerton; HMP Northeye; HMP Norwich (Britannia Training Prison); HMYOI Onley; HMYOI Portland; HMP Ranby; HMP/HMYOI Rochester; HMP Send; HMP Stafford; HMP Stocken; HMYOI Stoke Heath; HMP/HMYOI Styal; HMP Thorp Arch; HMP Wayland; HMYOI Wellingborough; HMYOI Werrington; HMYOI Wetherby; HMYOI Whatton; HMP Wymott.

  Malicious Communications
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many complaints have been made in the London metropolitan area under the Malicious Communications Act 1988; and what was their outcome.

  Mr. John Patten
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him on 13 July 1989 at column 644.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make a statement about publicity given to the effect of the Malicious Communications Act 1988;

  (2) what sums he has spent on publicity to draw the attention of the public to the effects of the Malicious Communications Act 1988;

  (3) whether he will take steps to increase public awareness of the provisions of the Malicious Communications Act 1988.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We issued a press notice on 29 July 1988, when the Malicious Communications Act 1988 received Royal Assent, drawing attention to the Act's provisions. A Home Office circular was issued on 1 September 1988 to the courts, the police and the Crown prosecution service to explain the provisions of the Act and to advise of its commencement on 29 September. It is not possible to calculate the costs of issuing the press notice and circular without incurring disproportionate cost. The Government continue to take opportunities to keep members of the public informed about developments in the criminal law.

  Bail Hostels, Leeds and Bradford
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many bail hostels exist in the Leeds and Bradford area; what other forms of accommodation are available for persons on bail; what plans there are for increasing the number of hostels; and what advice is given to magistrates on the use of bail hostels.

  Mr. John Patten
  There are six approved hostels in the Leeds and Bradford area which take bailees—four in Leeds, one in Cleckheaton and one in Bradford amounting to 113 places in all. We have agreed in principle to outline proposals for two more hostels and additional places at existing hostels in West Yorkshire by April 1990 which will provide a further 50 to 52 beds.

  There is a wide range of other housing agency hostels and self-contained accommodation available for bailees including supported lodgings.

  The presumption in favour of bail was firmly established by the Bail Act 1976. More recently guidance on bail, including accommodation, was issued to magistrates courts on 11 May 1988 in Home Office circular 25/1988. A list of all approved hostels and their catchment areas is issued to courts by the Home Office from time to time; local probation areas notify courts when a new hostel opens.

  We are also encouraging the development of bail information schemes which give courts better information on which to take decisions about bail. A new scheme is due to start in Leeds on 31 July and a feasibility study is under way in Bradford.

  Armley Prison
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many hospital officers and medical officers work on the hospital wing of Armley prison during the day and during the night as distinct from the total number of staff employed to provide a service, for 1988 and 1989.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Because staffing levels vary from day to day it is not possible to make comparisons between whole years. The following information gives the situation at the mid-point of each year, that is, 30 June.

  On 30 June 1988 four full-time and two part-time medical officers attended during the day, one of the latter also attending in the evening. The same pattern occurred on 30 June 1989 except that five full-time medical officers attended on that day. On both dates one doctor was on call at night.

  The number of hospital officers working during the day on both dates ranged at different times between four and 10, and one officer on duty at night.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the staff-prisoner ratio on B wing of Her Majesty's Armley prison; and what training is given to staff in suicide prevention and dealing with young persons now and in 1988.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  There were 227 inmates on B wing on 21 July, and 23 staff are generally assigned to work on the wing. Training for prison staff in how best to identify and help suicidal inmates was introduced in 1987. Fifty-one staff at Leeds prison had been so trained by February 1989; 125 staff have now been trained, and 502
  weekly training courses are to take place throughout the autumn with the intention of training all staff by the end of the year.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of persons on remand as a percentage of the total number of prisoners in custody in Her Majesty's prison Armley in 1988 and 1989 to date.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The information is given in the table.

  Remand population as a percentage of the total population of Leeds prison: January 1988 to May 1989

  Month end

  Untried

  Convicted unsentenced

  Total population number

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  (100 per cent.)

  1988

  January

  49

  6

  1,380

  February

  50

  7

  1,350

  March

  46

  6

  1,340

  April

  48

  6

  1,320

  May

  49

  4

  1,350

  June

  48

  6

  1,370

  July

  44

  6

  1,390

  August

  48

  6

  1,400

  September

  46

  8

  1,310

  October

  49

  9

  1,260

  November

  48

  8

  1,280

  December

  46

  6

  1,210

  1989

  January

  48

  6

  1,290

  February

  46

  6

  1,290

  March

  47

  5

  1,270

  April

  43

  5

  1,240

  May

  45

  5

  1,280

  Attempted Suicides, Armley and Hull
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the numbers of incidents classified as suicide attempts and self mutilations at Armley and Hull prisons in 1988 and 1989.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Five incidents of self-injury were reported by the medical officer at Leeds during the year ending 31 March 1988, and 39 in the subsequent year. The corresponding figures at Hull were 53 and 93.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department who is responsible for deciding to classify an incident as a self mutilation or an attempted suicide at Armley prison; and what criteria are used.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  At all prison service establishments medical officers are responsible for distinguishing acts of non-fatal self-injury which are considered to have been committed with suicidal intent from those which appear not to have been so motivated. The categorisation of individual cases is a matter for clinical judgment on the part of the doctor.

  Suicides (Hull Prison)
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many suicides there were in Hull prison among(a) young people and (b) remand prisoners during 1988 and 1989.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  There were no inmate suicides at Her Majesty's prison Hull during the period in question.

  Leeds Prison
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the functions of Leeds prison; and how many category A prisoners are held there now and in 1988.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Her Majesty's prison Leeds is a local prison. As such its main function is to keep unsentenced prisoners in custody for the courts and to present them for trial or sentence; and to receive sentenced prisoners from the courts, keeping them in custody until they are categorised and allocated to training prisons or until they become due for release.

  Six category A prisoners were held in Leeds prison on 30 June this year, and 10 on 30 June 1988.

  Everthorpe
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the proposed plans for the site at Everthorpe; and when it will be completed.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  It is proposed to build a remand centre for 300 inmates next to HM young offenders institute Everthorpe. Detailed designs are now being prepared. Construction is planned to begin towards the end of this year, with the establishment opening early in 1992.

  Strip Cells
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is prison policy on the use of strip cells for persons who have attempted suicide; and if counselling is available for those who last attempted suicide.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Guidelines on the use of stripped rooms for suicidal inmates are set out in paragraph 33 of circular instruction 20/1989, a copy of which is in the Library. Counselling is normally available to all inmates from prison staff, particularly medical officers, chaplains and seconded probation officers; the help of Samaritans is also now available to prisoners at a substantial number of establishments.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the usage of strip cells in Armley and Hull prisons in 1988 and 1989; how many cells exist; for what purpose they are used; and how long each person is held.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as possible and deposit a copy of the reply in the Library.

  Remand Prisoners, Leeds
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans exist for building recreational or other facilities for the exclusive use of young persons on remand at Leeds.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The expansion and modernisation of Leeds prison currently in progress includes the provision of a new sports hall, outdoor sports areas and a library and educational block. Association and education facilities will also be provided in the two new living wings which are being built to house remand prisoners. Work on 504
  these wings is due to begin in March 1990. The whole programme of work is scheduled for completion in 1997, but many of the supporting facilities will be in use by the early 1990s. It will be for the governor to decide the arrangements for the use of these facilities by young persons on remand in the light of operational needs.

  Armley and Hull Prisons
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average daily intake of prisoners at Armley and Hull, including the maximum and minimum figures for May, June, August, November 1988 and May and June of the current year.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Her Majesty's Prison, Leeds

  Month

  Average daily intake

  Daily maximum

  Daily minimum

  1988

  May

  64

  131

  0

  June

  70

  123

  1

  August

  60

  112

  0

  November

  74

  130

  1

  1989

  May

  61

  117

  1

  June

  67

  120

  0

  Her Majesty's Prison, Hull

  1988

  May

  55

  97

  2

  June

  53

  88

  8

  August

  53

  96

  3

  November

  56

  90

  3

  1989

  May

  50

  83

  6

  June

  50

  105

  5

  Dyfed-Powys Police
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give the following statistics for the Dyfed-Powys police force for each year since 1974(a) the number of police officers, (b) the number of civilian staff employed, (c) the total population and (d) the ratio of population to police officers.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The information requested is set out in the table.

  Dyfed Powys

  At 31 December

  Police officers

  Civilians1

  Population2

  Police-population ratio

  1974

  850

  168

  420,300

  505

  1975

  912

  190

  422,500

  461

  1976

  908

  190

  424,600

  464

  1977

  908

  190

  425,100

  464

  1978

  907

  190

  430,000

  469

  1979

  918

  194

  431,000

  461

  1980

  929

  194

  433,000

  464

  1981

  925

  197

  433,000

  464

  1982

  930

  200

  443,000

  474

  1983

  924

  204

  444,000

  475

  1984

  922

  208

  446,000

  478

  1985

  924

  210

  446,000

  478

  1986

  929

  198

  447,000

  477

  1987

  929

  209

  451,000

  482

  1988

  927

  215

  457,000

  489

  505
  1Part-time civilians are included on a 2 for 1 basis.

  2 As at 30 June.

  Prisons (Catering Costs)
  Mr. Bendall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the approximate cost of the daily main meal for prisoners in Her Majesty's prisons; and what is the weekly food budget per prisoner.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The average weekly notional cost of food per prisoner in Her Majesty's prisons, including items supplied from prison farms and gardens, is £6·10; the approximate cost of food for the daily main meal is 44p.

  County Fire Service, Wales
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many section 19 applications he has received during each of the last five years in respect of the county fire service in Wales; and what was the outcome in each case.

  Mr. John Patten
  The information requested is not immediately available: I will reply as soon as possible.

  Mr. Xu Hai Ning
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the entry and resident status in the United Kingdom of Mr. Xu Hai Ning, a citizen of China; and if he has received any information from the immigration services concerning the circumstances of his departure.

  Mr. Renton
  Mr. Xu applied for asylum in Hong Kong. He arrived in the United Kingdom on 30 June and was given leave to enter for 12 months. On 17 July he contacted his embassy in London and said he wished to return to China. Immediately before his departure on 18 July the immigration service took steps to interview him privately and he told them that he was leaving voluntarily.

  Chinese Citizens
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps are being taken to protect Chinese citizens who are in the United Kingdom from pressure and threats to return to China.

  Mr. Renton
  Any Chinese national who feels at risk in the United Kingdom should contact the police. If the immigration service has reason to believe that someone is leaving the United Kingdom under pressure it will take steps to offer him a private interview before his departure.

  Overseas Students (Vacation Employment)
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Home Department when he expects to be able to give a substantive reply to the hon. Member for Broxbourne in relation to correspondence from Mr. Baxendale of Cuffley, on the subject of paid employment during vacations for full-time overseas students, forwarded to the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) on 30 November1988, 5 January, 7 February, 22 March, 12 April and 17 May; what are the reasons for the delay; and if he will make a statement.
  506
  Mr. Renton
  My right hon. Friend wrote to my hon. Friend on 21 July. I am very sorry for the delay in dealing with this correspondence which was due to oversights on the part of the officials dealing with the matter.

  Chlorofluorocarbons
  Sir Hugh Rossi
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans exist to ensure the safe disposal of both chlorofluorocarbon refrigerant material and chlorofluorocarbon II in the foam in refrigeration and air-cooling equipment under the control of his Department.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 13 July 1989]I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to him by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment the hon. Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley), on 13 July at column 631.

  Abbey National Shares
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received about the disqualification of widows from the free allocation of 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
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) on 18 July 1989, Official Report, column 86.

SCOTLAND

  HIV (Prisons)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many tests for HIV antibodies were carried out in prisons in Scotland in the last year for which figures are available; and how many were positive.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Comprehensive figures are not available for past years. So far this year, at least 222 inmates in Scottish penal establishments have been tested for HIV antibodies. Of those tests, 18 proved positive.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what arrangements are made for clinical and psychological monitoring and care of HIV positive prisoners in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Clinical monitoring and care of HIV positive prisoners is in the hands of prison medical officers, who consult outside colleagues and specialists as they judge necessary. If such prisoners require for clinical purposes to visit NHS facilities, appropriate arrangements are made. In some establish-ments regular clinics for HIV positive prisoners are run by NHS specialists. Full psychological services are provided within prisons, and on the counselling side staff are given specific training in dealing with HIV positive prisoners. Additionally, expert external counsellors are increasingly being made use of in prisons.

  Viral Infectivity Restrictions (Prisons)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make it his policy to introduce viral infectivity restrictions in Her Majesty's prisons in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. and learned Friend has not thought it appropriate to introduce viral infectivity restrictions in Scottish penal establish-ments, nor are there any plans for their introduction.

  Multiple births and maternities, Scotland, 1980–1988

  Twins

  Triplets

  Quadruplets

  Quintuplets

  Sextuplets

  Maternities

  1980

  658

  4

  —

  —

  —

  68,689

  1981

  611

  7

  —

  —

  —

  68,865

  1982

  607

  6

  —

  —

  —

  65,963

  1983

  677

  2

  —

  —

  —

  64,776

  1984

  665

  10

  —

  —

  —

  64,800

  1985

  682

  9

  —

  —

  —

  66,342

  1986

  721

  10

  —

  —

  —

  65,456

  1987

  721

  10

  —

  —

  —

  65,839

  11988

  706

  8

  1

  —

  —

  65,842

  1 Provisional figures.

  Youth Unemployment
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the latest available figures for youth unemployment, as calculated under the juvos scheme, for each of the six wards within the Glasgow, Central constituency.

  Mr. Lang
  The number of unemployed claimants under the age of 25 for each of the six wards in the Glasgow, Central parliamentary constituency on 13 April 1989 (the latest date for which information is available) is set out in the table.

  Ward

  Unemployed claimants under 25

  Calton

  311

  Central

  275

  Crosshill

  318

  Hutchesontown

  327

  Kingston

  240

  Queen's Park

  231

  Total

  1,702

  This information is available in the Library.

  Trading Standards Officers
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many trading standards officers there are in each local authority area.

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

  Southern General Hospital, Glasgow
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what reports the Solicitor-General has received of unauthorised entry being made to the Southern General hospital, Glasgow; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I understand that the procurator-fiscal, Glasgow, has received and is consider-ing a report from the police concerning a person who

  Births
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the number of sets of(a) twins, (b) triple's, (c) quadruplets, (d) quintuplets and (e) sextuplets, born in Scotland in each year since 1980; and what was the total number of maternities in each of these years.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information is as follows:

  gained unauthorised entry to the Southern general hospital, Glasgow. It is not proposed that a statement will be made.

  Elder Cottage Hospital
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will instruct the Greater Glasgow health board to extend its deadline for an off-market sale of Elder cottage hospital and the adjacent nurses' home to Linthouse Housing Association in order to give the housing association and Scottish Homes sufficient time to discuss with the board the arrangements involved in a successful transfer of the property to the housing association.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Greater Glasgow health board has extended its deadline to 3 August 1989 to enable the association to submit an offer.

  Mortgage Defaults
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many homes have been repossessed in the last year for default on mortgage payments in the last year; and what are the corresponding figures for each year since 1979

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Building Societies Association publishes statistics on the number of repossessions by building societies in the United Kingdom as a whole; but no corresponding information is available for Scotland only. No information is held centrally on other mortgage lenders.

  Dundee High School
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many places are available at Dundee high school under the assisted places scheme; and how much public expenditure this incurred, in the last year and in each year since its inception.

  Mr. Lang
  Expenditure at Dundee high school since the inception of the scheme is as follows:
  509

  School year

  £

  1981–82

  52,690

  1982–83

  110,612

  1983–84

  142,685

  1984–85

  185,286

  1985–86

  235,525

  1986–87

  270,669

  1987–88

  309,400

  1988–89

  '340,000

  1 Provisional figure.

  Warrant Sales
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many warrant sales have been carried out in the Dundee area in the last year; and what are the corresponding figures for each year since 1979.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  There were 11 warrant sales reported to Dundee sheriff court in 1988. The number of reports to that court of warrant sales from 1979 to 1987 are set out in the table.

  Reports of sale

  1979

  10

  1980

  4

  1981

  6

  1982

  6

  1983

  10

  1984

  2

  1985

  10

  1986

  4

  1987

  9

  Community Charge
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will consider introducing legislation to reimburse those people who have stated that they are over 18 years, but have suffered civil penalties for refusing to divulge their date of birth on the community charge registration forms.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No

  Local Health Councils
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to announce plans for the reorganisation of local health councils.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I discussed this matter with health board chairmen on 30 June and I hope to announce my plans very soon.

  Health Service
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to announce the appointment of the new chief executive of the Scottish Health Service.

  Mr. Rifkind
  I hope to do so shortly

  Care of Gardens Schemes
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many district councils in Scotland run care of gardens schemes for the elderly and disabled in Scotland.
  510
  (2) how many district councils in Scotland stopped care of gardens schemes after the termination of the community programme.

  Mr. Lang
  This information is not available centrally

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many district councils run care of garden schemes for the elderly and disabled under the employment training scheme.

  Mr. Lang
  This information is not collected by the Training Agency and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is Her Majesty's Government's policy on the care of gardens of the elderly and disabled.

  Mr. Lang
  This is a matter for local authorities to decide in the light of the resources available to them.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the revenue support grant for district councils includes any imputed amount for care of garden schemes for the elderly and disabled.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Revenue support grant is paid in support of authorities' income generally. It is not attributed to particular services.

  Electricity Disconnections
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many disconnections were made by the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board in the last year; and what are the corresponding figures for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Lang
  I am advised that the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board carried out 4,343 disconnections in the calendar year ended 31 December 1988. The figures for each year since 1979 are as follows:

  Numbers

  1979

  2,869

  1980

  3,373

  1981

  3,764

  1982

  2,830

  1983

  1,904

  1984

  1,893

  1985

  2,434

  1986

  3,104

  1987

  4,538

  1988

  4,343

  NHS Reform
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what additional financial resources he has made available to health boards in Scotland in 1989–90 to meet the cost of implementing the proposals outlined in the White Paper "Working for Patients", Cm 555.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Some of the resources already allocated to boards this year are being spent on initiatives such as the development of information technology systems, on which implementation of the White Paper will build. However a further £3·95 million is to be made available to health boards in 1989–90 to help them meet the
  511
  additional costs this year of taking forward the proposals in the White Paper. The resources will cover development work by health boards in the following areas: hospital contracts, self-governing hospitals, and revised accounting arrangements; information systems and resources management; development of capital asset registers; development of GP practice budgets; medical audit; and pilot work on prescribing budgets. The Department will be advising health boards of the individual amounts they will each receive.

  Health Boards
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Eastwood of 22 June,Official Report, columns 205–6, he will provide more detailed information on the contracts awarded by Argyll and Clyde, Ayrshire and Arran, Fife, Forth Valley, Grampian, Lanarkshire and Lothian health boards; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information is as follows:

  Argyll and Clyde

  As at 30 June 1989 the board had awarded six contracts. All of these have been awarded in-house and are for domestic and catering services. The savings realised from the contracts awarded to date are:

  Contract

  Total savings1

  £

  Royal Alexandra: domestic

  16,160

  Inverclyde Royal: domestic

  21,200

  Dumbarton Group: catering

  18,000

  Lochgilphead: catering

  35,055

  Dumbarton: domestic

  15,102

  Renfrew Community-Gilmour House-Westward House: domestic

  13,449

  11 Per annum on previous budget.

  Ayrshire and Arran

  As at 14 July 1989 Ayrshire and Arran health board had awarded 13 contracts. All of these were won by the inhouse operator and no staff have been made redundant.

  Contract details

  Total price of successful bid

  Calculated savings

  VAT payment to Treasury

  VAT refund

  Number of staff redundant head count

  Redundancy payments from government

  Annual pension and lump sum payments

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  Cameron Hospital (Catering)

  301,083

  33,819

  Nil

  Nil

  3

  3—

  3—

  Victoria, Forth Park, Hunter Hospitals (Domestic)

  1754,192

  102,386

  7,900

  (7,900)

  244

  230,431

  70,984

  (Catering)

  850,377

  10,673

  Nil

  Nil

  2

  3—

  3—

  Stratheden

  (Domestic)

  538,795

  2—

  4,500

  (4,500)

  None

  Nil

  Nil

  1 Unsuccessful in-house bid £864,989.

  2 A higher specification was drawn up for this exercise with a view to improving the standard of service.

  3 Figures where numbers of staff involved are small are not disclosed to protect confidential information.

  Forth Valley

  As at 16 June board had awarded four contracts, all won by the inhouse team. Coasts and savings are set out in the table.
  512
  Any VAT Payments made have been refunded. The estimated administrative costs are £60,000. Future plans include the board's painting maintenance programme for its estate and hospital hotel services for a number of its hospitals, health centres and clinica. Casts and savings are as follows:

  Contract

  Total price of successful Bid

  Total savings per annum on previous budget

  (£)

  (£)

  1. Head Office: Domestic

  13,987

  11,280

  2. Head Office: Catering

  25,153

  7,728

  3. South Ayrshire Clinics: Domestic

  34,954

  18,315

  4. North Ayrshire Clincs: Domestic

  38,296

  8,973

  5. Kilmarnock Maternity Hospital: Catering

  35,060

  1,204

  6. Brooksby House Hospital: Domestic

  24,186

  4,223

  7. Brooksby House Hospital: Catering

  29,960

  (368)

  8. Kilmarnock Maternity Hospital: Domestic

  26,340

  10,177

  9. Crosshouse Hospital: Catering

  779,000

  191,000

  10. Ayrshire Central Hospital:Catering

  516,000

  141,000

  11. Crosshouse Hospital: Domestic

  765,170

  1242,000

  12. Ayrshire Central Hospital: Domestic

  401,000

  1140,000

  13. Vehicle Maintenance and Repair

  120,930

  15,193

  1In addition to the savings achieved in the tendering exercise these figures include savings realised in the efficiency exercise carried out by managers in the run up to tendering as part of the overall competitive tendering/efficiency programme.

  Fife

  As at 11 July fife health board had let four contracts—three inhouse and one to a private contractor Further catering services, general ancillary services, gardens, laboratory, laundry and pharmacy are among the other areas the board is looking at for the future Costs and savings are as follows:

  513

  Contract details

  Total price of successful bid

  Calculated savings

  VAT payment to Treasury

  VAT refund

  Number of staff redundant head count

  Redundancy payments from government

  Annual pension and lump sum payments

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  Cleaning

  Clackmannan County

  21,283

  658,084

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Falkirk Unit

  684,925

  Stirling Unit

  866,911

  Catering

  All hospitals except Bonnybridge

  2,594,367

  Grampian

  As at 6 July 1989 Grampian health board had let 11 contracts, four to private contractors. Costs and savings are as follows:

  Contract details

  Total price of successful bid

  Calculated savings

  VAT payment to Treasury

  VAT refund

  Number of staff-redundant head count

  Redundancy payments from Government

  Annual pension and lump sum payments

  Accrued holiday payments

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  Geriatric and specialist services unit

  Domestic1

  804,838

  209,074

  50,498

  (50,498)

  241

  169,152

  48,499

  54,792

  Catering

  878,872

  119,046

  Nil

  Nil

  None

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Mental health unit

  Domestic2

  885,045

  75,430

  56,097

  (56,097)

  138

  119,348

  36,370

  54,531

  Catering

  939,853

  137,312

  Nil

  Nil

  None

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Portering

  146,962

  23,385

  Nil

  Nil

  None

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Community unit

  Domestic3

  473,241

  64,950

  5Nil

  Nil

  99

  47,330

  51,970

  30,632

  Catering

  564,253

  100,057

  Nil

  Nil

  None

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  West unit

  Domestic

  468,511

  61,531

  Nil

  Nil

  None

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Catering

  540,872

  60,467

  Nil

  Nil

  None

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Area HQ

  Domestic4

  21,471

  12,310

  5Nil

  Nil

  17

  9,118

  2,648

  2,551

  Foresterhill unit

  Hotel

  3,475,485

  825,740

  Nil

  Nil

  None

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Price of unsuccessful in-house bid:

  1 £1,110,913

  2 £960,475

  3 £510,463

  4 £31,628

  5 Contract not commenced.

  Lanarkshire

  As at 3 July 1989 Lanarkshire health board had awarded eight contracts. All of these were won by the inhouse operator. The preparation and evaluation of

  Contract details

  Total price of successful bid

  Calculated savings

  VAT payment to Treasury

  VAT refund

  Number of staff-redundant head count

  Redundancy payments from Government Annual Equivalent

  Pension and lump sum payments Annual Equivalent

  Accrued holiday payments

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  Coathill Hospital (Domestic)

  150,161

  9,198

  Nil

  Nil

  None

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Stonehouse Hospital (Domestic)

  286,131

  20,133

  Nil

  Nil

  None

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Law Hospital (Domestic)

  729,324

  115,199

  7,574

  (7,574)

  38

  27,348

  13,418

  6,692

  (Catering)

  643,351

  112,076

  2,130

  (2,130)

  10

  6,827

  8,338

  2,313

  Hartwood Hospital (Domestic)

  858,250

  148,900

  5,348

  (5,348)

  26

  11,500

  10,681

  5,067

  Hairmyres Hospital (Domestic)

  420,433

  316,317

  5,450

  (5,450)

  44

  28,310

  17,828

  9,498

  514
  tenders now forms part of the normal duties of the administrative and support staff within the board and as such the duties are not costed separately. Costs and savings are as set out in the table.
  515

  Contract details

  Total price of successful bid

  Calculated savings

  VAT payment to Treasury

  VAT refund

  Number of staff redundant head count

  Redundancy payments from Government Annual Equivalent

  Pension and lump sum payments Annual Equivalent

  Accrued holiday payments

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  Bellshill Hospital (Domestic)

  231,895

  71,905

  2,800

  (2,800)

  9

  9,069

  3,882

  1,272

  Cleland, Wishaw and Roadmeetings Hospitals (Domestic)

  360,000

  77,600

  3,522

  (3,522)

  13

  7,570

  2,730

  2,402

  Lothian

  As at 12 July Lothian health board had let eight contracts—six in house and two to private contractors. Costs and savings are as set out in the table.

  Contract details

  Total price of successful bid

  Calculated savings

  VAT payment to Treasury

  VAT refund

  Number of staff redundant head count

  Redundancy payments from government

  Annual pension and lump sum payments

  Accrued holiday payments

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  Royal Infirmary and Associated Hospital Unit (Domestic)1

  1,384,699

  634,666

  207,705

  (207,705)

  420

  326,680

  206,560

  90,000

  Mental Health Unit (Domestic) 2

  1,155,943

  342,874

  173,391

  (173,391)

  412

  362,744

  135,960

  75,000

  Royal Victoria/Northern/Corstorphine/Beechmount (Catering)

  841,631

  29,519

  Nil

  Nil

  None

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  East Unit (Catering)

  1,054,412

  117,058

  Nil

  Nil

  None

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  St. John's Hospital, Howden (Pre-clean Domestic)

  8,273

  New service

  Nil

  Nil

  None

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Grounds and Gardens (Maintenance)

  242,316

  199,825

  Nil

  Nil

  Between 2 and 12

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  St. John's and Bangour (Domestic)

  700,016

  328,892

  Nil

  Nil

  Not yet known

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  St. John's (Catering)

  631,096

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  1 Total value of in-house bid £1,595,522.

  2 Total value of in-house bid £1,550,524.

  Forests
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what incentives he is considering to protect the forested areas of the United Kingdom.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The forested areas of Britain are generally well protected. The felling of trees is controlled by the Forestry Commission in exercise of its powers under the Forestry Act 1967; the commission is also active in protecting the health of trees.

  The protection of forests in Northern Ireland is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Professional Liability
  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he expects to announce the conclusion of his Department's study to establish the nature, scope, extent and implications of professional liability problems.

  Mr. Maude
  We have received the report of the professional liability review under the chairmanship of Professor Andrew Likierman which covered selected
  516
  professions: auditors, construction industry professions and surveyors. We are making arrangements for it to be published in October, and we shall make a statement at that time.

  White Papers
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if, for each of the last three White Papers issued by his Department, for which legislation has been started, he will state the time elapsed between their publication and the First Readings of any Bills connected with them; and if he will do the same for the last three White Papers issued by the Department of Trade and Industry prior to May 1979.

  Mr. Newton
  The last three White Papers published by my Department, in which legislation was proposed and has been subsequently started or completed were: "Intellectual Property and Innovation" (Cm. 9712), "Financial Services in the UK" (Cm. 9432) and "Safety of Goods" (Cm. 9302). These were published on 15 April 1986, 29 January 1985 and 12 July 1984 respectively and the First Readings of the Copyright Designs and Patents, Financial Services and Consumer Protection Bills resulting from them took place on 28 October 1987, 18 December 1985 and 19 November 1986. It is not for me to
  517
  answer for the record of the last Government in this matter, but the information requested should be available in the Library of the House and the Official Report.

  Research Clubs
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many(a) research clubs and (b) research club members there have been in each of the past five years; what has been the extent of Government support to research clubs; and how many (a) clubs and (b) members there are in each standard region.

  Mr. Forth
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  My Department supports a wide variety of research clubs. Some of these are managed by DTI's own research establishments. Currently 44 clubs, with 1,981 members, are associated with DTI research establishments. Of these 15 are run by the national engineering laboratory in Scotland and 29 by laboratories in the south-east region. The members are firms and research organisations from all parts of the United Kingdom and some from overseas.

  Last year my Department published an evaluation report covering 104 clubs current in October 1987 which at that time had 2,430 members (including multiple memberships). The report is available from my Department's library. I will send the hon. Member a copy.

  Computers
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether his Department has investigated the implications for privacy that arise from the itemised billing computer systems of BT and Mercury when they have a warrant from a court; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  Provisions about customer privacy are already incorporated in the licences which have been granted by the Secretary of State to British Telecom and Mercury under section 7 of the Telecommunications Act 1984. The licences require each company to observe the terms of a code of practice on the confidentiality of customer information, approved by the Director General of Telecommunications, which regulate the disclosure of information about a customer.

  Girobank
  Miss Hoey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what steps he is taking to review the decision to sell Girobank to the Alliance and Leicester building society in view of the refusal of the Building Societies Commission to permit the Alliance and Leicester to keep Girobank's leasing and commercial lending business.

  Mr. Newton
  The Government were aware that Girobank's leasing and commercial lending business would be ultra vires for a building society and took this into account in endorsing the Post Office board's decision to grant the Alliance and Leicester a period of exclusive negotiations. Appropriate arrangements in respect of these activities are among the matters covered in those negotiations, the details of which are confidential.

  Post Office Counters
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is his assessment of by how much the amount which would be realised from the sale into the private sector of Post Office Counters would exceed the book value of its property assets.

  Mr. Newton
  We have no estimate of the possible sale value of Post Office Counters Ltd. The net book value of its land and buildings at 29 March 1989 was shown as £70·8 million in its 1988–89 accounts.

  Beer
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan), 21 June,Official Report, column 177, if he will list those representations he has received in favour and those against the recommendations of the report, "The Supply of Beer," Cm. 651.

  Mr. Maude
  I have received a considerable number of representations from many different organisations and individuals, including 1,980 letters. Of these, some were in favour of all of the MMC's recommendations; some were against the recommendations; and others were in favour of some recommendations and against others.

  In some instances, correspondents have written several times, amending their views following statements in the House and another place. In other cases correspondents have asked that their letters be treated in confidence.

  It is not possible, in these circumstances, to give a precise answer.

  Trading Standards Officers
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many trading standards officers there are in each local authority area in England and Wales.

  Mr. Forth
  Information on the number of trading standards officers employed in each local weights and measures authority is contained in "Trading Standards Statistics" published by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, a copy of which is held in the House of Commons Library.

  Fireworks
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will publish details of firework injuries for 1988 by type of injury and in each geographical region.

  Mr. Forth
  The firework injury statistics given in a written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) on 20 April, at columns 256–58 included a breakdown by severity of injury and separated eye injuries from the total. No further details of the type of injury involved is available.

  The table contains an analysis of fire accidents by type of firework and regional health authority.
  519

  Great Britain

  Analysis of Firework Accidents 1988 by Type of Firework and Regional Health Authority

  Regional Health Authority

  Banger

  Rocket

  Roman Candle Etc.

  Sparkler

  Other Proprietary Firework

  Homemade or Extracted Powder

  Unspecified Type

  Totals

  Northern

  10

  8

  6

  8

  5

  3

  25

  65

  Yorkshire

  21

  15

  5

  9

  10

  0

  16

  76

  Trent

  14

  14

  4

  7

  6

  2

  16

  63

  East Anglia

  4

  6

  2

  1

  3

  0

  4

  20

  North West Thames

  4

  7

  4

  5

  6

  0

  18

  44

  North East Thames

  6

  12

  0

  4

  4

  0

  26

  52

  South East Thames

  15

  17

  6

  5

  12

  3

  28

  86

  South West Thames

  7

  6

  3

  5

  2

  0

  17

  40

  Wessex

  2

  7

  7

  10

  1

  2

  13

  42

  Oxford

  7

  4

  5

  3

  6

  1

  7

  33

  South Western

  9

  12

  4

  7

  5

  2

  7

  46

  West Midlands

  20

  16

  13

  17

  11

  0

  31

  108

  Mersey

  5

  5

  2

  4

  5

  0

  14

  35

  North Western

  20

  22

  12

  7

  6

  1

  18

  86

  Board of Governors

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Scotland

  9

  11

  6

  4

  3

  1

  16

  50

  Wales

  9

  1

  4

  6

  1

  2

  7

  30

  Total

  162

  164

  83

  102

  86

  17

  263

  877

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations have been made to him by(a) trading standards officers and (b) the Health and Safety Executive concerning proposals to change the procedures to test fireworks.

  Mr. Forth
  Trading standards officers have complained that there are too few test houses capable of testing fireworks for safety, and that those local authorities doing the most testing will face a financial burden. The Health and Safety Executive is concerned that it is not its proper function to test fireworks and that it is the proper responsibility of trading standards departments. My Department is looking into the arrangements for the testing of fireworks.

  Holidaymakers
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is his policy towards the recent EEC Commission proposals to provide increased consumer protection for holiday makers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  The United Kingdom shares the concerns expressed by many member states at the Tourism Council on 14 December about the draft directive on package travel, particularly the provisions on liability. The Council concluded that the draft needed to be re-examined in the light of the debate and taking into account the views of the European Parliament. We are disappointed that the revised proposals submitted on 6 July do not reflect the concerns expressed at the Council. We will continue to negotiate firmly but constructively in Brussels.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the achievements of his Department and his policies in helping small businesses over the last 12 months compared with the previous 12 months; and if he will publish the performance indicators by which his Department monitors those achievements and the statistical results of such monitoring.
  520
  Mr. Newton
  The Government's general policy towards small businesses is to create a climate in which they can flourish and to provide measures that support and help stimulate their development.

  The enterprise initiative was launched by my Department on 13 January 1988 with the aim of encouraging the process of wealth creation by stimulating individual initiative and enterprise. It comprises a number of individual initiatives covering the consultancy initiatives, research and technology, enterprise and education, regional assistance and the recently relaunched export initiative. All share the objectives of encouraging enterprise, developing management skills, promoting best practice and thereby improving competitiveness.

  The consultancy initiatives form a major element of the enterprise initiative. They offer financial support to small and medium-sized firms for between five and 15 days of consultancy in the following key management areas: design, marketing, manufacturing systems, quality, business planning and financial and information systems. Independent firms with less than 500 employees in most manufacturing and service sectors in England, Scotland and Wales may benefit from up to two of the consultancy initiatives.

  By 30 June 1989, a total of 29,800 applications had been received, 26,600 business reviews had been completed and 20,200 projects for assisted consultancy had been approved.

  One of the main objectives of the export initiative is to assist small companies to develop their export potential. New support for small companies includes the introduction of a national network of export development advisers targeted specifically at companies in the £1 million to £10 million turnover range. It is too early to access the impact of these new measures.

  Regional enterprise grants (REG) were introduced as part of the regional initiative in April 1988. They are aimed specifically at small businesses in the development areas and South Yorkshire employing fewer than 25 people, arid are designed to support their investment and innovation projects. In 1988–89, the first year of the scheme, my Department received 1,637 applications, and made 922 offers of grant with a total value of £7·7 million. The DTI, together with the Welsh and Scottish Offices, has

  521
  established a rolling evaluation programme for the scheme to assess the cumulative effect on recipient businesses and on the economy of eligible areas.

  Yearly figures for the work of the inner cities initiative are not available. However from the time the initiative began in 1986 until the 31 March 1988, it is estimated that the task forces have, in meeting their objective of encouraging enterprise, provided support for more than 3,800 businesses the majority of which are small ones. This assistance has taken a variety of forms including loans and grants from the task force development funds.

  The small firms merit award for research and technology (SMART) encourages small businesses to engage in high-risk projects in the fields of advanced manufacturing techniques, advanced materials, biotechnology and information technology.

  In 1988 a total of 140 cash awards were made out of a total of 930 applications. It is too early to judge the long term effects of the scheme, but it is hoped that the eventual success rate will exceed 50 per cent. of the firms that have been supported by the scheme.

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  Grants received (external financing limits)

  Estimated private investment attracted1

  Land reclaimed

  (£ million)

  (£ million)

  (Acres)

  Black Country development corporation

  25·4

  99·0

  104·0

  Bristol development corporation

  0·3

  —

  —

  Central Manchester development corporation

  2·5

  35·0

  2·5

  Leeds development corporation

  2·7

  0·2

  —

  London Docklands development corporation

  512·4

  6,857·0

  1,571·0

  Merseyside development corporation

  189·0

  44·0

  704·0

  Sheffield development corporation

  8·0

  0·4

  5·0

  Teesside development corporation

  26·0

  39·0

  84·0

  Trafford Park development corporation

  25·5

  201·0

  44·0

  Tyne and Wear development corporation

  28·0

  45·0

  54·0

  1 In addition to the figures quoted, there are various major investments currently in the pipeline.

  English Estates
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he will make a statement on English Estates' future development strategy.

  Mr. Newton
  In his statement of 27 July 1988, my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State set out a new strategy for English Estates' operations in the assisted areas. The statement recognised that English Estates would continue to be an important instrument of Government regional policy, but that the significant improvement in the property market in some parts of the assisted areas meant that a major change of emphasis in the corporation's role was necessary in order to encourage the emerging private sector interest in providing industrial and commercial floor space in those areas. In particular it was envisaged that English Estates' role as a facilitator would assume much greater significance through the marketing of development opportunities, the preparation and disposal of serviced sites, and joint ventures; and that English Estates would itself only provide premises in the areas and of a type where private sector provision remained inadequate and was likely to remain so in the foreseeable future.

  The property market in the assisted areas has continued to improve, with rental levels rising strongly in many parts of the country. English Estates will shortly be publishing
  522
  Our White Paper "Releasing Enterprise" lists nearly 120 deregulation achievements across all Departments, with around 80 new proposals in the coming year. Although not targeted specifically at small businesses, these matters will be of particular benefit to them.

  Inner City Regeneration
  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the impact of urban development corporations on the regeneration of inner cities, indicating inter alia(a) the amount of grants made, (b) the amount of private investment attracted, (c) the number of acres retained and (d) other benefits achieved in each of the urban district councils in England and Wales.

  Mr. Trippier
  I have been asked to reply.

  Urban development corporations are making a significant impact on the problems of dereliction and decay at the heart of several of our inner cities. The specific figures for each English urban development council, up to 31 March 1989, are as follows:

  brochures setting out its future development strategy region by region, with emphasis on proposals to be started during 1989–90.

  For the current financial year, I have asked the corporation to aim for an assisted areas programme of up to £44 million. In addition, English Estates has started work on a special programme for the provision in Sunderland of some £7·5 million for factory space over and above its existing commitment in the north-east. We expect £4 million of that special programme to fall within 1989–90, producing a total capital expenditure programme in the assisted areas this year of up to £48 million, compared to £45 million in 1988–89.

  Our intention is to give a clear signal to the private sector of the opportunities that exist or are becoming available for private investment in parts of the country which have previously been served by direct provision by public sector agencies, while at the same time reaffirming the Government's commitment to areas where, for the time being, the private sector is not providing the new industrial and commercial floor space needed for the promotion of viable new economic activity and employment opportunities.

  In addition to the assisted areas programme, English Estates has reached an agreement with a private sector company, London Industrial, to co-operate in a joint venture for a substantial programme to provide managed

  523
  work space in inner city areas of London. Other managed work space projects will be undertaken within the assisted areas in Manchester and Rochdale and there is a further project in Derby.

  Industrial Location
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) what form of monitoring is under way on the net job changes which have arisen or which are projected to arise as a result of the impact of the Channel tunnel and 1992 on industrial location;

  (2) what form of monitoring is under way on the relocation of investment by British-based companies in mainland Europe arising out of the impact of the Channel tunnel and 1992.

  Mr. Newton
  [holding answer 11 July 1989]: Changes in unemployment between and within regions are regularly monitored. Information about direct investment by United Kingdom companies overseas is collected annually as part of the overseas transactions inquiry and published in the Business Monitor (MA4 overseas transactions). The latest information available relates to 1987. Information on cross-border acquisitions and mergers is published quarterly by my Department. Figures for the first quarter of 1989 were published on 15 July.

  National Engineering Laboratories
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what further steps are to be taken to facilitate the privatisation of the national engineering laboratory.

  Mr. Newton
  We made it clear on 17 May that, following advice from Touche Ross management consultants and the NEL supervisory board, successful privatisation of NEL required restructuring and a new commercially oriented approach to business. Privatisation of NEL remains the Government's objective so that it can best respond to the needs of its customers in industry.

  It is vitally important that a stable management framework be put in place so that the necessary changes to the laboratory can be introduced. To do this as quickly as possible we have decided that the laboratory should become a next steps agency with the objective of achieving commercial viability prior to privatisation.

  BAT Bid
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will refer the recent bid for BAT to the Director General of the Office of Fair Trading with a view to an inquiry by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 19 July 1989]: The bid by Hoylake for BAT is currently under consideration by the Director General of Fair Trading who will advise my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in the normal way on whether the proposed acquisition should be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. It would not be appropriate to comment in detail on this case in advance of the director general's advice.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Water Quality
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on what dates the last two water quality or pollution checks were made in the Bristol channel; at which locations these were made; and what were the results.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The two most recent shipboard surveys in the Bristol channel carried out by my Department were conducted in October 1987 from the research vessel Clione. On the first of these, 65 stations were occupied over the length of the Bristol channel. The objectives were to study the distribution of trace elements in the waters of the channel and to recover a number of fish from the area for trace metal analysis. The second cruise focused on a grid of 75 stations around the sewage sludge disposal ground. Sediment samples were recovered for trace metal and microbiological analysis as well as investigations of sediment-dwelling organisms.

  In addition to shipboard study, my scientists also collected samples of mussels from Minehead, Porthcawl and Lynmouth in 1988 for cadmium analysis.

  The results of these surveys wil be published as soon as possible.

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had on the issue of access as part of the conditions for farmers receiving grants for designated environmentally sensitive areas.

  Mr. Ryder
  I have had no discussions on the matter because access is not a condition for farmers receiving environmentally sensitive area payments. These are paid to encourage the adoption of environmentally beneficial agricultural practices.

  Meat Tenderisers
  Mrs. Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research his Department is conducting into meat tenderisers.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  My Department is funding no current studies.

  Cereals Co-responsibility Levy
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement giving details of the operation of the cereals co-responsibility levy for the current year, including the total cost of administration of the scheme and the average length of time taken to make repayments of the levy.

  Mr. Ryder
  The cereals co-responsibility levy is collected from first buyers of grain, who are required to register with the intervention board for agriculture produce. The first buyers collect the levy from growers and submit it with their returns to the Home Grown Cereal Authority who act as the board's agents for this purpose. All registered first buyers are given full details of the operation of the scheme by the intervention board.
  525
  The total intervention board costs of collecting the levy in 1988–89, including £105,000 for the development of a computer system, were £430,000. Administration costs connected with the levy were also incurred by the four United Kingdom Agriculture Departments but these are not identifiable separately from other costs incurred in implementing policy in the cereals sector.

  The necessary information is not collected to produce an average period for the time taken to make repayments of part of the additional levy in 1988–89. However, distribution of repayment claims started in mid-December 1988 and the deadline laid down in Community legislation for the repayments to be made is 31 July 1989.

  Bovine Somatotropin
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recommendations he has received from the veterinary products committee on Elancom's application for a product licence for bovine somatotropin following its April and May meetings.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I have received no such recommendations. At these two meetings the Committee considered that it needed further information and the company has been afforded the opportunity to provide it.

  Anthrax
  Mr. Martin Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many cases of anthrax have been recorded in the last 12 months.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  In the past 12 months there have been three outbreaks of anthrax in Great Britain involving a total of 19 animals.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when a product licence was granted for anthrax vaccine; if it is still valid; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  A product licence for an anthrax vaccine was issued on 21 November 1972; it expired on 31 August 1988, when the company concerned did not seek to renew it.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food under what statutory authority anthrax vaccine being produced at his Department's central veterinary laboratory is to be used; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The use of this vaccine would be subject to the terms of an animal test certificate or a product licence issued under the Medicines Act 1968, and to the agreement of the farmer concerned.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for South Shields of 18 July on monitoring procedures for anthrax, how he identifies suspect and non-suspect animals under the Anthrax Order 1938; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The Anthrax Order 1938 requires anyone who suspects the presence of anthrax in a carcase or live animal to notify that fact to the Ministry. If, after initial veterinary investigation, anthrax cannot be 526
  ruled out, the carcase is destroyed and blood or tissue samples are sent to the central veterinary laboratory for final diagnosis.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for South Shields of 18 July, whether the anthrax vaccine to be manufactured at his central veterinary laboratory is an autogenous one; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The vaccine is not autogenous.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what further action has been taken by his Department with regard to the outbreak of anthrax in Wales.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I have been asked to reply.

  The producer has accepted my offer of compensation for the slaughter of the whole herd.

  Animal Medicines
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask t he Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the product licences for animal medicines which have been granted without reference to the veterinary products committee in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Each year a number of licences (174 in 1986, 99 in 1987 and 198 in 1988) are issued for new products. All applications relating to previously unlicensed ingredients, or to ingredients which though previously licensed are proposed for new routes of administration or to treat additional diseases, or which otherwise raise problems of assessment are reported to the veterinary products committee. Others, including applications for licences for products identical to other products already licensed, are assessed by officials. In addition several hundred licences are issued each year to renew expiring licences, without reference to the VPC.

  A record of licences issued without reference to the VPC is not maintained separately and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Farm Animals (Deaths)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the total number of(a) cows, (b) pigs and (c) sheep which received post-mortem inspections to investigate the cause of death for each year since 1982; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Yes. Information is as follows:

  Cattle

  Sheep

  Pigs

  1982

  3,044

  6,366

  3,992

  1983

  3,376

  7,052

  3,868

  1984

  3,253

  7,413

  3,578

  1985

  3,404

  7,141

  3,272

  1986

  3,264

  7,568

  3,014

  1987

  2,871

  6,293

  2,417

  1988

  2,891

  6,057

  2,107

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will introduce a requirement to record the deaths of farm animals and the movement thereof, in the animal movement book; and if he will make a statement.
  527
  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I have no plans to do so.

  Veterinary Products Committee
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many members there are on his veterinary products committee; and if he will give the numbers attending each of its last 12 meetings.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The numbers of VPC members fluctuates as appointments are made and resignations occur. Including the chairman, the numbers of members at the times of each of the last 12 meetings and the members which attended are as follows:

  Number of members

  Number attending

  June 1988

  21

  14

  July 1988

  21

  14

  September 1988

  14

  14

  October 1988

  14

  9

  November 1988

  14

  11

  December 1988

  14

  9

  January 1989

  17

  14

  February 1989

  17

  16

  March 1989

  17

  15

  April 1989

  17

  15

  May 1989

  16

  13

  June 1989

  16

  11

  Nuvan
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for how long a product licence was granted by the veterinary products committee in respect of Nuvan's use on fish farms.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  In accordance with the veterinary products committee's recommendation, a product licence for one year has been issued for Aquagard sea-lice treatment.

  Cauliflower Florets
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the number of plant trials and tests carried out in each year since 1982 into the colour and solidity of cauliflower florets.

  Mr. Ryder
  I understand that trials were first carried out by the National Institute of Agricultural Botany in 1984. The number of trials undertaken by the institute in each year is as follows:

  Year

  Autumn harvest

  Spring harvest

  1984

  2

  1

  1985

  2

  10

  1986

  2

  2

  1987

  1

  2

  1988

  1

  1

  1989

  1

  1

  1 Trial failure.

  The colour, as such, of florets is not recorded, only off-colours.

  Plant Testing
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what are the sources of funds for plant variety testing and seed certification in each year since 1982 both gross and net of fee income, and in both current and standard prices;

  (2) if he will list the sources of finance for the National Institute of Agricultural Botany in current and standard prices for each year from 1982 to 1988–89 distinguishing between Government grants for statutory work and grant-in-aid.

  Mr. Ryder
  Details of public funding for the National Institute of Agricultural Botany (NIAB) and other bodies engaged in plant variety testing and certification work are published in the appropriation accounts, copies of which are available in the Library of the House. Final outturn figures for 1988–89 are not yet available—provisional figures are given in supply estimates. The relevant references are:

  1982–83 Vol III Class III Agriculture Fish & Forestry 88-III

  1983–84 Vol III Class III Agriculture Fish & Forestry 614-III

  1984–85 Vol III Class III Agriculture Fish & Forestry 592-III

  1985–86 Vol III Class III Agriculture Fish & Forestry 586-III

  1986–87 Vol III Class IV Agriculture Fish & Forestry including IBAP and FC107-III

  1987–88 Vol III Class IV Agriculture Fish & Forestry including IBAP and FC7–7-III

  1988–89 Supply Estimates Class IV MAFF including IBAP and FC339-IV

  Details of NIAB private funding are published in the Institute's annual reports, copies of which are also available in the Library of the House.

  Pre-packed Salads
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) in which year charges were introduced for tests on pre-packed crisp salad; and what income is derived from such charges;

  (2) what is the number of tests carried out on pre-prepared packs of crisp salad, together with the numbers of test failures in each year since 1983.

  Mr. Ryder
  Charges for microbiological and other laboratory tests undertaken by ADAS farm and countryside service were introduced in 1972. The results of such tests and the testing criteria are confidential to the customer paying for such work. There are no specific composition standards or definitions of "pre-packed crisp salad material". It is for the customer therefore to specify the material he wishes to be tested under this description and the tests to be applied. Information on the number of tests and the income from them cannot be reliably estimated in view of the range of materials and tests which could be involved.

  Seed Standards
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food at what date Britain became the technical co-ordinator for Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development work on seed standards; and at which agency this work is carried out.

  Mr. Ryder
  The National Institute of Agricultural Botany has acted since 1954 as co-ordinating centre for the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development seed certification schemes. The service is provided under direct contract.

  Post-mortems
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list all the animals, farmed, domestic and wild on which his veterinary investigation centre will carry out post-mortem examinations, giving for each type of animal the current cost of each examination and whether the cost is borne by(a) farmers, (b) the Ministry or (c) some other party; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  [holding answer 21 July 1989]: The Ministry's veterinary investigation service carries out post-mortem examinations for a range of animals for different purposes. The cost of examining a particular carcase varies according to its size and the detail of the examination required. Indicative costs, however, can be taken as those shown in the table for chargeable laboratory diagnosis.

  (a) Chargeable Laboratory Diagnosis
  A diagnosis service is provided for veterinary surgeons in private practice. Species covered include any farmed species of bird, fish or mammal. Charges are made to the veterinary surgeon or, in the case of fish or birds, the owner. Current charges, based on average costs and excluding VAT, are:

  Per carcase

  Per batch

  £

  £

  Birds, small mammals and fish

  10·00

  15·00

  Calves, sheep, goats and pigs

  17·00

  25·00

  Yearling and adult cattle

  30·00

  —

  Other animals would be charged according to size.

  (b) Statutory measures to protect the health of livestock
  This covers the Ministry's work in preventing and controlling disease. Species examined could include any bird, fish or mammal except man. Costs are borne by the Ministry.

  (c) Measures to protect public health
  As part of our work in protecting public health from zoonoses, examinations may be carried out on any kind of mammal (except man), any four-footed beast which is not a mammal or birds of any species. Costs are borne by the Ministry.

  (d) Post registration surveillance of agricultural chemicals
  Under the wildlife incident investigation scheme any free living bird, mammal (except man) or companion animal (that is, dogs, cats etc.) may be submitted for examination for the presence of chemical residues. Costs are borne initially by the Ministry and recovered from chemical manufacturers from fees paid for pesticide registration.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  China
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will take steps to make it clear to the Chinese ambassador that citizens of China now in the United Kingdom are not to be subject to any pressure or threats to return to China.

  Mr. Eggar
  As I informed the House on 16 June, we have already raised with the Chinese chargé d'affaires press reports of harassment of Chinese students in this country. The chargé assured us that these reports were a complete fabrication. We would be concerned at any evidence of attempts to induce Chinese citizens here to return to China against their own free will. If such evidence is available, we would of course raise the matter with the Chinese authorities.

  Mr. Salman Rushdie
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will issue instructions to all British posts overseas that no questions concerning Mr. Salman Rushdie or "The Satanic Verses" should be put at interviews with those, including priests, applying for visas to visit the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  No. Entry clearance officers must have discretion in establishing the purpose and bona fides of those applying to visit the United Kingdom.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the achievements of his Department and his policies in helping small businesses over the last 12 months compared with the previous 12 months; and if he will publish the performance indicators by which his Department monitors those achievements and the statistical results of such monitoring.

  Mr. Eggar
  In 1988–89, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office continued to place a part of its requirements for goods and services with small businesses. The value of this business over the last two financial years was:

  £ million

  1987–88

  15·06

  1988–89

  16·38

  These figures represent 15·9 per cent. of the total expenditure in the last financial year compared to 12·5 per cent. the previous year.

  A number of FCO departments are involved in the purchasing function. Each department monitors and records its own expenditure with small firms. New systems are being introduced into the main purchasing centres to enable the information to be recorded by computer.

  The FCO director of purchasing disseminates to purchasing departments information and guidance on procurement from small firms. He ensures that, whenever possible, such firms are included in invitations to tender and that they are awarded contracts if their offer is the best on a value-for-money basis.

  The FCO also provides assistance to small firms through the export promotion services available at posts overseas.

HEALTH

  Leukaemia Clusters
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evidence he has on alleged links between instances of leukaemia clusters and nuclear power stations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  Two studies have been published which looked at leukaemia and cancer rates in the vicinity of nuclear power stations (as well as other nuclear installations) in England and Wales. The first study' was published in 1987 by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. The second study2 was published earlier this year. Copies of this material are in the Library.
  531
  Both studies have been referred to the independent committee on medical aspects of radiation in the environment (COMARE), which provided a preliminary assessment of this work in its third report to Government' published last month, a copy of which is in the Library. For a summary of COMARE's findings, I refer the hon. Member to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson) on 21 June 1989 at column 151–52.
  1 'Cancer incidence and mortality in the vicinity of nuclear installations. England and Wales, 1959–80'. Office Population Censuses and Surveys. Studies on Medical and Population Subjects No. 51. (HMSO 1987).
  2 'Geographical variation in mortality from leukaemia and other cancers in England and Wales in relation to proximity to nuclear installations, 1969–78'. British Journal of Cancer 59 476–485.
  3 'Report on the incidence of Childhood Cancer in the West Berkshire and North Hampshire area, in which are situated the Atomic Weapons Establishment, Aldermaston and the Royal Ordnance Factory, Burghfield'. (HMSO 1989).

  NHS Funding
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the figure in real terms for the increase in funding(a) for the National Health Service as a whole and (b) for the Harrogate district health authority since May 1979.

  Mr. Freeman
  Harrogate health authority was established on 1 April 1982. Prior to that date Harrogate formed part of the North Yorkshire area health authority and district based figures were not collected centrally.

  The table shows the real terms increase in gross revenue expenditure between 1982–83 and 1987–88 (the latest year for which figures are available):

  £ million

  1982–83

  1987–88

  Real terms percentage increase1

  All RHAs and SHAs

  8,141·2

  10,243·5

  10·1

  Harrogate health authority

  20·1

  25·3

  13·2

  1 Using the GDP deflator.

  Since then health authorities have received further real terms increases bringing the total estimated increase over the period 1982–83 to 1989–90 nationally, and in Harrogate health authority to over 14 per cent.

  Small Shops (Licensing)
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he has any plans to introduce a licensing system aimed at smaller shops, to ensure that they are fit and responsible enough to sell eggs and other produce.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Government have been consulting a large number of organisations on a thorough review of food legislation, including proposals for the registration of food premises. We shall be bringing forward legislation as soon as the parliamentary timetable permits.

  Community Health Councils
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what reviews or surveys are being carried out or planned into community health councils in England and Wales; with what terms of reference; and if he will make a statement.
  532
  Mr. Mellor
  No such review is being carried out or planned by the Department. I understand that the Association of Community Health Councils in England and Wales has recently endorsed a report from a pane] of inquiry into the role and organisation of community health councils, and we will be considering the report carefully.

  Child Migrant Schemes
  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children were sent to New Zealand and Australia by voluntary organisations under the child migrant schemes in each year since 1964.

  Mr. Mellor
  We do not hold this information centrally.

  Community Care
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if, in drawing up his White Paper on community care, he will take account of the views expressed to him by CARE, Kibworth, Leicester, about funding an individual when a local authority declines to top up its proportion of the cost involved.

  Mr. Mellor
  We are pleased to receive views from all interested parties about our proposals for community care and will take them into account in preparing the White Paper to be published in the autumn. I am afraid that we are unable to trace the correspondence from CARE in Kibworth referred to by my hon. Friend, and I would be grateful if he could arrange for a copy to be sent to me.

  Swimming
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many fatalities have occurred in each of the last 10 years as a result of members of the public swimming in reservoirs and other waters not designated for recreational use in(a) the United Kingdom, (b) North West England, and (c) Bolton; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested based on details recorded at time of death registration could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Nurses and Midwives (Grading)
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will break down the information given in his answer to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman), on 11 July at column 468, about bids by district health authorities for additional financial allocations from the sum available in 1988–89 for flexible pay settlements for nursing and midwifery staff to show the number of bids in respect of midwifery staff, the grades of the posts concerned, and the number of such bids which were accepted.

  Mr. Mellor
  Four bids were received in respect of posts clearly designated as midwifery, covering 152 staff. Of these three were accepted, covering 146 staff graded at D, E and F, and one was rejected, covering six staff at grade I.

  A further 10 bids were received in respect of units related to maternity where the greater proportion of the posts may be filled by midwives. These were all accepted, and covered 267 staff at grades C to G.

  Cholesterol Tests
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what guidelines his Department issues for the use of over-the-counter tests for blood cholesterol levels;

  (2) if his Department has any plans to regulate the sale and use of over-the-counter cholesterol tests.

  Mr. Freeman
  We have not issued any guidelines on the use of over-the-counter tests for blood cholesterol levels and there are no current plans to regulate the sale and use of such tests.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps his Department has taken to establish the accuracy of over-the-counter tests for blood cholesterol levels.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Department is funding an evaluation of the two most commonly used machines for measuring blood cholesterol levels in the United Kingdom, involving testing both under laboratory conditions and in GP clinics. The work is being carried out by Mr. Peter Broughton of Wolfson research laboratories in Birmingham, and includes accuracy testing, and investigation of performance variation when carried out by skilled and non-laboratory trained operatives. The final report will be available by the end of the year.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans his Department has to introduce nation wide blood cholesterol level screening for adults; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  We have invited the Standing Medical Advisory Committee to advise on the cost-effectiveness of wider cholesterol testing in the prevention and treatment of heart disease.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many letters were received from, and sent to, hon. Members by his Department in(a) January and (b) the whole of this session up to 1 July.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Department received 1,165 letters from, and despatched 1,176 letters to, hon. Members in January. In the whole of this session up to 1 July 14,348 letters were received and, by that date 10,615 replies sent.

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  Number of cases of principal types of food poisoning detected or reported 1983–88 (England and Wales)

  Clostridium botulinum

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Salmonella enteriditis

  1,774

  2,071

  3,096

  4,771

  6,858

  15,427

  Salmonella typhimurium

  7,785

  7,264

  5,478

  7,094

  7,660

  6,444

  Other salmonellas

  5,596

  5,392

  4,756

  5,111

  6,014

  5,607

  Listeriosis

  115

  115

  149

  137

  259

  1291

  Number of incidents (outbreaks and isolated cases) of other types of food poisoning reported 1983–88 (England and Wales)

  Clostridium perfringens

  68

  68

  64

  61

  151

  2—

  Staphylococcus aureus

  17

  10

  13

  11

  113

  2

  Bacillus sp

  24

  28

  22

  26

  124

  2

  Laboratory reports of Campylobacter infections

  17,299

  21,049

  23,619

  24,844

  27,415

  128,761

  1 Provisional

  2 Not yet available

  Source: PHLS

  NHS Reform
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many community health councils have made representations to his Department opposing the Government's White Paper "Working for Patients"; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  We have received a number of representations from community health councils. These generally welcome the proposals in the White Paper aimed at enhancing standards of patient care. Some express support for other proposals or raise questions on specific issues. I regret that it is not possible to quantify the representations in the way the hon. Member requests.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether his proposals for medical audit announced in "Working for Patients" will be extended to professional groups other than doctors; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 19 July 1989]: Obviously in the care of the patient a number of professions are involved and it is important that work on developing audit measures is complementary. Whilst "Working for Patients" focused mainly on the care and treatment provided by doctors, work to establish audit in other health professions is taking place. For example, an important part of the Department's project "Making Best Use of Nursing Skills" is concerned with developing a nursing audit package.

  Waiting Lists, Hampstead
  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the waiting list figures for June 1988 and June 1989 in respect of the Hampstead health authority.

  Mr. Mellor
  The latest published figures, for September 1988, show 4,386 patients on Hampstead health authority's waiting list. The figure for September 1987 was 3,706. Provisional figures for March 1989 suggest a substantial reduction, to below the September 1987 level.

  Food Poisoning
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of botulism, salmonella enteriditis, salmonella typhimurium, listeriosis and other types of food poisoning have been detected and reported since 1983 for each month of each year.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information is not readily available in the form requested. Annual figures for 1983 to 1988 are given in the tables. It is not known how many of the campylobacter infections are food-borne.

  Regional Secure Units
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he intends to seek to amend section 66(1) of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968 in order to include visitors to patients in regional secure units.

  Mr. Freeman
  There are no plans to amend this section of the 1968 Act.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the achievements of his Department and his policies in helping small businesses over the last 12 months compared with the previous 12 months; and if he will publish the performance indicators by which his Department monitors those achievements and the statistical results of such monitoring.

  Mr. Freeman
  A booklet has been produced and a series of seminars held on how to do business with the NHS. Other initiatives include the issuing of a mission statement on electronic data interchange which encourages small firm involvement and progress has been made on harmonisation of European standards of equipment, which will assist small businesses in their future trading in Europe. Equal opportunity to trade on a value for money basis underpins all contracts with non-NHS organisations, the details of these are not collected centrally.

  Cigarette Advertisements
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether cigarette advertisements which contain only the warning that smoking when pregnant can injure the baby and cause premature birth, and not a more general health warning linking smoking to lung cancer and other respiratory illnesses, are treated as being in breach of the current code of practices in relation to cigarette advertising; whether he has any plans to strengthen the current arrangements; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  The warning "Smoking when pregnant can injure your baby and cause premature birth" is one of the six agreed warnings included in the voluntary agreement with the tobacco industry on tobacco products' advertising and promotion, and health warnings. This warning contains important information and we have no plans to discontinue its use. It is used in rotation with five other warnings which highlight the other health risks associated with cigarette smoking. On the question of re-negotiating the current voluntary agreements with the industry, officials have had some preliminary discussions with the Tobacco Advisory Council, and we are considering the way forward.

  Salomons Science Theatre
  Sir Barney Hayhoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he has taken to ensure that the covenants concerning the Salomons Broomhill estate are being fully honoured, and that the science theatre and its fixtures, fittings and contents are being properly maintained and protected against vandalism.

  Mr. Freeman
  These are matters for which the South East Thames regional health authority is responsible.
  536
  Sir Barney Hayhoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when Mr. Frank Holland, MBE, director of the British Piano Museum Educational Charitable Trust, may expect a reply to his letter of 27 April to Mr. K. Lau, regional liaison division of his Department, about the David Salomons science theatre.

  Mr. Freeman
  A letter was sent to Mr. Holland on 22 May. Officials will write again to Mr. Holland, enclosing a copy of this, in case he did not receive it.

  Scientific Staff
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make a statement on the extent of current shortages of National Health Service physicists, biochemists, other scientists and clinical psychologists;

  (2) what is the latest available information on the turnover of National Health Service physicists, biochemists, other scientists and clinical psychologists.

  Mr. Mellor
  We do not hold the information centrally.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set up an independent inquiry into the determination of the salaries of National Health Service physicists, biochemists, other scientists and clinical psychologists.

  Mr. Mellor
  No. The negotiation of pay for these groups is a matter for the appropriate Whitley Council.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received concerning the re-establishment of the link between the pay of scientific civil servants and that of National Health Service physicists, biochemists, other scientists and clinical psychologists; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  We have received numerous letters from hon. Members enclosing letters from constituents who make reference to the pay of scientific civil servants.

  Cook-chill Catering
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will commission an independent study of the comparative nutritional values of cook-chill methods of hospital catering and the implications for the diet and health of short-stay and long-stay hospital patients a nd make public the results.

  Mr. Freeman
  No. I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 10 July at column 372.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his policy on the size of portions of food to be served to patients when district health authorities are introducing cook-chill meals.

  Mr. Freeman
  The provision of catering services is the responsibility of local health authorities.

  Abortions
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many abortions were performed under ground 6 of the Abortion Act 1967 in each year since 1968.
  537
  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Abortions performed under ground 6 of the 1967 Abortion Act, which allows an abortion in an emergency to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman, 1968–88

  Year

  Total

  1968

  45

  1969

  31

  1970

  36

  1971

  12

  1972

  15

  1973

  12

  1974

  6

  1975

  2

  1976

  9

  1977

  8

  1978

  7

  1979

  10

  1980

  3

  1981

  9

  1982

  5

  1983

  3

  1984

  8

  1985

  11

  1986

  4

  1987

  4

  11988

  5

  1 Provisional data.

  Mental Health Act Commission
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many special hospitals there are in the area covered by the Liverpool office of the Mental Health Act Commission; and if he will list them.

  Mr. Freeman
  Two; Moss Side and Park Lane hospitals.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he has any plans to close the Liverpool office of the Mental Health Act Commission;

  (2) if he has plans to review the work of the Mental Health Act Commission; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what plans he has to centralise the work of the Mental Health Act Commission.

  Mr. Freeman
  We shall be considering shortly the Commission's review of its functions, organisation, staffing and finance. Centralisation is one of the issues being considered as part of that review. We expect to reach decisions well before the end of the year.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last held discussions with the Mental Health Act commissioners in the north-west; and what subjects were discussed.

  Mr. Freeman
  We are in regular contact with the Commission chairman and secretariat, but it has not been the practice to meet commissioners on a regional basis.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health why no Mental Health Act commissioners in the north-west were re-appointed this year; and what is the position with regard to re-appointments in other regions.

  Mr. Freeman
  The normal length of appointment as a commissioner is now four years, though some are invited to serve for longer because of the exceptional 538
  contributions they make. Twenty-nine commissioners appointed by my predecessors complete at least four years in office this autumn, and five have been invited to serve for a further period because of their individual contributions. Two of these are based in the southern region and three in the north eastern region.

  Child Protection Registers
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what financial resources have been made available to local authorities in the last five years for which figures are available to alleviate the problem of unallocated cases on child protection registers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  The overall level of central Government's contribution to expenditure by local authorities takes into account services authorities are required to provide. It is however for the authorities themselves to determine how to allocate the funds available to them in the light of local circumstances and overall legislative requirements.

  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has as to the number of children on the child protection registers of each London borough and the number in each London borough who have not been allocated to a social worker.

  Mr. Mellor
  The available information is in the table.

  Local Authority

  Number1

  Camden

  279

  Greenwich

  467

  Hackney

  176

  Hammersmith

  226

  Islington

  280

  Kensington

  146

  Lambeth

  565

  Lewisham

  412

  Southwark

  873

  Tower Hamlets

  238

  Wandsworth

  283

  Westminster

  138

  City of London

  0

  Barking

  77

  Barnet

  181

  Bexley

  205

  Brent

  212

  Bromley

  203

  Croydon

  170

  Ealing

  182

  Enfield

  106

  Haringey

  296

  Harrow

  70

  Havering

  53

  Hillingdon

  147

  Hounslow

  118

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  75

  Merton

  118

  Newham

  317

  Redbridge

  134

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  76

  Sutton

  95

  Waltham Forest

  208

  1 Children on Child Protection Registers.

  We do not hold information about unallocated cases centrally and it could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Foster Care Placements
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has as to the number of foster care placements by each London borough which are outside the boundaries of those boroughs; and whether any local authorities have reported to him any difficulties in recruiting foster carers.

  Mr. Mellor
  The latest available information is as follows:

  Children in care at 31 March 19871 boarded out by London authorities in the area of other authorities who were not boarded out with a relative or friend and were not living in a relative's household

  Local authority

  Number3

  Camden

  137

  Greenwich

  49

  Hackney

  204

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  103

  Islington2

  —

  Kensington and Chelsea

  75

  Lambeth

  244

  Lewisham2

  —

  Southwark

  248

  Tower Hamlets

  177

  Wandsworth

  147

  Westminster

  78

  City of London

  3

  Barking and Dagenham

  30

  Barnet

  13

  Bexley

  50

  Brent

  91

  Bromley

  34

  Croydon

  41

  Ealing

  92

  Enfield

  44

  Haringey

  96

  Harrow

  20

  Havering

  28

  Hillingdon

  18

  Hounslow

  59

  Kingston Upon Thames

  18

  Merton

  44

  Newham

  103

  Redbridge

  58

  Richmond Upon Thames

  12

  Sutton

  34

  Waltham Forest

  56

  1 Figures for 1987 are provisional and subject to revision.

  2 Figures for Islington and Lewisham were not available.

  3 Children in care who were boarded out in the area of another local authority and were not boarded out with a relative or friend.

  We understand that some local authorities are not successful in recruiting within their own areas a sufficient number and range of foster parents for children requiring placements.

  Indicative Prescribing Budgets
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health by what means general practitioners will monitor their indicative prescribing budgets; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The Government indicated in working paper 4 of the NHS review series ("Indicative Prescribing Budgets for General Medical Practitioners") that the ideal way of providing information at all levels to operate the indicative prescribing budget scheme was an enhancement of the existing prescribing analyses and cost system known as PACT.
  540
  Our feasibility studies have confirmed that PACT can be speeded up, and made more frequent and more comprehensive. I have therefore asked the Prescription Pricing Authority and my Department to develop PACT to provide all general practitioners with monthly budgetary statements from April 1991. These budgetary statements will normally be provided no more than four weeks after the month in which the relevant prescriptions were dispensed. Existing PACT reports will continue to be provided.

  I will continue to hold discussions with interested parties before deciding upon the detailed content and format of these reports and other associated improvements to PACT. I shall also be making available PACT data aggregated at family practitioner committee level to all family practitioner committees and regional health authorities from 1 August 1989 to enable them to prepare for indicative prescribing budgets.

  My decision will take away from general practitioners the burden of paperwork which might otherwise be associated with the introduction of indicative prescribing budgets. An enhanced PACT will also provide regional health authorities and family practitioner committees with information they need both to set and to monitor budgets.

  Indicative prescribing budgets will take full account of the fact that some patients and groups of patients, for example elderly people, diabetics and patients on home dialysis, need a greater volume of drugs or more expensive drugs than others. The scheme will ensure that budgets fully reflect these costs. There will be no disincentive to practices to accept such patients or to begin to prescribe expensive medicines to existing patients, if there is a clinical need to do so.

  Overseas Visitors (Fees)
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in what circumstances British citizens may be charged fees as overseas visitors for treatment within the National Health Service; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  Residence in the United Kingdom, not citizenship, is the measure of qualification for hospital treatment without charge under the National Health Service. British citizens not ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom will be charged as overseas visitors for NHS hospital treatment.

  General practitioners have the discretion whether to accept a visitor as a NHS patient. If a visitor is unable to find a GP willing to accept him onto the GP's list, he can apply to the family practitioner committee which will allocate him to a GP who must then accept him as a NHS patient.

  Disability
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on how many occasions in 1989 meetings to discuss the implementation of section 7 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 have been held between his Department and(a) the local authority associations and (b) the National Association of Health Authorities; on how many occasions meetings have been arranged but subsequently cancelled at the request of his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 19 July 1989]: Officials had arranged to meet representatives of the local authorities

  541
  associations and the National Association of Health Authorities in February but this was deferred to March to allow further preparatory work to be done. The National Association of Health Authorities was invited but did not send a representative. At that meeting it was agreed that officials would work on identifying the processes likely to be required for assessment purposes and costings before another meeting is held. No further meeting has yet been arranged.

  Magnetic Resonance Scanners
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the locations at which nuclear magnetic resonance scanners are available within the National Health Service.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 20 July 1989]: Nuclear magnetic resonance scanners are located on the following National Health sites in the United Kingdom:

  Royal Infirmary, Aberdeen

  Southern General, Glasgow

  Royal Infirmary, Edinburgh

  Queens Medical Centre, Nottingham

  Hammersmith Hospital, London (RPMS)(2)

  National Hospital, London (2)

  St. Bartholomew's, London

  National Heart, London

  Mount Vernon, London Guy's, London

  Camden Children's, London

  John Ratcliffe, Oxford

  Addenbrookes, Cambridge

  Frenchay, Bristol

  Walsgrave, Coventry

  Royal Marsden, Sutton

  Castle Hill Hospital, Cottingham
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health from where the proposed finishing kitchen at Castle Hill hospital, Cottingham, will receive its supplies of prepared food.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 20 July 1989]: This is a local matter and not for me. We have no doubt however that the district health authority will seek to use the most cost effective and efficient source of supply available. The hon. Member may wish to contact the chairman of the East Yorkshire health authority for such information as may be available at this time.

  Cyclotron Machines
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if, before making funds available for the purchase of a cyclotron machine for St. Thomas's hospital, he took into account evidence of the use and success rate of cyclotron machines in other European Economic Community countries;

  (2) what evidence he had about existing cyclotron machines' performances in the United Kingdom before providing funds of the purchase of the cyclotron for St. Thomas's hospital.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 20 July 1989]: I refer the hon. Member to my reply to him on 17 February 1989 at column 419.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Inland Revenue (Relocation)
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to announce a decision on the proposal to relocate over 2,000 Inland Revenue head office posts to Nottingham; and whether there are any plans to relocate the remaining pay-as-you-earn tax work currently carried on in tax offices in the London area.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Following an internal review of its London headquarters accommodation, the Board of Inland Revenue published on 21 April this year a working party report which recommended that, in view of the continuing problems which faced the Department on its accommodation and staffing in the London area, over 2,000 posts in headquarters and other specialist officers should be relocated from south-east England.

  After full consultations with the appropriate Civil Service unions, with senior management and with staff, the board has concluded, with my agreement, that some 2,100 posts should be relocated. The great majority of these posts will move to Nottingham provided that a suitable site for a new office development can be obtained on satisfactory terms. As well as headquarters staff, it is envisaged that the capital taxes office, the superannuation funds office and the office of the inspector of foreign dividends will be included in the move to Nottingham. Depending on progress, it is hoped that the main relocation of work to Nottingham will take place from 1992.

  As for the PAYE tax work, my hon. Friend will be aware that the majority of this work in the London area was transferred to offices in other parts of the country in the 1960s and 1970s. It has now been decided to move the PAYE work of some further 400 clerical and executive staff in late 1989 to Cardiff, Bootle, Edinburgh, Glasgow and Livingston, and the Department is looking at the possibility of moving the work of a further 1,200 or so PAYE posts, including all of the remaining London posts, away from the London area in the period from mid-1990 to mid-1992.

  While work is being moved the Department will try to ensure that any inconvenience to the public is kept to a minimum. For the longer term, in order to maintain a service for those who need to make a personal visit to discuss their tax affairs, the existing network of local inquiry offices in the London area will be strengthened and enlarged where necessary.

  The moves will secure a good and cost-effective service for the taxpayer. Better recruitment prospects outside the south-east will result in a more experienced and stable work force.

  Life Assurance
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer in what respects investment-linked life assurance policies are taxed differently from endowment-linked mortgage policies; and what would be the saving to the revenue from treating the latter on the same basis as authorised unit trusts.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  For the life office, in no respects. For the policy holder, no distinction is drawn between investment-linked policies, as such, and endowment
  543
  policies associated with mortgages. For any sort of policy, the tax treatment will depend on the terms of the policy (in particular, whether it is a "qualifying" policy); the circumstances in which policy benefits are paid out; and the overall tax position of the policy holder. Most endowment policies associated with mortgages are not investment-linked and therefore cannot be treated on the same basis as unit trusts: no estimate can accordingly be made of the revenue effect of doing so.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate for 1989–90 of the figures quoted in paragraphs 6.9 and 5.16 of the recent consultation paper on the taxation of life assurance.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  There is no paragraph 5.16 in the consultative document to which the hon. Member refers. Information required to update the estimates to 1989–90 in paragraph 6.9 is not available.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the aggregate value of single premium life assurance policies; what is his estimate of the amount of tax collected per £1,000 of single premium over the life of a single premium life assurance policy in terms of constant prices; and what is his estimate of the gain to the revenue per £1,000 of premium from a tax regime meeting the criteria set out in paragraph 3.3 of the consultative document on the taxation of life assurance issued by the Inland Revenue in June.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  No estimate is available for the total value of single premium policies. None can be made for the lifetime tax yield per £1,000 of premiums paid on such policies whether under the current tax regime or under any alternative regime. This would vary widely depending on the future performance of each policy, on future tax rates, on the overall tax position of the life offices and policy holders concerned, and on the length of time for which each policy holder chose to retain his policy.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the estimated revenue yield in the current financial year from fully implementing each of the options listed in paragraph 7.9 of the recent consultation paper on the taxation of life assurance; and if he will publish in the Official Report the charge falling on the policy holders and shareholders in the case of investment-linked and other life assurance, distinguishing where appropriate between qualifying and non-qualifying policies, current charges, exit charges and capital gains.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The options to which the hon. Member refers set out in broad outline possible alternative approaches to the reform of life assurance. The extra yield, if any, to be expected from implementation of these options would depend on the precise measures assumed to be adopted. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in the Budget the Governments' proposals for implementation along the lines of "Option C" in the consultative document: estimates of the initial effect of these proposals on tax yield, and indications of their possible long-run effects, were published in the "Financial Statement and Budget Report" (HC 235).

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the estimated revenue yield in the 544
  current financial year from taxing pension schemes on the basis of the first and last of the principles set out in paragraph 7.3 of the recent consultation paper of the taxation of life assurance.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The first principle in paragraph 7.3 of the consultative document "The Taxation of Life Assurance" is that income earned for policy holders should be taxed as it arises and that capital gains should be taxed, at the latest, as they are reflected in benefits paid out. To apply this principle to funded occupational pension schemes would require that tax relief on the investment income of the funds should be withdrawn. It would be for decision whether pensioners would be allowed a tax credit to set against the tax due on the pensions paid to them to reflect the tax which had been borne by the fund on its investment income. The net revenue cost or yield would depend upon the precise proposal, on the nature of any transitional provisions and on the behavioural responses of investors and institutions. Any estimate of revenue would almost certainly involve disproportionate cost.

  The last principle is that tax effectively borne by policy holders and that actually reaching the Exchequer should as far as possible be in line. For occupational pension schemes, this already applies.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the estimated share and estimated value of the pension and annuity business referred to in paragraph 6.23 of the recent consultation paper on the taxation of life assurance; and what is the amount of the disparity referred to in paragraph 6.25.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  On the basis of a sample of companies for 1986, pension and general annuity business liabilities at the end of that year amounted to about half of total life assurance liabilities, amounting to some £110 billion, of offices authorised to do life assurance business in the United Kingdom.

  The disparity referred to in paragraph 6.25 of the consultative document "The Taxation of Life Assurance" will be eliminated once relevant measures in the current Finance Bill come into full force from 1 January 1990.

  Savings
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing for the various forms of institutional saving the estimated gain to the revenue in the current financial year from disallowing commission etc. as an expense.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Information on which to base a reliable estimate is not available centrally.

  Engagements
  Mr. Siliars
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list his engagements when he expects to make a major speech on the economy.

  Mr. Major
  My right hon. Friend will be speaking on a number of occasions over the next few months, including the IMF/IBRD meetings in Washington (26–28 September), the Conservative party conference (10–13 October) and at the Mansion house (19 October).

  Charitable Donations
  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 a donation by a commercial company towards an advertisement by a charitable organisation, rather than on the value of that part of the advertisement which might be deemed to be promoting the company.

  Mr. Lilley
  There is no VAT liability on unconditional gifts of money, but where payments are conditional on a charitable organisation supplying clearly identifiable benefits in return, for example, advertising or publicity, such supplies are liable to VAT, and have to be accounted for at the standard rate by any charitable organisation whose taxable turnover exceeds the registration limits.

  TSB Scotland
  Mr. Siliars
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish the text of the letter of assurance about the future of TSB Scotland which he received from the then chairman of the TSB Group at the time of privatisation.

  Mr. Lilley
  The letter written when the Trustee Savings Bank Act 1985 was under consideration was published in Hansard on 4 July 1985 at cols. 261–63.

  Mr. Siliars
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will institute an inquiry into the TSB before its proposed restructuring takes place, with a view to ensuring that pledges of autonomy for its Scottish operations, which were given at the time of flotation, are fulfilled.

  Mr. Lilley
  The future structure of the TSB is a matter for the TSB. I note that the TSB has recently confirmed that the assurances made at the time of its flotation will be honoured.

  Interest Rates (Mortgages)
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many letters he has received from members of the public on the level of interest rates or their impact on the cost of mortgages.

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

  "Official Report" (Sales)
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the average daily sale of daily parts of the Official Report in 1988 and in each of the preceding nine years.

  Mr. Lilley
  The estimated average number of copies sold per issue for each year since 1980 is given in the table. I regret that figures for 1979 are no longer available.

  House of Commons Daily

  House of Lords Daily

  1980

  6,169

  3,855

  1981

  5,812

  3,688

  1982

  5,391

  3,295

  1983

  5,221

  3,234

  1984

  5,005

  3,290

  1985

  4,925

  3,038

  1986

  4,713

  3,030

  546

  House of Commons Daily

  House of Lords Daily

  1987

  4,638

  2,930

  1988

  4,535

  2,669

  Inflation
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current level of inflation.

  Mr. Lilley
  The all items RPI inflation rate in the year to June 1989 was 8·3 per cent. the same as in May. A better indication of underlying inflation is given by the increase in the RPI excluding mortgage interest payments; it rose 5·9 per cent. in the year to June 1989, down slightly from the 6 per cent. figure in May.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the achievements of his Department and his policies in helping small businesses over the last 12 months compared with the previous 12 months; and if he will publish the performance indicators by which his Department monitors those achievements and the statistical results of such monitoring.

  Mr. Major
  The Government's economic policies are designed to maintain a vigorous economy in which business and enterprise can flourish. Over the last 12 months we have continued our commitment to this goal. Among the specific measures helpful to small businesses introduced in the last Budget were:for the small companies' lower corporation tax rate of 25 per cent. profit limit raised by 50 per cent. to £150,000 and the limit for receiving transitional relief raised to £750,000; simplification of pensions rules and substantial increases in personal pension contribution limits;
  improved tax reliefs designed to encourage employee participation in PRP and employee share schemes (including ESOPS);
  abolition of close company apportionment rules;
  introduction of the receipts basis of schedule E (a simpler system for the assessment of earnings).
  extended relief for pre-trading expenditure;
  VAT registration threshold raised broadly in line with inflation;
  CGT gifts relief retained for business assets.

  We are continually looking at ways of reducing the burdens on small businesses. In addition to the continuous review of forms, explanatory notices and leaflets with the aim of providing guidance which can be easily understood, the following changes have been achieved in the last 12 months:
  The completion of the computerisation of PAYE and extension throughout the country of computerisation of the tax affairs of the self-employed.
  From 1 July 1989 the scope of the Community carnet was extended. Development work has taken place for the introduction on 1 August 1989 of two fast lane systems which will speed up the clearance of certain EC imports.
  Development work is proceeding on a new computerised system for the handling of import export freight which will speed up the clearance of goods.
  We have also carried out thorough examinations of:

  The VAT cash accounting scheme;

  Default surcharge;

  VAT bad debt relief;

  Export data capture;

  VAT second hand schemes; and

  PAYE communications between employers and the Inland Revenue

  547
  The results of these reviews are under consideration.

  Debt Repayment
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the exchanges between his officials and Sir Kit McMahon and the team of Midland bankers who visited Brazil in February to consider debt repayment problems.

  Mr. Peter Lilley
  [holding answer 17 July 1989]: It has been internationally agreed that it is not for the Government to intervene in negotiations between commercial banks and debtor countries, and the United Kingdom fully supports this policy. Accordingly there have been no discussions on Brazil's debts to commercial banks between my officials and Sir Kit McMahon or other members of the Midland bank team which visited Brazil.

  EC (Tax Relief)
  Mr. Lester
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish figures of the information he has for wage and salary earners in each of the member states of the European Community showing(a) which allow income tax relief against social security contributions, (b) which allow income tax relief against specified travel to work costs, (c) which have a non-specific earned income tax relief and (d) which allow income tax relief for work-related child care costs.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 19 July 1989]: According to our latest available information, these reliefs are allowed in the EC member states as follows:

  (a) In all member states, except the United Kindom and Ireland, social security contributions are generally an allowable deduction in the computation of taxable income from employment.

  (b) In Luxembourg and Netherlands specified travel to work costs are allowed as a deduction in the computation of taxable income from employment. Certain other countries, eg. Belgium, Denmark, France and Federal Republic of Germany grant a flat-rate expense deduction for employment income, which is intended to cover, inter alia, the cost of travel to work.

  (c) A general deduction in the computation of taxable income from employment, at varying percentages or flat-rates, is allowed in Belgium, Denmark, France, Federal Republic of Germany, Greece, Luxembourg, Netherlands and Spain. A flat-rate credit against tax due is allowed in Italy.

  (d) Certain reliefs in the form of deductions in the computation of taxable income from employment, with varying provisions regarding, for example, the marital status of the taxpayer and the age of the relevant children, and usually up to a specified maximum deduction, are allowed in Belgium, France, Federal Republic of Germany, Greece, Luxembourg and Netherlands.

  Family Deeds of Covenant
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will reproduce in the Official Report the text of the Inland Revenue press release sent out following the 1988 Budget regarding the date by which notification of family deeds of covenant executed before 15 March 1988 had to be intimated to the Inland Revenue; and to which newspapers and periodicals this press release was sent;
  548
  (2) what information he has regarding the newspapers and periodicals in which there was publication of a reference to the Inland Revenue press release issued after the 1988 Budget and relating to the 30 June deadline by which intimation had to be made to the Inland Revenue of family deeds of covenant executed before 15 March 1988.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 20 July 1989]: The text of the Inland Revenue press release issued on 15 March 1988 was as follows:
  "The Chancellor proposes in his Budget to abolish tax relief for payments made by individuals under non-charitable Deeds of Covenant made on or after today. Recipients will be exempt from tax on the payments. This will greatly simplify the existing system.
  The change will apply to covenants made to students by their parents, as well as to other covenants. Parental contributions to student grants will, however, be reduced for new students. Full details will be published by the Department of Education and Science tomorrow.

  Details

  1. Non-charitable covenants made by individuals on or after 15 March 1988 will have no effect for tax purposes. This means that:
  payers should not deduct tax from covenanted payments and will not get tax relief on them, and recipients will not pay tax on them or be able to claim repayment.

  2. The present rules will continue to apply to
  all covenants in favour of charities;
  other covenants made by individuals before 15 March 1988 provided they are received by the tax office by 30 June 1988.

  Deduction of tax

  3. The effect of the reduction in the basic rate of income tax on charitable covenants, and on other covenants made before today, is set out in a separate Press Release.

  NOTES FOR EDITORS

  Present tax position

  1. A deed of covenant is a way of legally transferring income from one person to another. It can be effective for tax purposes under present law if it is capable of running for more than 6 years (or more than 3 years if it is in favour of a charity).

  2. On making each payment under the covenant the payer deducts basic rate tax and so gets basic rate relief. If the recipient is not liable to tax he can claim the tax deducted from the payment back from the Inland Revenue.

  Effect of the Budget proposals

  3. The payer will not be entitled to deduct tax from payments made under a new covenant (unless it is to a charity). If he covenants to pay £100, that is the amount he will pay and the recipient will receive. The Inland Revenue will not be involved. A separate Treasury Press Release explains the background to the proposals. Details will be available from tax offices shortly.

  Students

  4. Student covenants made on or after 15 March 1988 will be treated in the same way as other new covenants. But since the payments will no longer be taxable, students will have the whole of their personal tax allowances to set against other income, such as vacation earnings. Furthermore, for new students there will be a new and more generous scale for assessing parental contributions to their maintenance grants.

  A word of warning

  5. A Deed of Covenant is a legal document and it is not permissible to put a date on it earlier than the date it is executed. This will result in refusal of any tax refund. It can also result in prosecution by the Inland Revenue for attempted fraud.

  Other transfers of income

  6. Covenants which transfer income from one person to another are "annual payments". The proposals will also apply to other "annual payments" which transfer income in a similar way from an individual to someone else; but they will not apply to interest payments or to payments made for commercial reasons in connection with the payer's business.
  549
  Copies of the press release were sent to all national newspapers, over 200 other periodicals and local newspapers, and over 3,000 individuals and organisations which receive copies of Inland Revenue press releases on subscription. A leaflet was also available from local tax offices shortly after 15 March 1988.

  There were many articles in the press about various aspects of the 1988 Budget measures, including the changes in the tax treatment of non-charitable covenants. Comprehensive information about press reports is not available, but the particular point about the 30 June 1988 deadline which the hon. Member has in mind was specifically mentioned in a number of publications, including the Financial Times, The Daily Telegraph, Which?, Taxation and the New Law Journal. The point was also covered in the BBC radio programme "Money Box".

  Freelance Journalists
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received about Inland Revenue procedures over taxing the earnings of freelance journalists.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 20 July 1989]: None in recent months.

  Endangered Species
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will provide a breakdown of the articles derived from endangered species by(a) type, (b) animal and (c) country of origin seized by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise in the year to 31 March.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 20 July 1989]: The detailed information sought will not be available for some time. As soon as it is, I shall write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my reply in the Library.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West of 26 May,Official Report, column 810, if he will now give the finalised record of articles derived from endangered species seized in 1988.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 20 July 1989]: The detailed information sought is not yet available. As soon as the necessary collation has been completed, I shall write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my reply in the Library.

  Freelance and Self-employed People
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will seek to introduce legislation to provide consistent treatment for tax purposes for all freelance and self-employed persons.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 20 July 1989]: No. I am not aware of any inconsistency in the legislative treatment, for tax purposes, of people in business on their own account.

  Official Hospitality
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much was spent by his Department on official hospitality in 1988–89.

  Mr. Brooke
  [holding answer 21 July 1989]: The amount spent by my Department on official hospitality was £56,451 in 1988–89.

  Dangerous Substances
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his policy on compensation of industry for restrictions imposed on the use of dangerous substances.

  Mr. Chope
  I have been asked to reply.

  I assume the hon. Member is referring to my Department's consultation paper of 17 May, inviting comments on draft regulations introducing controls over hazardous substances. There is no intention to provide a general system of compensation where restrictions are imposed on the location and use of such substances. This follows the principle that compensation is not normally payable for a refusal of planning consent, or for making a consent subject to conditions. The new regulations will, however, provide for deemed consents to be automatically available for established uses.

DEFENCE

  Aircraft Interceptions
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many Soviet Backfire aircraft have penetrated the United Kingdom air defence region since 1979;

  (2) how many unidentified aircraft entered the United Kingdom air defence region in 1988; how many of these were (a) Soviet military aircraft, (b) non-Soviet military aircaft and (c) civil aircraft.

  (3) in what year the Royal Air Force first intercepted a Soviet Backfire aircraft; and what was the approximate location of the interception;

  (4) what was the average number of Soviet military aircraft intercepted per week by Royal Air Force aircraft in the United Kingdom defence regions in 1988; what are the trends in the level of activity since 1979; and what are the reasons for these trends;

  (5) what was the average number of scrambles of Royal Air Force interceptor aircraft to locate and identify unidentified aircraft approaching the United Kingdom air defence region in 1988; and what proportion of these scrambles resulted in interception of an intruding aircaft.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers given by my predecessor to him on 3 May 1988 at column 384, and to the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) on 14 December 1987 at column 412. The average number of Soviet aircraft intercepted in the United Kingdom air defence region each week in 1988 was 2–3. Details of such interceptions, including numbers of scrambles and types of aircraft intercepted are classified. I am not prepared to speculate about the reasons for fluctuations in Soviet aircraft activity.

  Training (Kenya)
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many training man-days were carried out by the Army in Kenya in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The information is not held in the form requested. However, since 1979, Army training in Kenya has comprised the following:

  (a) Infantry Battalion Group training exercises—involving approximately 600 men for six weeks, triannually since 1979;

  551

  (b) Royal Engineer construction training—involving approximately 120 men for two and a half months, annually since 1979;

  (c) Royal Engineer survey training—involving approximately 35 men for four to six weeks, annually since 1979 with the exception of 1982 and 1984;

  (d) Royal Signals training—two exercises, involving approximately 120 men and lasting for two and a half months, one in 1983 and one in 1984;

  (e) Infantry Company training—five exercises involving approximately 120 men, for six weeks, in 1979, 1981, 1983 1985 and 1987;

  (f) Adventurous Training—since 1986 there have been 27 expeditions of various types and for various lengths of time involving 418 people; information for the years prior to 1986 is not available.

  No. 3 Squadron, RAF Regiment
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the date of formation, operational base, equipment, staffing and role of No. 3 Squadron, Royal Air Force regiment.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No. 3 Squadron Royal Air Force regiment, which is equipped with a variety of vehicles and infantry equipment, was formed in 1987. It is stationed at RAF Aldergrove, with a peacetime role of ground defence and general security duties. It is not our practice to publish detailed information about personnel numbers in operational units.

  HMS Trenchant
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what changes have occurred in the projected in-service date of HMS Trenchant since 1987; and what are the reasons for the changes.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  HMS Trenchant was delivered by the contractor in February this year. The delivery date forecast in 1987 was September 1988. The delivery date changed because of industrial action at VSEL during 1988.

  HMS Upholder
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what changes have occurred in the projected in-service date of HMS Upholder since 1987; and what are the reasons for such changes.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  HMS Upholder is planned to be delivered by the contractor around the end of 1989. The delivery date forecast in 1987 was August 1988. This change was due, first, to industrial action at VSEL during 1988 and, secondly because of a number of technical problems with new-to-service equipment on this the first of a new class of diesel-electric submarines.

  Sharp Spear
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the nature and purpose of the forthcoming North Atlantic Treaty Organisation exercise Sharp Spear; when and where it will take place; and how many ships, submarines, aircraft and personnel will take part.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Sharp Spear 89 is a major NATO maritime exercise which will take place from 7 to 21 September 1989 in the Baltic, Baltic approaches, the North sea, and waters surrounding the British Isles, including the 552
  Channel. It will demonstrate and improve the ability of NATO maritime forces to conduct shallow seas operations and protect reinforcement and merchant shipping in the waters off north-west Europe. Over 270 ships and submarines and 320 aircraft, and their associated personnel from 10 NATO countries will take part in the exercise.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has on the number of military jet flights at less than 1,500 ft over the Federal Republic of Germany in 1988.

  Mr. Neubert
  Ministry of Defence records of flights over the Federal Republic of Germany are maintained only for Royal Air Force aircraft. In 1988 RAF Germany carried out some 16,000 fixed-wing low-level sorties over the Federal Republic of Germany.

  No. 1 Squadron, RAF Regiment
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the reason for the redesignation of No. 1 Squadron, Royal Air Force Regiment as a light armour squadron.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No. 1 Squadron Royal Air Force Regiment was redesignated as a light armoured squadron in 1982 when it was re-equipped with combat vehicles reconnaissance (tracked).

  Contracted-out Services
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what records are kept by his Department of employment levels in companies providing services to his Department on contract in areas where these services were previously provided by Ministry of Defence civilian personnel.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  It is not our policy to maintain detailed records of employment levels in companies who provide equipment or services to the MOD. It is a matter for the companies concerned.

  Euclid Programme
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the Euclid programme for European collaboration on defence technology research; and what role and financial contribution will be made by the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Defence Ministers, at their meeting in Portugal in June, agreed to launch a joint programme of research and technology in defence which will he called EUCLID (European co-operative long-term intitiative in defence). The programme which it is envisaged will start in 1990, enjoys full United Kingdom support and will be based on the IPEG's work to establish a European technology plan for a number of technology areas important to defence. More detailed proposals—including funding plans—will be submitted to IEPG Ministers at their next meeting in February 1990. Present plans envisage IEPG nations spending about 120 million ECUs (£80 million) per year on this initiative with a United Kingdom contribution in the order of £15 million. European industry will, in due course, be invited to put forward proposals to meet the research priorities identified in the programme.

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West of 11 July,Official Report, column 495, if he will give details of the animals used in experiments by his Department or undertaken on a contract basis for each year since 1985 by (a) animal, (b) numbers and (c) type of experiment or test.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 20 July 1989]: The number of Ministry of Defence animal experiments recorded by the Home Office under the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876 and the subsequent Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 between 1985 and 1987 (the last full year for which figures are available) is as follows:

  Number

  1985

  6,900

  1986

  6,600

  1987

  9,200

  It is not our practice to provide further breakdown of these figures. Such information could enable an informed observer to gain a useful insight into the scope and direction of MOD's work, to the detriment of national security.

  Contractors have the same reporting responsibilities as MOD under the act and their procedures are reported to the Home Office, not to MOD.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the achievements of his Department and his policies in helping small businesses over the last 12 months compared with the previous 12 months; and if he will publish the performance indicators by which his Department monitors those achievements and the statistical results of such monitoring.

  Mr Sainsbury
  To assist in obtaining better value for money, the Ministry of Defence has implemented a number of measures to broaden its competition base, In particular, in November 1986 my noble Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement launched the small firms initiative which particularly sought to encourage small firms to bid for MOD business. The success of the initiatives can be measured by the degree of involvement of new companies in our competitions.

  Over the last three years the MOD has made total
  554
  payments each year to small firms of about £1,000 million. The number of small firms receiving payment on direct contract has increased from some 4,000 in 1986–87 to over 7,000 in 1988–89. In 1987–88 some 1,500 firms sought advice from the newly formed small firms advice division, and in 1988–89 the figure was more that 2,500. In recognition of the division's success, in November 1988 my noble Friend relaunched it as the new suppliers service, with the aim of making the benefits of this service available to potential new suppliers of all sizes (including foreign companies).

  The small firms initiative is still a key element in encouraging competition and the new suppliers service retains a cell dedicated to dealing with small firms. In 1988–89 about 3,000 companies of all sizes approached the division for advice, either direct—by telephone or letter—or at the 60-odd sessions involving seminars or "meet the buyers" held throughout the United Kingdom last year. The seminars allow MOD's procurement policies and procedures to be explained to a large audience, and the "meet the buyer" sessions enable a wide range of individual queries to be dealt with at one forum; such events have been held, increasingly, in association with regional development agencies, the CBI and other interested bodies.

  The new suppliers service is responsible for producing the booklet "selling to the MOD" which offers important guidance on MOD's policies and procedures, useful background information and contact points. The fourth, much expanded, edition was published last autumn, containing much new information, not only on selling directly to the MOD but to our prime contractors. A fifth edition is planned for later this year.

  The service is also responsible for promoting the small firms research initiative (as part of the small firms initiative) aimed at encouraging small firms to bid for research work. In 1987–88, 32 firms won business totalling £1·1 million. In 1988–89, 38 firms won business worth £1·3 million. The trend is encouraging and the level of interest by small firms remains high.

  Registration of new companies on the defence contractors list remains high. In 1988, 300 new small firms were registered, the same as in 1987.

  The tangible results of the SFI show that a high level of interest continues, and that the demand for briefings and advice remain high as well. We shall continue to encourage small firms and monitor their response, and the contributions which this makes towards better value for money.

  Warships
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much time warships spent on average at sea in 1988, 1978, 1968, and 1959 or for the nearest comparable 10 year intervals back from the latest available date.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Comprehensive information is not available in the form requested from 1968 or earlier. However, the average time spent at sea by warships in 1988 and 1978, expressed as a percentage of operational time, was 41 per cent. and 42 per cent. respectively. The Navy is well aware of the possible consequences on morale of long periods spent at sea, and aims to set the optimum sea/shore ratio in its fleet programme.

  RAF Upper Heyford
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Leyton, (Mr. Cohen), 18 April,Official Report, column 112, what information he now has on the nature and purpose of the proposed additions to the flight simulator facility, the engine shop and the avionics maintenance shop at RAF Upper Heyford.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I have nothing to add to the answer I gave the hon. Member on 13 July at columns 589–90.

  Ordnance Explosions (Deaths)
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many deaths have occurred to service personnel as a result of controlled explosions of ordnance in the last 10 years for which information is available.

  Mr. Neubert
  Apart from the three deaths in the tragic accident at Kineton on 17 July this year, which are to be the subject of a board of inquiry, over the past 10 years there have been no fatalities as a result of the controlled demolition of ordnance.

  United Kingdom regular forces—rank breakdown by service and sex at 31 March 1989

  Royal Navy

  Royal Marines

  Army

  Royal Air Force

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Total strength

  53,500

  3,450

  7,689

  149,062

  6,505

  85,144

  6,299

  Officers—total

  9,080

  386

  690

  16,270

  1,040

  14,352

  1,022

  Breakdown by rank—numbers

  Field Marshall

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  General

  4

  —

  —

  8

  —

  6

  —

  Lieutenant General

  13

  —

  1

  10

  —

  9

  —

  Major General

  40

  —

  3

  65

  —

  52

  —

  Brigadier

  28

  1

  2

  239

  3

  107

  2

  Colonel

  362

  5

  35

  625

  16

  423

  3

  Lieutenant Colonel

  1,198

  14

  103

  1,838

  28

  1,361

  15

  Major

  2,400

  68

  182

  5,201

  135

  3,713

  97

  Captain

  3,149

  190

  288

  4,804

  484

  5,813

  441

  Lietenant/2nd Lt.

  600

  69

  —

  2,890

  350

  2,681

  435

  Officer designate

  1,285

  39

  76

  590

  24

  186

  29

  Breakdown by rank—percentage

  Field Marshal

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  General

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lieutenant General

  0·1

  —

  0·1

  0·1

  —

  0·1

  —

  Major General

  0·4

  —

  0·4

  0·4

  —

  0·4

  —

  Brigadier

  0·3

  0·3

  0·3

  1·5

  0·3

  0·7

  0·2

  Colonel

  4·0

  1·3

  5·1

  3·8

  1·5

  2·9

  0·3

  Lieutenant Colonel

  13·2

  3·6

  14·9

  11·3

  2·7

  9·5

  1·5

  Major

  26·4

  17·6

  26·4

  32·0

  13·0

  25·9

  9·5

  Captain

  34·7

  49·2

  41·7

  29·5

  46·5

  40·5

  43·2

  Lieutenant/2nd Lt.

  6·6

  17·9

  —

  17·8

  33·7

  18·7

  42·6

  Officer designate

  14·2

  10·1

  11·0

  3·6

  2·3

  1·3

  2·8

  556
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to be able to publish the results of the inquiry into the deaths of three Army personnel at Kineton on 18 July.

  Mr. Neubert
  A board of inquiry into the incident at Kineton on 17 July will be established, following the submission, as evidence, of the RMP report on the incident, and will be completed as quickly as possible. It is not our practice to publish board of inquiry reports but I will write to the hon. Member once the board's findings are known. Additional precautionary safety guidelines have been issued pending the outcome of the inquiry.

  Type 23 Frigates
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he intends to make an announcement about the selection of the command and control system for the type 23 frigate.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Shortly.

  Service Personnel
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many men and women hold non-commissioned officer rank in each of the forces; and what percentage of the total in the forces this represents by rank and sex;

  (2) how many persons there are in Her Majesty's forces, by Navy, Army and Air Force and by men and women,

  (3) how many persons there are in commissioned ranks by Navy, Army and Air Force; and what percentage of the total in each service is represented by (a) men and (6) women.

  Mr. Neubert
  The information requested is given in the following table:
  557

  Royal Navy

  Royal Marines

  Army

  Royal Air Force

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Servicemen/women—total

  44,420

  3,064

  6,999

  132,792

  5,465

  70,792

  5,277

  Breakdown by rank—numbers

  Warrant Officer Class 1

  881

  14

  26

  2,191

  31

  2,158

  21

  Warrant Officer Class 2

  —

  —

  201

  5,864

  76

  —

  —

  Staff Sergeant

  8,257

  146

  342

  7,671

  160

  6,104

  34

  Sergeant

  7,579

  392

  719

  14,422

  530

  11,463

  332

  Corporal

  9,753

  834

  1,245

  22,503

  984

  20,956

  1,200

  Lance Corporal

  —

  —

  —

  22,337

  1,283

  —

  —

  Private (Classes 1 to 3)

  12,454

  1,118

  3,612

  42,780

  1,673

  26,792

  3,409

  Private Class 4/Junior

  5,496

  560

  854

  15,024

  728

  3,319

  281

  Breakdown by rank—percentages

  Warrant Officer Class 1

  2·0

  0·5

  0·4

  1·6

  0·6

  3·0

  0·4

  Warrant Officer Class 2

  —

  —

  2·9

  4·4

  1·4

  —

  —

  Staff Sergeant

  18·6

  4·8

  4·9

  5·8

  2·9

  8·6

  0·6

  Sergeant

  17·1

  12·8

  10·3

  10·9

  9·7

  16·2

  6·3

  Corporal

  22·0

  27·2

  17·8

  16·9

  18·0

  29·6

  22·7

  Lance Corporal

  —

  —

  —

  16·8

  23·5

  —

  —

  Private (Classes 1 to 3)

  28·0

  36·5

  51·6

  32·2

  30·6

  37·8

  64·6

  Private Class 4/Junior

  12·4

  18·3

  12·2

  11·3

  13·3

  4·7

  5·3

  Notes:

  1. All ranks shown are Army ranks. Personnel of the other Services are shown against their equivalent Army rank.

  2. A dash (—) represents zero or, in the sections of the table showing percentages, a value of less than 0·05.

  3. For the RN and RM only those officers holding Commodore and Brigadier appointments respectively are shown against the equivalent Army rank of Brigadier.

  Recruits (Pay)
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the level of pay for a new recruit in each of the forces by men and by women.

  Mr. Neubert
  For male recruits in the Army and RAF the annual rate of pay on joining is:

  Junior (aged under 17½)—£3,321·50 to £4,500·45, depending on age

  Basic Trainees (aged over 17½)—£5,953·15 to £6,226·90, depending on the length of their initial commitment.

  Officer Cadets—£6,781·70.

  Rates for the Royal Navy are similar except that all basic trainees start on £5,935·15. The Royal Navy also employs apprentice artificers at a starting salary of £4,387·30 per annum.

  For femal recruits in all three services the annual rate of pay on joining is:

  £

  Under 17½

  4,460·30

  Basic trainees

  5,898·40

  Officer Cadets

  6,719

  Overseas Postings
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of Army non-commissioned personnel who live abroad on accompanied postings and own homes are accompanied on such postings.

  Mr. Neubert
  The proportion of service men united with their families whilst serving overseas on accompanied postings is 95·6 per cent. It is not possible to identify what percentage of these are home owners, without incurring disproportionate costs.

  Nuclear-powered Warships Safety Committee
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if, further to his reply of 6 July to the right hon. Member for Swansea, West,Official Report, column 263, the seven Ministry of Defence officials who are not full-time members of the nuclear-powered warships safety committee have voting rights; who is on the committee specifically to represent environmental or community viewpoints; and if there are any representatives from the Departments of the Environment, the Welsh Office, the Scottish Office or the Northern Ireland Office.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No vote is taken at meetings of the nuclear-powered warships safety committee (NPWSC). Only unanimous advice is put forward. It is a committee of technical experts whose terms of reference are confined to public safety. The Department of the Environment is represented on the committee by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution (HMIP), and Scottish Office by Her Majesty's industrial pollution inspectorate. Although HMIP is part of the Department of the Environment, it also advises the Welsh Office, and where appropriate represents that Department on the NPWSC. The membership of the NPWSC includes experts from several other bodies which have environmental and public safety responsibilities: the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Department of Health and the nuclear installations inspectorate; and the National Radiological Protection Board. The Northern Ireland Office is not represented as there are no berths or facilities for nuclear-powered submarines in Northern Ireland.

  Equipment Exhibitions
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many visitors are expected to attend this year's Royal Navy equipment exhibition.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Based on previous exhibitions, a total of some 25,000 people are expected to attend RNEE between 24 and 29 September.
  559
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will now make it his practice to publish the names of countries invited to British forces equipment exhibitions.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  No. It has been the consistent policy of this and previous Administrations not to release details of invitation lists to British forces equipment exhibitions. Invitations are issued on a confidential basis and it would be a breach of trust to release names.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what will be the total cost of this year's Royal Navy equipment exhibition.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The cost of the Royal Navy equipment exhibition is estimated to he £2·4 million. As is usual practice, the costs incurred will be fully recovered from the participating companies.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when and where the next Royal Navy equipment exhibition will be held; and on which dates it will be open to(a) overseas customers, (b) the press and (c) the British public.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The next Royal Navy equipment exhibition (RNEE) will be held at Whale island, Portsmouth between 24 and 29 September 1989. Sunday 24 September will be the press day and the exhibition will be open to VIPs and overseas customers on 25 to 27 September. The remaining two days are trade days although overseas customers will still be welcome. The exhibition is not open to members of the public.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence who will perform the opening ceremony at this year's Royal Navy equipment exhibition.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence is planning to perform this ceremony.

  Environmental Pollution
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much intermediate-level nuclear waste produced by submarine refits was dumped at sea prior to 1983.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 13 July 1989]: Sea dumping of intermediate-level nuclear waste prior to 1983 was carried out under a licence issued by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. No differentiation was made between ILW produced by the Ministry of Defence as a result of submarine refits and that arising from other sources.

  IUKADGE Command and Control System
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many changes were made to specifications for the IUKADGE command and control system between 1980 and 1988.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 17 July 1989]: There have been no changes to the IUKADGE command and control system operational requirement since the development contract was awarded to UKSL in 1980. However, as is usual practice, provision is made in the contract for changes to be made, by agreement between
  560
  the parties, to the detailed specifications, or for necessary additions to be made which were not foreseen at the tune of the contract. Such changes are promulgated by means of specification change notices, of which 28 have to date been agreed at prime contract level and 267 at lower levels. the majority of these were requested by the prime contractor.

  Electromagnetic Interference
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether electromagnetic interference has been a contributory factor in any accidents involving ground-based, seaborne or airborne weapons systems.

  Mr Archie Hamilton
  [holding anwer 20 July 1989]: Electromagnetic interference has not been a contributory cause of any accident involving ground-based, seaborne, or airborne weapons systems in the United Kingdom.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Mobility Supplement
  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what advice is given to the Legal Aid Board's assessment officers in respect of applications for legal aid by war pensioners who are in receipt of mobility supplement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Department's asessment officers are instructed to disregard mobility supplement received by a war pensioner.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he will publish in the Official Report, (a) a list of the securities held by the national insurance fund, including the additions over the past 12 months, (b) his forecast of the surplus accruing to the fund in the current financial year for the purposes of the Autumn Statement, (c) the corresponding figures for the increase in revenue and (d) the purpose for which funds are being accumulated.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  (a) The national insurance fund securities, held by the national debt commissioners as at 30 June 1989 are as follows:

  National Insurance Fund Securities held by the National Debt Commissioners at 30 June 1989

  British Government Securities

  Nominal Value

  £

  Ways and Means

  37,945.000·00

  Treasury Bills

  1,050,000.000·00

  10 per cent. Exchequer Stock 1989

  124,185.081·66

  11 per cent. Exchequer Stock 1989

  261,200,000·00

  10¼ per cent. Exchequer Convertible Stock 1989

  36,046,819·20

  11 per cent. Exchequer Stock 1990

  103,315,703·11

  12½ per cent. Exchequer Stock 1990

  208,500,000·00

  8¼ per cent. Treasury Stock 1987–90

  15,000,000·00

  8 per cent. Treasury Convertible Stock 1990

  10,002,000·00

  8 per cent. Treasury Convertible Stock 1990 NILO

  50,000,000·00

  10 per cent. Treasury Convertible Stock 1990

  154,836,210·19

  10 per cent. Treasury Convertible Stock 1990 NILO

  50,000,000·00

  561

  British Government Securities

  Nominal Value

  £

  11¾ per cent. Treasury Stock 1991

  223,252,742·22

  10 per cent. Treasury Convertible Stock 1991

  3,000,000·00

  11 per cent. Exchequer Stock 1991

  173,910,000·00

  11 per cent. Exchequer Stock 1991 NILO

  60,000,000·00

  8 per cent. Treasury Stock 1991

  138,500,000·00

  8 per cent. Treasury Stock 1991 NILO

  50,000,000·00

  12¾ per cent. Treasury Stock 1992

  18,675,000·00

  10 per cent. Treasury Stock 1992

  132,200,000·00

  10 per cent. Treasury Stock 1992 NILO

  50,000,000·00

  8 per cent. Treasury Stock 1992

  205,200,000·00

  8 per cent. Treasury Stock 1992 NILO

  100,000,000·00

  10½ per cent. Treasury Convertible Stock 1992

  80,300,000·00

  12¼ per cent. Exchequer Stock 1992

  166,785,789·21

  12¼ per cent. Exchequer Stock 1992 NILO

  75,000,000·00

  13½ per cent. Exchequer Stock 1992

  36,200,000·00

  8¼ per cent. Treasury Stock 1993

  136,500,000·00

  8¼ per cent. Treasury Stock 1993 NILO

  115,000,000·00

  10 per cent. Treasury Stock 1993

  205,200,000·00

  12½ per cent. Treasury Stock 1993

  97,200,000·00

  13¾ per cent. Treasury Stock 1993

  83,200,000·00

  8½ per cent Treasury Stock 1994

  242,750,000·00

  8½ per cent. Treasury Stock 1994 NILO

  50,000,000·00

  13½ per cent. Exchequer Stock 1994

  55,150,000·00

  10 per cent. Treasury Stock 1994

  129,600,000·00

  10 per cent. Treasury Stock 1994 NILO

  25,000,000·00

  12½ per cent. Exchequer Stock 1994

  182,500,000·00

  9 per cent. Treasury Stock 1994

  46,500,000·00

  12 per cent. Treasury Stock 1995

  176,550,000·00

  12 per cent. Treasury Stock 1995 NILO

  50,000,000·00

  10¼ per cent. Exchequer Stock 1995

  154,500,000·00

  10¼ per cent. Exchequer Stock 1995 NILO

  50,000,000·00

  14 per cent. Treasury Stock 1996

  20,000,000·00

  15¼ per cent. Treasury Stock 1996

  11,000,000·00

  13¼ per cent. Exchequer Stock 1996

  46,500,000·00

  10 per cent. Conversion Stock 1996

  242,520,000·00

  10 per cent. Conversion Stock 1996 NILO

  75,000,000·00

  13¼ per cent. Treasury Stock 1997

  50,265,000·00

  10½ per cent. Exchequer Stock 1997

  268,650,000·00

  8¾ per cent. Treasury Stock 1997

  141,800,000·00

  8¾ per cent. Treasury Stock 1997 NILO

  50,000,000·00

  9¾ per cent. Exchequer Stock 1998

  306,050,000·00

  12 per cent. Exchequer Stock 1998

  183,800,000·00

  9½ per cent. Treasury Stock 1999

  61,805,491·36

  9½ per cent. Treasury Stock 1999 NILO

  50,000,000·00

  12¼ per cent. Exchequer Stock 1999

  85,000,000·00

  10½ per cent. Treasury Stock 1999

  20,000,000·00

  10¼ per cent. Conversion Stock 1999

  139,550,000·00

  10¼ per cent. Conversion Stock 1999 NILO

  30,000,000·00

  8½ per cent. Treasury Stock 2000

  163,800,000·00

  8½ per cent. Treasury Stock 2000 NILO

  50,000,000·00

  9 per cent. Conversion Stock 2000

  297,917,597·76

  10 per cent. Treasury Stock 2001

  112,300,000·00

  9½ per cent. Conversion Stock 2001

  2,562,270·00

  9¾ per cent. Conversion Stock 2001

  34,000,000·00

  9¾ per cent. Conversion Stock 2001 NILO

  100,000,000·00

  12 per cent. Exchequer Stock 1999–2002

  20,500,000·00

  10 per cent. Conversion Stock 2002

  45,200,000·00

  9½ per cent. Conversion Stock 2002

  1,704,750·99

  9¾ per cent. Treasury Stock 2002

  138,600,000·00

  9 per cent. Exchequer Stock 2002

  221,200,000·00

  9 per cent. Exchequer Stock 2002 NILO

  50,000,000·00

  9¾ per cent. Conversion Stock 2003

  6,860,738·55

  10 per cent. Treasury Stock 2003

  52,550,000·00

  11½ per cent. Treasury Stock 2001–04

  9,000,000·00

  10 per cent. Treasury Stock 2004

  2,450,000·00

  9½ per cent. Conversion Stock 2004

  176,500,000·00

  9½ per cent. Conversion Stock 2005

  217,000,000·00

  10½ per cent. Exchequer Stock 2005

  15,000,000·00

  8 per cent. Treasury Stock 2002–06

  264,118,200·00

  9¾ per cent. Conversion Stock 2006

  19,500,000·00

  11¾ per cent. Treasury Stock 2003–07

  35,000,000·00

  8½ per cent. Treasury Stock 2007

  190,831,042·37

  9 per cent. Treasury Stock 2008

  160,000,000·00

  8 per cent. Treasury Stock 2009

  75,000,000·00

  562

  British Government Securities

  Nominal Value

  £

  9 per cent. Conversion Stock 2011

  5,000,000·00

  9,662,239,436·62

  Local Authority Bonds

  11½ per cent. 23 August 1989

  539,000·00

  9⅜ percent. 15 May 1991

  340,000·00

  9 3/16 per cent. 2 December 1992

  250,000·00

  1,129,000·00

  Local Authority Securities

  6¾ per cent. GLC Stock 1990–92

  3,000,000·00

  Local Authority Mortgage Loans

  210,035·08

  Loans to Local Authorities

  Temporary Loans

  141,590,000·00

  Under one year

  153,425,000·00

  Over one year

  77,450,000·00

  Secondary mortgages

  26,300,000·00

  398,765,000·00

  Total nominal value of securities held

  10,065,343,471·70

  Cash uninvested

  3,442·70

  TOTAL

  10,065,346,914·40

  (b) and (c):

  The forecast of the surplus and increase in revenue to the national insurance fund for the purposes of the Autumn Statement are provided by the Government Actuary's Department. The Government Actuary provided in his report on the drafts of the 1988 Benefits Uprating and Contributions Rerating Orders (Cm. 537) the following figures in respect of the tax year 1989–90:

  £ million

  Surplus of income over expenditure

  519

  Increase in total income to the national insurance fund over 1988–89

  197

  Equivalent estimates for the 1989 autumn statement will be published by the Government Actuary's Department when the uprating and rerating orders for 1990–91 are laid before Parliament towards the end of the year.

  (d) The national insurance fund pays for all contributory benefits; the fund is administered so that contributions collected and paid into the fund are paid out as benefits. The fund has no borrowing powers, so that it must have a balance to insure against unexpected contingencies. The minimum target balance recommended by the Government Actuary is not intended to be a fixed target, but a prudent limit below which the balance should not he allowed to fall continually.

  Disability Benefits Review
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will announce the proposed timetable for the disability benefits review; and if he will make a statement.
  563
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if, following the publication of the final Office of Population Censuses and Surveys report he will make a statement on(a) the timescale for a review of the conclusions, (b) the terms of reference of such a review body and (c) the likely membership of the review team.

  Mr. Nicholas Scott
  The sixth and final OPCS report on disability in Great Britain was published on 17 July. This marks the point at which both the Government and organisations of and for disabled people can begin to look at the survey findings in the round. Once we have done so, I hope to be able to announce a timetable for further action.

  Departmental Press Releases
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will ensure that when his replies to letters sent to him are issued as his Department's press releases, copies of such letters are included in the press releases.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  When issuing press releases, we will continue to include any information that we judge to be appropriate in the circumstances.

  Benefits (Children)
  Sir Ian Gilmour
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, further to his reply to the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) of 3 July,Official Report, column 41, if he will give a breakdown of his figure of 3 million children getting an extra 50p a week, showing how the figure is split between recipients of income support and of family credit, how it is distributed between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and giving the percentage of children in each region who are affected.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  On the basis of the assumptions underlying the Government's expenditure plans (Cmnd. 615), it is estimated that in the year 1989–90, 0·8 million children in families in receipt of family credit and 2·2 million children in families in receipt of income support in Great Britain will receive an extra 50p per week in their child allowances above the normal uprating increase. I regret that it is not possible to provide statistically reliable estimates of how these children are distributed among families in England, Scotland and Wales.

  Lone Parents
  Sir Ian Gilmour
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his latest estimate of the number of lone parents; how many are in paid work; how many are on income support; how many are on other out-of-work benefits; and how many are receiving family credit.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The most recent estimate of lone parent numbers is for 1986 and the income support and family credit schemes did not commence until April 1988.

  Information for 1986 is as follow:

  Estimated numbers of lone parents 11,010,000

  Estimated numbers in paid work 2440,000

  In receipt of supplementary benefit 3602,000

  In receipt of Family Income Supplement 585,000

  Notes:

  No information is held on number of lone parents receiving unemployment benefit.
  564
  There were 722,000 lone parents in receipt of income support at 4May 1988 and 108,000 in receipt of family credit at March 1989.

  1OPCS estimate see Population Trends 55 Spring 1989.

  2FES 1986, includes those in receipt of Supplementary Benefit with part-time earnings.

  3February 1986 ASE figure excludes prisoners' wives and the temporarily separated.

  4May 1988 ASE—figure excludes prisoners' wives and the temporarily separated.

  5February.

  Means-tested Benefits
  Sir Ian Gilmour
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his latest estimate of the public expenditure savings as a result of the low take up of means-tested benefits.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I refer my right hon. Friend to my reply to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (M r. Allen) on 7 February 1989 at columns 628–29. Estimates of the take-up of the main income-related benefits for 1985 will be published before the summer recess.

  Mortgage Interest
  Sir Ian Gilmour
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish figures giving the disposable incomes, after taking into account means-tested benefits of single-wage married couples with two children under five years and mortgages of(a) £20,000, (b) £30,000, (c) £40,000 and (d) £50,000, firstly when out of work and receiving income support and secondly when in work earning £100, £150, £200, £250 and £300 a week.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No precise figures are available. There are a variety of different mortgages, and mortgage interest fluctuations mean that mortgage interest payments can vary during the course of any given year. Social security provision for income support claimants with mortgages varies with the period benefit has been in payment.

  Sir Ian Gilmour
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the maximum amount of mortgage interest payable with income support; and whether he will consider aligning the family credit regulations to take account of mortgage interest.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  There is no maximum amount of mortgage interest which can be met in income support, but the amount can be restricted in certain circumstances. We have no plans to allow for mortgage interest in the assessment of family credit.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the achievements of his Department and his policies in helping small businesses over the last 12 months compared with the previous 12 months; and if he will publish the performance indicators by which his Department monitors those achievements and the statistical results Of such monitoring.

  Mr. Moore
  The Government's general policy towards small businesses is to create a climate in which they can flourish and to provide measures that support and help stimulate their development. Over the past 12 months my Department has continued to identify ways to help small businesses. Specific measures which have been introduced included:
  565

  (i) In February 1989 we issued a new communications package for employers which provided guidance on the collection of national insurance contributions and the payment of statutory sick pay. We enlisted the help of external consultants and in line with their recommendations, the structure and design of the guidance was completely revised. The aim was to make our instructions easier for employers to understand, in particular for the small employer who may have to carry out payroll functions personally.
  At the end of February 1989, immediately after the dispatch of the new guidance material, a small survey was undertaken to sample initial reactions to the new material. The survey showed that 83 per cent. thought that the updating was a good idea and 69 per cent. agreed that they would be more likely to use the new guides than the old ones. A larger survey is currently under way to examine reactions to the material in use and to seek further improvements. The results are expected by September 1989.

  (ii) We have produced a video, specifically aimed at small employers, which outlines the basics of the calculation and payment of statutory sick pay, and which has been available since March 1989. Copies can be obtained from CFL Vision, PO Box 35, Wetherby, Yorkshire, LS23 7EX, price £14·50.

  (iii) In October 1988 we embarked on a series of experimental seminars for employers which provided instruction on the administration of statutory sick pay and statutory maternity pay. The pilot seminars were based in Scotland and found to be of value to both small and large employers. We intend to extend the service nationally and are currently selecting the staff to do this.

  (iv) We have worked with the Department of Employment in producing a starter pack for the newly self-employed and those who may be contemplating self-employment. The pack, "Working for Yourself: What You Need to Know" became available in July 1989.

  (v) We have undertaken a comprehensive review of all the inquiries local and central DSS offices make of business. Implementation of the report's recommendations will result in a lessening of the burden departmental inquiries place on business.

  We are continuing to take positive steps to give small firms opportunities to do business with the Department. Local purchasing staff are encouraged to make contact with small firms and they are doing a substantial proportion of their business with them.

  As yet we have not designed performance indicators specifically for monitoring achievements in this area, but my Department has a system to monitor proposals which impact on business to ensure the needs of small businesses are fully taken into account. We attach particular importance to action taken to help small firms and will continue to explore further ways of doing so.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list by each charging authority in England the income level at which(a) a single person aged under 25 years, (b) a single person aged over 25 years, (c) a single pensioner, (d) a pensioner couple and (e) a couple with two children all with no savings would lose entitlement to community charge rebate assuming the Department of the Environment's illustrative community charge figures for 1989–90.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information requested has been placed in the Library.

  Benefits (Dundee)
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how much was spent on community care grants and social fund loans by the Dundee, East and Dundee, West offices of his Department in 1988–89; what proportion of their budgets for these benefits this represents; and how much they have been allocated for these benefits for 1989–90.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Such information is available from the details held in the Library.

  Pensioners
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners in receipt of less than full basic national insurance retirement pension, because of insufficent contributions(a) also receive income support, (b) are living with partners whose income added to their own, takes them as a couple up to or beyond the basic income support level.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Information collected centrally on retirement pensioners in receipt of income support does not indicate the rate of basic state pension in payment to those individuals.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security why leaflet NP1 advises only pensioners not receiving income support or housing benefit to read on and decide whether to claim income support; and whether he will take steps to amend the leaflets so as to avoid giving the impression that pensioners receiving only housing benefit cannot gain by claiming income support.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The leaflet does not refer to"only pensioners not receiving income support or housing benefit"
  but to people who do
  "not at present get either benefit".
  I do not consider that this gives the impression suggested, particularly as the next column of the leaflet sets out clearly the conditions of eligibility to income support.

  Elderly People (Evictions)
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make arrangements to collect information about elderly people who are evicted from residential homes for the elderly in the private/voluntary sector; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We have no plans to do so.

  Women Pensioners and War Widows
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he has any information concerning the current average income of(a) women pensioners and (b) war widows.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 13 July 1989]: The average weekly gross income of all single1 women pensioners in 1986 was £73.30 (at 1986 prices). Comparable information is not available for war widows.

  Source: Family Expenditure Survey 1986.

  1 Information on the gross income of all women pensioners is not given because the available data on this group includes the income of the husbands of married women.
  567
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he has any information concerning the percentages of all women pensioners which fall into different total income brackets; and if he will give comparable figures for war widows.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 13 July 1989]: The proportion of single1 women pensioners in gross equivalent2 income quintiles is as follows:

  Number

  Quintile 1 (lowest)

  26·8

  2

  49·5

  3

  13·7

  4

  5·4

  5 (highest)

  4·6

  Comparable information is not available for war widows.

  Source: Family Expenditure Survey 1986.

  1Information on the income distribution of all women pensioners is not given because the available data on this group includes the income of the husbands of married women.

  2Equivalisation is a method of adjusting incomes to allow direct comparisons to be made between different family types, for example single and married people, those with and without children, householders and non-householders.

ENERGY

  EC Energy Policy
  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on progress towards the development of a European Community energy policy.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The Commission has recently drafted instruments on price transparency, transfrontier trade in gas and electricity, and on notification of certain energy investments.

  Fast Breeder Reactors
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what assessment he has made of the future of fast breeder reactors; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  My right hon. Friend announced the results of the Government's review of fast reactor policy to the House on 21 July last year at column 1288.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he intends to review the non-fossil fuel quota in the light of the study of renewable electrical energy potential in the north-west of England carried out by NORWEB and the energy technology support unit, Harwell.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The Government recently announced their intention to reserve a privileged place for renewables within the non-fossil fuel obligation. This will be done by setting special extra tranches of capacity which can be filled only by renewable forms of energy. The proposed levels of the tranches will be kept under review to ensure that when the obligations are laid they take fully into account the potential availability of renewable capacity. There is no need for further review at present.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will publish the recently completed study of 568
  the renewable energy resource potential in the north-west of England carried out by NORWEB and the energy technology support, unit, Harwell.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The report and the accompanying overview report were published on 6 July. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what are the next regions to be studied by the energy technology support unit at Harwell for renewable electrical energy potential.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The potential for the use of renewable energy was assessed for the country as a whole and published in "Energy Paper 55". Since then two further studies considering electricity generation have been published; the "Cornwall Energy Project" by Cornwall county council and "Prospects for Renewable Energy in the Norweb Area" by the North Western electricity board and the energy technology support unit. No other specific proposals are in hand at present, but it is hoped that other electricity boards will follow Norweb's lead.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he has evaluated which renewable energy projects currently being developed or studied by the energy technology support unit at the Atomic Energy Research Establishment, Harwell, might prove suitable for export to(a) the Indian sub-continent and African states and (b) European Economic Community member states.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The Department's programme on renewable energy is focused primarily on the development of commercially viable and environmentally acceptable renewable technologies for the United Kingdom. Although at an early stage of development, many of the Department's projects could lead to products suitable for export to both industrialised and less well-developed countries. The United Kingdom is already involved in collaboration or information exchanges in a number of areas.

  Many of the technologies being examined as part of the Department's R and D programme should offer considerable export potential for United Kingdom industry.

  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the energy technology support unit, Harwell's, medium-term and long-term projects for renewable electrical energy generation in the North West of England.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) earlier today.

  Combined Heat and Power
  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what consideration is being given to enabling electricity generated through combined heat and power schemes in the home to be fed into the national grid.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Our privatisation proposals are specifically designed to encourage competition in generation and to ensure that all economic sources of electricity supply have access to the market. Any surplus electricity generated by CHP schemes is however more likely to be used locally than to be fed into the national grid.

  Coal and Oil Combustion (Tax)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what proposals exist for international negotiations on the taxation of coal and oil combustion in advanced western countries.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I am aware of no formal proposals for such international negotiations, although several ideas have been floated for a carbon tax or levy as a way to discourage CO2 emissions. The proper forum for consideration of such ideas is the intergovernmental panel on climate change, which is examining strategies for responding to the greenhouse effect.

  Insulation
  Mr. Ray Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the proposal by the Select Committee on Energy of a target of 250,000 low-income households to be insulated in a year.

  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make it his policy to set a target of a minimum of 250,000 low-income households to be insulated in the current financial year.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  I refer the hon. Members to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) earlier today.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his latest estimate of the number of low-income households which will be insulated under neighbourhood energy action programmes in the current financial year; and what are the resulting energy savings.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment announced on 10 February a package of special measures to help boost the project network. The most recent quarterly monitoring returns relate to the period before those measures took effect, so we are not yet able to produce reliable estimates of the number of households which will be treated in the current financial year.

  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will hold urgent discussions on ways of stepping up the number of low-income households to be insulated over the next three years.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The Secretary of State for Employment announced on 10 February a special package of measures designed to boost the network of community insulation projects which provide practical help to low-income households. Officials from my Department and the Training Agency are now discussing ways of maintaining and building upon the improvement which stemmed from those measures.

  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the progress being made to date in insulation schemes for private dwellings in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Amendments to the Building Regulations were laid before the House on 11 July. These will require improvements in insulation standards for new housing (and other new buildings) which should achieve a570
  saving of about 20 per cent. in heating requirements compared with standards under existing regulations. The amendments will come into operation on 1 April 1990.

  Community insulation projects, which provide a low-cost insulation (mainly draughtproofing) service for low-income households, have so far insulated over 600,000 homes, about half of which are in the private sector. Over 3·5 million grants have been paid under the homes insulation scheme for loft, tank and pipe insulation. Over 90 per cent. of homes with accessible lofts now have some degree of loft insulation.

  Coal Liquefaction
  Mr. Raffan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects the coal-to-oil liquefaction pilot plant at Point of Ayr to be commissioned; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The commissioning phase of British Coal's liquefaction project has already commenced, and I would expect this phase to be completed next year. My Department has offered to contribute up to 9 per cent. of the project cost up to a maximum contribution of £3 million, and is contractually committed to support the commissioning phase.

  Coal Orders
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to announce the level, duration and tonnage of coal to be ordered from British Coal by(a) National Power and (b) PowerGen from January 1990 onwards.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The negotiation of new coal purchase arrangements is primarily a commercial matter for the industries. The announcement of the details of such arrangements, once concluded, will also primarily be a matter for them.

  Coal Mining (Nottinghamshire)
  Mr. Haynes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his most up-to-date estimate of the impact of electricity privatisation on employment in mining in the Nottinghamshire coalfield.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Negotiations between the generators and British Coal are continuing. Following the conclusion of these negotiations, it will be for British Coal to estimate what effects there may be on its operations.

  Fossil Fuels (Levy)
  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what recent representations he has received seeking a levy on the combustion of any fossil fuel.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  None.

  Nuclear Power (Privatisation)
  Mr. James Lamond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his most up-to-date estimate of the cost of transferring nuclear power stations to the private sector.

  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to announce the discount on
  571
  present net replacement cost value of £9·3 billion of the nuclear power stations of England and Wales, required to achieve a transfer to the private sector.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I refer the hon. Members to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) earlier today.

  Gas Tariffs
  Mr. Rost
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to meet the Director General of Gas Supply to discuss tariffs proposed by British Gas.

  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he has any plans to meet the Director General of Gas Supply to discuss the gas price tariff; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  I regularly meet the Director General of Gas Supply and discuss a range of matters of mutual interest.

  Electricity Generation
  Mr. Wood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the industry forecast for future electricity generating capacity before the year 2000.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The final year of the load forecast which the electricity supply industry (England and Wales) adopted in October 1988 is 1997–98. The forecast of unrestricted demand for that year is 56·5 GW.

  Coal Imports
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next expects to meet the chairman of British Coal regarding coal imports; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  My right hon. Friend and I meet the chairman of British Coal regularly to discuss all aspects of the coal industry.

  Electricity Privatisation
  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he has fully evaluated the value for money to be obtained from the £26·5 million allocated for advisers fees on electricity privatisation and the expenditure on departmental staff of comparable skills.

  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what steps he is taking to ensure that value for money is being obtained from the £26·5 million to be spent on advisers' fees to promote electricity privatisation.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The Department carefully evaluates the costs and benefits associated with each item of expenditure and seeks to negotiate the best possible price with advisers before entering into a contractual relationship.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what representations he has received from environmental or conservation organisations on the privatisation of the electricity supply industry.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I have received a number of representations.

  Fluidised Bed Combustion
  Mr. Allen MacKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a further statement on the Grimethorpe fluidised bed combustion proposal.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  My Department is currently working with British Coal to put together a substantial financial package involving both private and public sector funding, to carry forward the proposed experiments at Grimethorpe as part of the programme to develop the topping cycle concept. Once the outcome of these discussions is known, I will make a further statement.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what priority he proposes to give to the encouragement of energy efficiency and conservation.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The Government attach high priority to the promotion of energy efficiency through the work of the Energy Efficiency Office. Our proposals for the electricity supply industry will give further impetus to the promotion of energy efficiency, in particular through the duties they place on the Director General of Electricity Supply.

  Greenhouse Effect
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the total number of nuclear reactors operating worldwide and the total amount of electricity demand met by them; and if he will estimate the total quantity of greenhouse gases that would be produced as a result of replacing them with coal-fired power stations.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I understand from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that at the end of 1988 there were 429 nuclear reactors operating worldwide. Comprehensive figures for electricity generation are not yet available for 1988, hut, in 1987, nuclear power generated 1,625 billion kw hours of electricity, equivalent to the output from 211 pressurised water reactors (PWRs) of the Sizewell B type.

  It is difficult to be precise when estimating the increase in greenhouse gas production if nuclear power is replaced by coal worldwide but, on current figures, carbon dioxide (CO2) output would increase by about 1·3 billion tonnes per year, or 35 per cent. of the present global contribution due to coal-fired electricity generation.

  Thermal Efficiency
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what improvements in thermal efficiency have been achieved in the past 10 years.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The efficiency of the nation's energy use has improved greatly over the past 10 years. In 1978 the United Kingdom consumed 1·23 tonnes of coal equivalent per £1,000 of GDP (at 1985 factor cost). In 1988 this had fallen to 1 tonne of coal equivalent per £1,000 of GDP in the same price terms, a reduction of 18·7 per cent. over the period.

  Nuclear Power Stations (Decommissioning)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what representations he has received about the decommissioning of nuclear power stations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I have received a number of representations relating to various aspects of the decommissioning of nuclear power stations in recent months.

  British Coal
  Mr. Douglas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the issues he expects to raise when he next meets the chairman of British Coal.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  My right hon. Friend and I meet the chairman of British Coal regularly to discuss all aspects of the coal industry.

  Power Stations
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list the power stations now being built in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Sizewell B PWR power station is at present under construction.

  Landfill Gases
  Mr. Irvine
  To ask the Secretaryof State for Energy what recent assessment his Department has made of the possibilities for the generation of electricity from landfill gases; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  There is great uncertainty about projections for renewable sources of energy. Based on data given in "Energy Paper 55—"Renewable Energy in the UK: The Way Forward", it has been estimated that by the year 2025 up to 4·5 per cent. of current energy requirements might come from a wide range of biomass sources if the diverse technologies involved can be successfully developed and applied.

  It is not yet possible to assess with any certainty the contribution which electricity generation from landfill gases will make towards this proportion. However, there are indications that approximately 200 MW of landfill gas-fired generating capacity would be operating by the turn of the century.

  Oil Production
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what was the volume of United Kingdom oil production in 1988 and his estimate of production in 1989, 1990 and 1991.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The figures requested are set out in my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's report to Parliament, "Development of the Oil and Gas Resources of the United Kingdom" (the Brown Book), published in April 1989.

  Coal-fired Generation
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretaryof State for Energy if he will bring forward proposals to require that a proportion of electricity be generated by coal-fired power stations.
  574
  Mr. Michael Spicer
  No.

  Energy Conservation
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the steps he is taking to promote energy conservation.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend for Devon, North (Mr. Speller) and the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) on 15 May,Official Report, column 105.

  CO2 Emissions
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his Department's estimate of the contribution that nuclear power will make to the required halving in United Kingdom CO2 emissions by the year 2025.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  There is no requirement on the United Kingdom to reduce the future emissions of carbon dioxide or any other energy-related greenhouse gas. The course of any necessary future action should become clearer when the intergovernmental panel on climate change (IPCC) reports in autumn 1990. Until then it would not be wise for the United Kingdom to act unilaterally in such a global matter.

  In the meantime, current policies in the energy field are pointing in the right direction to curtail the growth of these gases. The encouragement of cost effective energy efficiency measures, the development of renewable energy resources, the support of diversified supply options such as nuclear (which emits almost no CO2) in the Electricity Bill, are a firm basis for any future action. The United Kingdom's call for the strengthening of the Montreal protocol on CFCs will spur action on the most powerful of greenhouse gases.

  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what proportion of the United Kingdom's carbon dioxide emissions is caused by coal and oil-fired power stations.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Emissions from coal and oil-fired power stations account for about one third of the total United Kingdom emissions from non-biological sources.

  Least-cost Options
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make it his policy to increase support for least-cost options to meet energy demand.

  Mr. Parkinson
  The Government believe that, provided market barriers are removed, market forces are the best way to meet energy demand at least cost. Our proposals for privatisation of the electricity supply industry, and the work of the Energy Efficiency Office, are designed to tackle and remove market barriers.

  Efficiency and Conservation
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what discussions he has had recently with the director designate of the Office of Electricity Regulation on the priority to be given to energy efficiency and conservation.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State discussed energy
  575
  efficiency issues with Professor Littlechild specifically on 6 June and generally on subsequent occasions. They agreed that the Office of Electricity Regulation and the Energy Efficiency Office would establish mechanisms for close co-operation on matters of common interest, both at national and regional level. I welcome these arrangements, which will reinforce the important work which both organisations will be doing to promote energy efficiency.

  Sulphur Emissions
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what will be spent in the next financial year in overcoming the problem of sulphur emissions from electricity power stations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  This is an operational matter for the CEGB. I have asked the chairman of the board to write to my hon. Friend.

  Nuclear Generation
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what proportion of electricity is generated by nuclear power in(a) France, (b) Belgium, (c) Sweden, Switzerland, (e) Finland, (f) West Germany, (g) Spain and (h) the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The latest available published information (1987) is as follows:(a) France 70·1 per cent.; (b) Belgium 62·2 per cent.; (c) Sweden 45·9 per cent.; (d) Switzerland 38·4 per cent.; (e) Finland 36·7 per cent.; (f) West Germany 31·2 per cent.; (g) Spain 30·9 per cent.; (h) the United Kingdom 18·2 per cent.

  Source: "Energy Statistics 1986–87" (OECD/IEA).

  Mr. Graham Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he has any proposals to require that a minimum percentage of electricity distributed by the electricity boards will come from electricity produced by nuclear generation.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Clause 34 of the Electricity Bill permits the Secretary of State to make orders to require public electricity suppliers to have available to them a certain minimum amount of non-fossil generating capacity. This is intended to encourage all economically viable and environmentally acceptable non-fossil sources. There is no intention to restrict such orders solely to nuclear generation.

  Uranium
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will request the Euratom safeguards authorities to re-designate all N-coded uranium imported to the United Kingdom since 1978 with a P code.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  In compliance with the terms of the Euratom treaty, it is not for the Government to seek to change the coding placed on imported nuclear materials by the Euratom safeguards authorities.

  White Papers
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if, for each of the last three White Papers issued by his Department, for which legislation has been started, he will state the time elapsed between their publication and the 576
  First Readings of any Bills connected with them; and if he will do the same for the last three White Papers issued by his Department prior to May 1979.

  Mr. Parkinson
  Only one such White Paper has been issued by my Department since 1979. This was the White Paper "Privatising Electricity" (Cm. 322, 25 February 1988). The Electricity Bill had its First Reading on 30 November 1988. It is not for me to answer for the record of the last Government in this matter, but the information requested should be available in the Library of the House and the Official Report.

  Nuclear Power
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the magawatt equivalent of the 15 per cent. to 20 per cent. range of electricity to be provided by nuclear power, as specified in the Official Report, 5 April, column 275; and if each area electricity board will have to accept this range.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The non-fossil fuel obligation will be set for each public electricity supply company in England and Wales later this year, taking into account its size and pattern of demand.

  Mines (Capital Investment)
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list the capital investments in the following mines for the year 1989–90(a) Murton, (b) Easington, (c) Dawdon, (d) Vane Tempest, (e) Wearmouth, (f) Westo and (g) Ellington.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  These are matters for British Coal. I have asked the chairman to write direct to the hon. Member.

  Coal-fired Power Stations
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list by year for the last 10 years, the tonnage level of purchases from(a) British Coal and (b) other sources of coal suppliers for use at power stations to be allocated to (i) National Power and (ii) Power Gen.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Deliveries of coal to individual power stations are a matter for the CEGB. I will ask the chairman to write to the hon. Member.

  Energy Sources
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what assessment his Department has made on the question of environmentally comparable energy sources; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The chief scientist group at the energy technology support unit have carried out for my Department a number of appraisals of energy sources and their environmental impact is one of the range of factors assessed.

  A wide-ranging appraisal of most energy sources and technologies relevant to the United Kingdom was reported in "Energy Paper 54" and specific assessments of alternative energy resources such as "Hot Dry Rocks" ETSU-R-34, "Bioethanol as a Transport Fuel" ETSU-R - 44 and "Synthetic Fuel Options for Road Transport Applications" ETSU-R-33 have been published.

  Mining Subsidence
  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will publish in the Official Report, for each year for which figures are available, the cost of compensation and repairs for coal mining subsidence damage.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Actual cash expenditure by British Coal during each of the last three financial years is as follows:

  £ million

  1986–87

  54·5

  1987–88

  48·9

  1988–89

  43·1

  Desulphurisation
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects the first power station in the east midlands will be equipped with flue gas desulphurisation equipment; and when such equipment will be available for use in power stations in the Trent valley.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  This is an operational matter for the CEGB. I have asked the chairman to write direct to my hon. Friend.

  Low-wattage Light Bulbs
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether his Department has made any estimate of the level to which the unit price of electricity to the private consumer would have to increase to make it economic for all consumers to switch to low-wattage light bulbs.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Low-energy light bulbs already offer worthwhile savings to domestic consumers at current electricity prices. Their extra initial cost is more than compensated for by much longer lifetimes and lower electricity consumption.

  Landfill Gases
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many landfill sites have been identified by his Department where biodegradable wastes could produce significant volumes of biogas for commercial exploitation; how many sites are currently extracting biogas commercially; and what is the volume in coal tonnes equivalent he estimates can be exploited from British landfill sites.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  A recent estimate, made on behalf of my Department, has identified 438 sites where landfill gas from biodegradable wastes could be exploited commercially. Of this total, some 24 sites are already extracting and exploiting landfill gas and producing an energy equivalent of 0·16 million tonnes coal equivalent (mtce) annually. While there is great uncertainty about projections for renewable sources of energy, it is possible that this amount could more than double by 1992, and reach around 1·5 mtce by the turn of the century.

  Gas Prices
  Mr. Haynes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will take remedial action to alleviate the rise in interruptible gas prices following the removal of the ability 578
  of users to negotiate individual contracts, consequent upon the implementation of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's recommendation to publish gas price schedules.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The Director General of Gas Supply is responsible for ensuring that British Gas plc operates within the terms of its authorisation, as modified to give effect to the MMC's recommendations. Mr. McKinnon is at present in discussion with British Gas on a number of points concerning the structure and operation of the gas price schedule. However, the level of interruptible gas prices is a matter for British Gas.

  Petrol Prices
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what has been the percentage change in the average pump price of four star or premium petrol, net of retailers' margin, duty and taxes, between 1959 and 1988, measured against the retail prices index and in constant money terms.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The percentage changes in the price of four star petrol (that is, premium), net of duty and taxes, over the period between 1959 and 1988, are as follows:

  Per cent.

  Petrol price (money of the day)

  407

  RPI

  769

  Petrol price deflated by RPI

  -42

  The Department of Energy does not have data on retailers' margins.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what has been the percentage change in the average price of four star and premium petrol, net of duty and taxes(a) between 1960 and 1988, (b) between 1970 and 1988 and (c) between 1980 and 1988, measured against the retail price index and in constant money terms.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The percentage changes in the price of four star petrol (that is, premium), net of duty and taxes, over the relevant periods, are as follows:

  Petrol price (in money of the day)

  RPI

  Petrol price deflated by RPI

  Percent.

  Percent.

  Percent.

  1960 to 1988

  414

  756

  -40

  1970 to 1988

  453

  478

  -4

  1980 to 1988

  -19

  60

  -49

  Flow Charts
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy(1) if he will indicate when the last flow chart showing United Kingdom energy flows was produced; and if he intends to issue a new chart with the latest figures;

  (2) if he will provide 1988 figures for the information which was provided by the 1983 energy flow chart.

  Mr. Parkinson
  The last chart showing United Kingdom energy flows was produced in 1987, and was based on data for 1986. The flow chart is produced every three years; the next chart is scheduled for publication in
  579
  mid-1990. and will be based on data for 1989. The chart is prepared from data published in the annual "Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics." The 1989 edition of the digest, containing data for 1988, is scheduled to be published by HMSO on 27 July, and a copy will be available in the House of Commons Library.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the achievements of his Department and his policies in helping small businesses over the last 12 months compared with the previous 12 months; and if he will publish the performance indicators by which his Department monitors those achievements and the statistical results of such monitoring.

  Mr. Cecil Parkinson
  My Department's activities in support of small businesses remain essentially as stated in my reply to my hon. Friend on 14 July 1987 at columns 414–15. In the development and implementation of my Department's policies full account is taken on their impact on small businesses. In particular over the last 12 months, Government funding for British Coal Enterprise has risen to £60 million and new job opportunities, many of which are in small businesses, now total 41,041 in 2,600 individual projects; I am seeking to encourage the development of small licensed coal mine operations and I
  580
  am considering proposing an early increase in the statutory limits on the size of licensed mines; the Energy Efficiency Office has published booklets giving advice on energy efficiency in hotels, offices, factories and warehouses and high street banks and agencies; The Offshore Supplies Office has held a seminar on the export opportunities for smaller companies which examined ways to help them carry out economical market research and encouraged them to share the costs of doing so in carefully targeted areas.

  Nuclear Materials (Safeguards)
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn)Official Report, 20 June, column 91, where the statement of interpretation on regulation 3227/76 is published.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  [holding answer 5 July 1989]: The statement on quantity and quality of nuclear substances was made by Commissioner Mosar during the debate on transport of dangerous goods and substances in the European Parliament on 5 July 1988 and is contained in "Official Journal (Special Series) Annex No. 2–367" pages 89–90, which is available for inspection in the Library of the House.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Sheffield.

Air Traffic: Runway Capacity
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking to secure that runway capacity adequate for the needs of British civil aviation, the tourist industry and the national economy is provided in the South East of England.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, we are now considering advice submitted last week by the Civil Aviation Authority on traffic distribution policy for airports serving the London area. The authority is preparing further advice on the adequacy of UK airport capacity in the period to 2005. This work is in response to commissions given to the authority last year by my right honourable friend.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, in thanking my noble friend for that reply, am Ito understand from it that Her Majesty's Government now accept that an additional runway, or additional runways, will be required in the South East by the end of the century? In view of the long time that it takes from a decision to a runway becoming operational, can my noble friend say what the Government are doing about it?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we have to consider the advice which will be given to us next year by the CAA. This is complex and difficult work and we must therefore be sure that the eventual decisions are based on thoroughly researched and considered advice.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, can the Minister assist us further? It was my understanding that last July the Secretary of State wrote to the Civil Aviation Authority asking for this information. Am I not correct in saying that the Secretary of State asked for the advice by July 1989? Can the Minister now say why we are faced with another 12-month delay before this advice is tendered? Does he not feel that a period of two years in preparing advice is disgraceful? The Minister should not have accepted such a delay.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as I said, we have received part of the advice which we asked for. The CAA has realised—and it has consulted widely—that this is an extremely complicated and difficult issue. The question is not just whether we need a new runway but where it should be if one is needed. There are complicated air traffic control problems involved. Therefore, the CAA felt that it needed longer to formulate its advice to us.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, the Minister does not need to tell me that. I am well aware of it. I am sorry that the Minister looks harassed, but does he not realise that there is no feeling of urgency about this matter? Until the Ministry of Transport, if it is the responsible department, realises that the need is urgent we shall just go on and on waiting. Why did the Minister accept a further delay of 12 months from what was originally stated?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I hope I do not give the appearance of looking harassed. Hot I may be, but harassed I hope I am not.
It is a very complicated subject. If the CAA had felt able to give its advice within the original year then it would have done so. It consulted extremely widely. There was considerable input into that consultation from the regional airports, which made their views very well known. It also referred to the problems of traffic control. As I said, it is important that when we receive the advice it should be the right advice. This is an issue which will be of immense importance in the year 2000 and beyond, and therefore it is important that we get it right.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, is it not a fact that the CAA, in its news release of 18th July, emphasised the uncertainties of forecasting? It also said that the further advice which the Minister mentioned will be given next summer, will include forecasts on air space and airport capacity and will take into account the role to be played by airports outside the South East. Are not those extremely important matters on which we should await the information from the CAA?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: That is right, my Lords. That is why we are firm in our opinion that the advice should be the best advice we can get.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister assist us on the interim period before a runway is operational? Can he tell us what is happening about Stansted? When will it be completely operational? How many more people will it be able to take in the future?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, my noble friend makes a very good point. In 1991 Stansted will become operational to a much greater extent than it is now. Therefore, effectively it will be a new runway in the London area. By 1991, when the terminal and the rail link are completed, the first phase will handle 8 million passengers a year. Subject to parliamentary approval, that figure will rise to 15 million passengers a year. Subject to planning approval, there could be the possibility of a second terminal which would take it up to about 20 million passengers.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the provision of additional runway capacity in the South East is not universally popular, especially among those living around airports and along airport flight paths? Will the Government take that into consideration? When considering the

1121
provision of additional air space and runway capacity, will the Government take into account that there should be co-ordination between air transport and surface transport? That is the only way to solve the total problem of transportation in this country.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as regards the first part of the noble Lord's question, I am certainly aware that the provision of new runway capacity may not be universally popular with everyone living in the South East of England. As regards surface transport links, that aspect must be taken into account. For Stansted there will be a new rail link to the airport. There are proposals before your Lordships' House for a new rail link to Heathrow Airport. There are also associated studies of the road networks in those areas.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords, can my noble friend tell me when a decision will be made on the various east London river crossings? The height of those bridges could have an effect on the short take-off and landing airfield in the City. This could have a tremendous economic effect on people from the City going to foreign capitals. The east London river crossing could prevent the BAe HS146 and future aircraft using the airport. That would be a considerable restriction in the future, whereas those aircraft are quiet and meet the International Civil Aviation Organisation regulations.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I believe that my noble friend will not have to wait much longer for my right honourable friend's decision concerning the east London river crossing bridge.
Lord Marshall of Leeds: My Lords, is the Minister aware that when, in 1974, the Labour Government came to power, they declared that there was no foreseeable need for any future airport facilities or capability in the South East and that there would not be for the next 20 years, and that I, as chairman of the Maplin Development Authority, was then sent for and told that the project was scrapped?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I was not aware that the party opposite had said that when they were in power in 1974. What they could not take into account was the enormous boom in economic activity encouraged by the policies of this Government which has taken place over the past 10 years.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, does my noble friend regard his suggestion that the views of the CAA are not yet known on this matter as consistent with the letter dated 17th July from the chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority to the Secretary of State in which it is clearly stated that the CAA has already indicated its view that there is a need for a new runway in the South East?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, yes, but what the CAA has to consider in its advice is whether we need additional capacity at an existing major south-eastern airport; the development of a full
1122
runway's capacity at another aerodrome; the equivalent of a full runway's capacity through development at more than one location; or the expansion of the capacity of near regional airports. Those are the kinds of matters on which we require the advice of the CAA.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I am asking about the question of delay? Someone has to keep on about the matter. I ask the Minister whether he has on file in his office a copy of the letter which the chairman of the CAA wrote to The Times earlier this year stressing the urgency of reaching a decision as regards runway capacity in the South East. When are we to get some action? I am concerned not with what advice is tendered but with when it is. We shall have waited two years already. Does the Minister not agree that it takes between 10 to 12 years from the plans being on the drawing board to a runway being laid? When are we going to get something done about it?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am not certain that I can add very much to what I have already said at Question Time this afternoon. I am well aware of the letter that the chairman of the CAA wrote to The Times newspaper. It is from the CAA that we are awaiting the advice that we need. If a new runway is required in the South East, estimates for the need seem to vary between the year 2000 and the year 2005 or even later. That still gives us a reasonable amount of time from next year to do something about the problem.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, would my noble friend the Minister consider it a possibility to widen the area of this long-running consultation to include perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, and my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, among others?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the views expressed in your Lordships' House do reach the ears of the department through me and I have no doubt that they reach the CAA as well. The period of consultation is over and it is the advice that we now wait for.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, does the Minister not accept that there are great environmental questions to be taken into account in this matter and it is not merely a question of commerce, holidays and trade? The environmental impact of extra runway capacity has to be considered not only now but way into the future.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I believe I indicated that fact in my reply to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon.

Palestine: Peace Initiatives
2.47 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are planning further initiatives to resolve the problem of Palestine and to bring peace to the Middle East.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, the European Council declaration of 27th June sets out our views on the way ahead. We shall continue our efforts to bring the parties together in negotiations leading to a settlement based on "Land for Peace".
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he not agree that now the national unity government of Israel is in total disarray, the situation that exists, with the continued occupation of Palestinian homelands, is extremely serious? Does the Minister not also agree that there has to be a declaration for the return to the Palestinians of their lands and that, if this can only be achieved by the installation of a United Nations peace force, then, in the interests of both the Israelis and the Palestinians, the formation of such a force should be the next move?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord is well aware of the Government's views on the issue in general and the benefits to be had from an international conference. That is set out quite clearly in the EC declaration. As regards disarray, I hope that the noble Lord will be aware that it is not necessarily now the case that the restrictive conditions approved by the Likud Central Committee on 5th July will not be translated into Israeli Government policy. I very much welcome reports that the Israeli Cabinet have reaffirmed Mr. Shamir's election proposals.
Lord Weidenfeld: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that since Mr. Shamir's plan is perhaps the only realistic one available now—it was endorsed yesterday by the Israeli Government—it would be counter-productive to continue high level talks between members of Her Majesty's Government and PLO leaders with the credentials of Mr. Bassam Abu Sharif or possibly Chairman Yasser Arafat, in view of the fact that Mr. Sharif has endorsed the recent bus killings on the outskirts of Jerusalem and described them as a natural human response and, not untypically, Chairman Arafat was among the first to congratulate the People's Republic of China upon breaking the students' resistance?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I quite understand the noble Lord's point of view, but the fact is that talking in general does not do damage provided that the talking is designed to try to bring an end to the kind of conflict that we see. As to the meeting on 13th July between Bassam Abu Sharif and my right honourable and learned friend the Foreign Secretary, that was certainly not an upgrading of our relations with the PLO. It was not a full-scale meeting but a short call to reinforce our message that the PLO must stick to the path of moderation.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we welcome the noble Lord's reaction to yesterday's decision of the Israeli Cabinet to hold elections in the West Bank and Gaza. Is it within his knowledge when these elections will be held? Furthermore, will he also welcome the decision taken by the Israeli Government to reopen the primary schools in the
1124
West Bank, and will he encourage them also to reopen the universities and other educational institutions?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot tell the noble Lord when the elections will be, but I shall try to find out. I welcome, as do other noble Lords, reports that Israeli plans for the progressive opening of schools with effect from 22nd July have begun to be put into operation. We welcome the fact that some, or perhaps even all of them, have reopened. I take note of the noble Lord's point about universities as well.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, I do not know whether your Lordships are aware that we are talking of the Middle East, which is the most ancient area of human habitation. For perhaps 5,000 years tribes and their descendants have lived and fought there. There has been one common feature to those 5,000 years. There has never been a moment of peace. Peace has not been the way of living in that part of the world. To try to proceed by stepping in and imposing this unwanted state on Israel and her neighbours is an impertinence. They have the same human right as any other people to continue with their warlike ways.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, we are all too well aware of the difficulties. What the noble Lord says about the history of that part of the world is all too true. However, where we can try to use our influence to bring an end to the difficulties we must continue to do so. That is precisely what the European Council declaration strives to achieve.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I ought perhaps to say on behalf of your Lordships that we should be a little concerned that we are just coming up to 20 minutes, which is the time the House itself has decided should be allowed for desirably completing Question Time. I would suggest to noble Lords that perhaps the brief, pungent question is more dangerous to government spokesmen than the long, discursive one.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I must agree with the Leader of the House. He is reflecting what the Procedure Committee has recommended many times. Members on all sides of the House are represented on the committee, and this was agreed to.
Lord Bottomley: My Lords, I have given way twice and so I am entitled to ask a question. Is the Minister aware that in the year ended December 1988 there were 1,470 Palestinian terrorist attacks, and that this year there have been 412 attacks on Israelis and 123 on Arabs? There was a bus incident recently—
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Bottomley: It is a question, my Lords. Israelis were killed in the bus, including innocent children.
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Bottomley: My Lords, Yasser Arafat said that he is opposed—
Noble Lords: Order, order!
Lord Bottomley: Ought we not to draw his attention to these activities, and will the Government condemn them?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, we deplore violence, from whichever quarter it comes.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, will the Government continue with their policy of trying to set up an international conference, and will they try to get it accepted by the United States? That could bring peace to the area.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, that is precisely what the declaration by the European Community tries to achieve.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, is the Minister—
Noble Lords: Next Question!
Baroness Phillips: No other noble Lord is on his feet, my Lords. I protest. If the Government like to take nearly 20 minutes on the first Question, what right do they have to cut down on the time available for the other Questions?

Consumer Credit: Promotion
2.55 p.m.
Lord Rippon of Hexham Lord Rippon of Hexham asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they propose to take to stop or discourage banks, building societies and other financial institutions from mass canvassing their customers to borrow money at high rates of interest for purchases such as holidays.
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Lord Young of Graffham): My Lords, the Government will continue to urge financial institutions to show responsibility in promoting credit. They will also continue to urge customers to show responsibility in deciding whether to accept or refuse credit offers.
Lord Rippon of Hexham: My Lords, I appreciate the Secretary of State's Answer, but is he aware that both the Governor of the Bank of England and the Prime Minister have expressed concern about the present position? Does he agree that it is not competition but exploitation? Does he remember that when we were discussing the brewers he said that competition is good but that there are times when the customer ought to be protected? Is this not one of those times?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, we have considerable protection against aggressive advertising. First, the law provides that advertisements must not be deceptive or misleading; secondly, consumers must be given sufficient
1126
information before they enter into binding commitments for credit; thirdly, we support the Citizens' Advice Bureaux so that consumers have access to good advice about credit; and finally, the Governor of the Bank of England has publicly encouraged banks to be more responsible in their advertising of consumer credit. At the end of the day consumer credit is only 16 per cent. of total household borrowings; the other 84 per cent. is for house purchase.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, according to the Bank of England returns published on 12th July, lendings by banks to United Kingdom individuals other than those connected with house purchase increased by £2·1 billion, which in itself is a record and exceeds the record of the same three month period last year of £1£8 billion to August 1988? Is he aware that this runs completely counter to the restraints urged upon borrowers by the Government themselves? What is happening is that borrowers are circumventing mortgage interest rates by increasing their borrowings for personal items, including holidays. Will he suggest to the Prime Minister's office that perhaps a spokesman should convey her fury about such a development?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I fear that the noble Lord has misread the statistics on this occasion. Lending by the main high street banks moved last month in the opposite direction. It was £331 million in May compared with £360 million in April. It has gone down. The volume of retail sales also fell in June. There is little evidence of any recent worsening of the position. In the case of mortgages, there were fewer repossessions by building societies in the second half of last year than in the first. Fewer building society borrowers had arrears of more than six months. This is very much a matter for the indiviual citizen to decide.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, will my noble friend consider the following suggestion? When these seductive advertisements for borrowing appear in the national press, they should state that, where a second charge is required on the property and there is a default, the individual's property is at risk. There should be a warning as is the case with cigarette advertising.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I shall certainly look into the suggestion made by my noble friend. However, I think it would be slightly unusual if anyone who took a charge or a mortgage on his home, even if it were a second mortgage, did not know at the end of the day that it would threaten the ownership of his property.
Lord Rippon of Hexham: My Lords, can the Secretary of State give an assurance that if the Government's efforts to discourage the banks and others from acting irresponsibly fail, they will take further action, perhaps by introducing legislation, to control usuary because that of course is what it is?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, other countries, including the United States, Japan, Germany and France, have abandoned any controls they had on the amount of consumer lending recognising them to be ineffective, unfair and, indeed, at the end of the day, damaging. Moreover, exactly like us, such countries rely primarily upon interest rates.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is it not a fact that the continued expansion of domestic credit, which went up by £3 million in June, is a threat to the Government's total economic policy and also a threat to their inflationary policy? Will the noble Lord agree to reconsider the suggestion I made to him the other day that banks and other lending institutions should be compelled to make special deposits with the Bank of England at a very low rate of interest?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, is concerned to ensure that the Government's economic policy succeeds. I share the noble Lord's sentiments in the matter. However, I should point out to him that the amount outstanding on consumer credit is bound to rise as disposable incomes rise and the ability to repay loans increases. That has been the great change in this decade. Personal sector financial assets are three times greater than financial liabilities. Indeed, they are actually growing faster.
Lord Peston: My Lords, perhaps I should preface my short, pungent question by saying how sad I am to hear the rumour that the Secretary of State may not be answering any more questions from the Dispatch Box. I turn now to my question. Is it not intriguing and astonishing that, despite extraordinarily high interests rates—and they are very high for consumers but consumers are not being misled about them; indeed, the rates are perfectly clear—consumers still continue to borrow? Do the Government have any explanation as to why they continue to do so?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, perhaps I may suggest to the noble Lord that he should consider most carefully all articles that he reads in the newspapers. But, having said that, so far as concerns the amount of credit, we live in a world in which the level of personal income is rising sharply. We live in a world where, happily, the citizen is at liberty to decide how he or she wishes to dispose of that income.
We have seen borrowings increase; but I should say that the figure regarding lending for consumption by the main high street banks actually decreased in the month of May as compared with April.

Rose Theatre
3.2 p.m.
Baroness Strange Baroness Strange asked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they now have for the Rose Theatre, Southwark.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Hesketh): My Lords, the matter at present rests with the London Borough of Southwark, which is due to decide the developers' planning application for the revised design of their proposed office building.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for his fairly rosy reply. However, is he aware that by way of their first plan the developers of the Rose Theatre site, Imry Merchant, had 176,000 square feet of office space and that in the current plan they have 201,000 square feet of office space? Is he further aware that in the plan put forward by Ove Arup, the architects for the Theatres Trust, not only would the piles be 6 feet to 11 feet further away from the perimeter of the Rose Theatre, but also the roof space would be 38 feet above and there would be 202,000 square feet of office space?
Is my noble friend also aware—
Noble Lords: Order!
Baroness Strange: My Lords, this is my second point; I am allowed two points.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I wonder whether my noble friend would be kind enough to recall the words of my noble friend the Leader of the House and those of the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition: Question Time should not be made the occasion for a speech.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, I very much thank my noble friend. I just wish to say—
Noble Lords: Question!
Baroness Strange: My Lords, I just wish to ask whether my noble friend the Minister is aware that the first company registered in 1592, in which Shakespeare was a player, was that of my noble kinsman, Lord Strange, whose name I am supporting by proxy, so to speak.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I fear that it will come as no surprise to the noble Baroness when I tell her that I cannot prejudge the outcome of the planning application which is before Southwark Council.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that this site was designated in 1984 as a site of archaeological importance? Further, why did the Government do nothing about this, and why do they always leave such matters to the local authorities? Can they not take some interest when it is a matter of national importance?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am sure that there would be an uproar if we started to interfere with the process, especially with regard to local authorities. Indeed, I am sure that I would be the first one to feel the wrath of your Lordships' House if I so suggested. At present we cannot prejudge the outcome of the inquiry. I should remind the House that the £10 million scheme proposed by Imry Merchant is the largest contribution we have ever seen to a site such as that of the Rose Theatre.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, if the local authorities have the power to ask for information about the archaeology of a proposed building site—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Mellish: It should be a Conservative speaker!
Lord Renton: My Lords, as it is perfectly clear that there is a broad consensus and, in effect, an agreement in principle that this site should be preserved, would it not be best for us to leave the details to the planning authorities?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I can do no more than heartily agree with my noble friend.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I think that it is our turn now. Since local authorities have the power to ask for information about the archaeology of a proposed building site, will the Minister therefore agree that where there is any archaeological interest known to be involved, the local authority should be required—not just be responsible—to ensure that a full archaeological search of a site takes place before planning permission is granted, so as to prevent, in the future, an occurrence of the unhappy situation we have seen arise on this occasion?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Baroness will not expect me to change government policy on my feet. However, perhaps I may point out to your Lordships' House that in fact the site is at present fully protected. A great deal of work has already been done in this respect and an impermeable membrane now covers the whole of the site in order to provide adequate protection.
Lord Marley: My Lords, will my noble friend consider that one way of preserving the Rose Theatre would be to dedicate it as a national permanent memorial to our great actor the late Lord Olivier?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, that is a most interesting suggestion. However, we are still some distance from being able to prepare the next stage, as it were, of the future of the Rose Theatre.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, the Minister said that Southwark Council now has the planning application. When did the council receive it, and when can we expect to receive an answer?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I believe that the application is to be heard at the next planning meeting.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, when will that be?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I shall have to write to the noble Lord on that point.
Lord Sudeley: My Lords, can the Minister say whether the present plans for the Rose Theatre site should be called in for a public inquiry as the proposed new plan of the Rose Theatre Trust has already been preferred by two archaeologists, Mr.
1130
Sheldon of the London Museum, and Professor Biddle as well as Dr. Walter Hodges and Professor Andrew Gurr of Reading University on the grounds that five four-and-a-half feet piles have already damaged the north corner of the site where the stage and tiring house would be?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, as I have said, I cannot prejudge the decision that will be taken by the Southwark planners.
The Earl of Bessborough: My Lords, am I not right in thinking that the Rose has been saved, and that there is now a possibility that there might be an amalgamation between the Shakespeare Globe Centre and the Rose through the existing Shakespeare Globe Museum, thus unifying—this is important—the fund-raising effort? Does not my noble friend consider that having the backing of the existing Globe Trust is a more rational way of looking to the future? I declare an interest as a trustee, as indeed would my noble kinsman Lord Ponsonby on the other Benches. Would not that be the most sensible solution?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, as always, my noble friend Lord Bessborough has made a most interesting suggestion, but I have to give him the answer that I gave earlier, which is that it is probably a little too early to be able to act upon his idea; but I shall draw it to the attention of my right honourable friend.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, before we leave Question Time, I should like to refer to the element of disorderliness that has crept into our Question Time. We have now taken 35 minutes on questions. If 11 minutes are taken on the first Question, that means that the rest of the questioners will be disadvantaged. I suggest that perhaps the matter should be considered over the Recess. It might go back to the Procedure Committee for consideration. Otherwise, Question Time (which I think is one of the most splendid features of the House) may be damaged.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, is right to draw the attention of the House to the length of time that is spent on questions. People who spend too much time on one question do so at the expense of others. Perhaps we can put that down to the heat or the end of the summer term. However, no doubt by the time we return, your Lordships will be more accustomed to the disciplines to which we normally accede, and will try to keep to the normal length of questions at Question Time.

Business
3.12 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon, my noble friend Lord Ferrers will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement on war crimes that is to be made in another place. This will be followed by my noble friend Lady Hooper who will, again with the leave

1131
of the House, repeat a Statement on electricity privatisation.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Committee stage of the Local Government and Housing Bill will be adjourned at about 7 p.m. for about one hour, and that during this adjournment there will be a consolidated debate on 15 Motions for annulment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey.

Isle of Wight Bill
3.13 p.m.
Read a third time, and passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

London Regional Transport (No. 2) Bill
Read a second time, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.

Standing Orders (Public Business)
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. It is a formal amendment which is self-explantory.
Moved, That the Standing Orders relating to public business be amended as follows:
Standing Order 62
After line 6, insert "Broadcasting Committee"
Line 17, leave out "Sound Broadcasting Committee".—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Local Government and Housing Bill
3.14 p.m.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Arran.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 18 [Members' interests]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 104:
Page 24, line 14, at end insert—
("(1A) Before making any regulations under this section, the Secretary of State shall certify that the requirements contained therein are, in his opinion, not more onerous than those currently applicable to members of either House of Parliament.")
The noble Lord said: We resume at the place where we were most rudely interrupted on Thursday night, still on Part I and dealing with Clause 18 which is concerned with the register of members' pecuniary interests.
There are two different degrees of control of the propriety of the activities of Members of Parliament and local councillors. One is that they should themselves take steps to declare any interest which should be declared when any business is being considered by the council or any committee of which they are a member, or by another place, as the case may be. The second is the provision of a register of members' interests so that everyone may see, in accordance with regulations laid down by the Secretary of State, what interests individual councillors have. They can then be satisfied that they are not abusing any interests that they may have or their position as a councillor in favour of any interest that they have. It is also a check on whether they should be members of particular committees or should withdraw from certain kinds of business when their interests are affected by it.
We have never objected to either of those provisions. We have never felt that there should not be a control: first, of a declaration of interest; and, secondly, that there should not be a register of interests. The question must be asked, however, whether Clause 18, which sets out in some detail the regulations which the Secretary of State may make about members' interests, is properly to be applied by Parliament or, rather, by a Parliament which does not apply the rules to itself.
Another place has had for many years a register of Members' pecuniary interests. For a number of years, because of the reluctance of one Member of the other place to supply a list of interests, it was on a purely voluntary basis; but I believe that it is universal now, and there is no question but that the general public can see the register of interests of Members of another place.
Your Lordships have taken a different approach to our procedures. We have taken the approach in our rules of debate that it is undesirable that Members of the House should promote or oppose legislation in which they may be thought to have an interest or may think themselves to have an interest. It is left to the honour of noble Lords to assess whether that interest falls within the scope of the rules of debate and whether they should declare the interest or refrain from taking part in debate when they have a pecuniary interest.
On the whole, it is widely accepted that we declare interests when the need arises. I am not sure whether we all declare interests with the degree of detail that might be thought to be desirable; but the spirit of self-regulation which pervades the House has always meant that there has been no pressure to have a register of your Lordships' interests, and therefore we have been spared—if that is the right word—the legislation which is now proposed for local authorities.
However admirable our procedures may be in many ways, we should not impose rules on councillors which we would not be prepared to

1133
accept for ourselves. That is not in itself a criticism of the way in which our rules work. I have been describing the differences between them and those of another place and those of local authorities. However, it would be wrong for the House to command the Secretary of State to lay regulations which would put on the statute book (in this Bill) a detailed clause which not only sets out the regulations which govern the giving of notice of pecuniary interests, but sets out in great detail the punishment which is to be imposed for failing to comply with the regulations, or giving a notice, in compliance with requirements, which is false or misleading; or recklessly providing information which is false or misleading in a material particular.
This is a very severe clause, and maybe it is right for it to be severe. But we ought not to say this unless we are prepared to do the same for ourselves. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has raised a very interesting point and one which deserves our careful consideration. Although I have not been a member of another place for ten years, my own recollection—no doubt I shall be corrected if I am wrong; but I still think I am right—is that the register of Members' interests in another place was a register compiled by the voluntary action of Members. Indeed, a Member could refuse to submit his interests. I remember that one well-known Member did refuse.
With great respect to the noble Lord, I am not quite sure that the purpose of what is done in the House of Commons is the same or could have the same results as the declaration of pecuniary interests by members of local authorities. Of course we have to bear in mind that the power given to the Secretary of State in Clause 18(1) is limited merely to the making of regulations which affect the direct and indirect pecuniary interests of members of local authorities.
Perhaps my noble friend on the Front Bench can explain what he means by the difference between direct and indirect, because it is rather interesting. But in the nature of things as we know them, what we have to try to ensure in the case of local authority members is that they do not obtain contracts awarded by the local authority to businesses in which they have a pecuniary interest, unless at any rate those interests have been declared. With that background, I find it difficult to understand a distinction between direct and indirect pecuniary interests. Perhaps we should be told.
However, the same sort of situation does not arise with regard to Members of another place, or very rarely. I remember that there was a Member of another place who found, when he was appointed a junior Minister, that the large firm of which he was a member had very considerable contracts, not directly with the Government but with a quango. He did the honourable thing, which was to resign as a junior Minister, before he had to take such a decision. But that is a very unusual situation and I should have thought that, bearing in mind what we know and what, alas, has been experienced with
1134
regard to local authorities, we should not try to restrict the Secretary of State too much. I hope I am not being too long-winded.
Therefore, although I appreciate the purpose of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, in raising the matter, I doubt whether it is necessary for us to make an amendment on the lines that he has proposed.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I noted that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said that noble Lords on his side of the Committee were not against the declaration of pecuniary interests, direct and indirect, by members of local authorities. I am sure that he is absolutely right. The point he was making—and I think that he made it at Second Reading—was that perhaps we in this Chamber and those in another place should be looking at the matter for ourselves. But that is not part of the Bill and I do not think the noble Lord is really saying that it should be in the Bill until we have examined the proposal.
It is very important to realise why local authorities are quite different from Parliament in this respect. It is quite extraordinary that when one joins a local authority, as many Members of the Committee know very well one discovers the network of interests which interact with the interests of the local authority. Planning decisions—local planning decisions and strategic planning decisions—can affect the value of land and property, and the value of almost anything in the local countryside. One need only have an indirect interest in the value of property in a certain place or the value of land in a certain place to have an interest in the decision that is made.
It is only fair to councillors to have a register of interests. I do not think it is enough for it to be voluntary. As I said at Second Reading, the council on which I sat had a voluntary register, but I do not think that that was enough. One should be protected by a statutory register.
It is not only a case of planning decisions, decisions about housing. Planning decisions as they interact with the construction industry, if one has an interest in the construction industry, are very influential on prices and what happens locally. There is a whole range of decisions that can be taken, as many Members of the Committee know, which can affect one's own interests.
Without doubt I think that this subsection should stand. However, I go along with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, in that, as is often the case as we are discussing matters in this Chamber and as I read debates in another place, perhaps we should go further on this point.
Lord Bellwin: I too have some sympathy with the point that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, makes. However, my noble friend touched oh the answer to it. One cannot draw an exact analogy. In this Chamber we do not do the same things at all as a local authority has to do. We do not have the job, the function, of placing contracts and making planning decisions and a whole host of activities which are everyday, routine matters in a local authority. We do not have to carry out those duties at all.

1135
The noble Lord was fair enough to say that within the framework of what we have to do, by and large the system works well enough. I suspect that the same applies to another place, but perhaps that is not for me to say. However, there is such a great difference in what local authorities do that the clause and the legislation set out to try to improve the position as it now is. It really is not the same.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: In my view, noble Lords opposite are downgrading the worth of this Chamber in the decision-making process. There are Members of the Chamber who like myself have served on a local authority, who have served in another place and who now have the great privilege of serving in this Chamber. The amendment seeks to ensure that whatever the Government feel is good for local authorities is good for both Chambers. Whatever the Government feel is right for the Commons should also be standard and the benchmark for local government and for this place.
I know that Members of the Committee may say that there are different criteria and they do a different job. Those who have served on local authorities at a high level, like myself, are aware that there are very important decisions to be made. I can assure the Committee that I have never been lobbied more heavily on this issue than when I appeared in this Chamber—not in the local authority and not in another place. The number of people outside this Chamber who believe—I think rightly—that the decisions taken here can be material in the decision-making process is very great.
My experience of local government is from years past. There may be others with more recent experience. The situation has moved on in the past five or 10 years, and certainly in the past 20 years. This amendment points to the fact that there are measuring rods and standards of propriety and probity in public life that should be the same at all levels.
The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, indicated that this Chamber will need to check its own standards in these matters. However, I hope that Members of the Committee will not say the decisions that are made in this Chamber are less important or are less subject to pressure than the decisions made in either another place or local government. I am not saying that this Chamber awards contracts, but we make decisions which are real, important and far-reaching. The purpose of this amendment is perfectly simple; it is that what is good for the goose of local government should be good for the gander of national government.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Renton: I hope the noble Lord will bear this point in mind. I speak from 44 years' experience of Parliament altogether. Never once, as a Member of Parliament, have I had to take part in a decision as to who should be awarded a government contract except when I was serving as a Minister, and even then it was a very rare thing indeed. Those decisions were nearly always taken by officials, although Ministers were responsible for them. But Private
1136
Members of either Chamber are simply not called upon to take those kinds of decisions.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I say with great respect that I made the point that we in this Chamber do not award contracts. However, what we do which is equally important or more important than that is to set the framework in which contracts have to be sought. We have just gone through a whole series of decisions which affect the ability of a local authority to contract out. All of those matters have wide repercussions. The Chamber does not need me to go into the detail of that. One reads regularly of the interlocking nature of business interests. That exists and is real.
We are proud of our system of government. Therefore, as my noble friend Lord McIntosh said, we should be able to devise a scheme whereby the public are made aware of Members' interests. I am not talking about simply declaring interests, as I have many times, but about publishing our interests so that there can be no confusion.
Lord Ross of Newport: While I have some sympathy with the amendment, I do not wish the regulations to be held up. I think it is right that there should be declaration of interest and that regulations should be drawn up for that purpose as regards local government. However, I was staggered both in another place and in this Chamber to find that Members are entitled to speak on subjects in which they have very large financial interests. They are never obliged to sit down and keep quiet. In local government, however, that does not and cannot happen.
When I had a small retained interest in a development scheme, I was not allowed to speak on that at all. A statement of my views was read by the clerk of the council. I had no pecuniary interest in that development at all, but I had been retained to advise on it. That certainly does not happen in this Chamber. Directors of companies which are very much involved in takeovers of other companies in which there are constituency interests in another place are perfectly free to make speeches in this Chamber and in another place without any restriction whatsoever.
However, having said that, while I have sympathy with the amendment I cannot support it because I believe it is right that these rules and regulations should be drawn up for local government. They should not be delayed. The problem is to some extent worse in another place. We should put our own house in order, but we do not have to do that before we draw up the regulations for local government as the amendment suggests.
Lord Trafford: Although I agree with the noble Lord's comments, I should point out to him that it is the convention both in another place and in this Chamber for Members to declare interests which reflect in some way on the matter under discussion. I agree with the noble Lord that the observance of this convention may have changed slightly, but I believe that if the noble Lord looks through the rule book he will find that that rule is applicable to this Chamber also.

1137
I recognise that the noble Lord made a perfectly proper distinction between that which we should do by convention and that which we have to do by regulation. I accept that, and I share the view of the noble Lord of the difference in the directness of the spheres of influence which are exercised by Members of this Chamber and those exercised in another place and by members of local authorities. I think the noble Lord, Lord Graham, agreed with that too. In case anyone gets the wrong impression from what has been said here, I should put on the record that it is usually the custom for Members to declare their interest, even though in so doing they are not prevented from making comments on the matter. However, at least when they do make comments in either Chamber it should be known that they have a significant interest in the matter under discussion. That is what matters.
Lord Ross of Newport: As that was an intervention, perhaps I may reply to it. I accept that Members of this Chamber, as far as I know, always declare any interest when speaking on a subject, but they go on to address the Chamber on that subject. I was trying to say that that is not permitted in local government, or at least not in the local authority in which I served.
Lord Hesketh: This amendment would require the Secretary of State to certify that any regulations made under Clause 18 requiring members to provide details of their pecuniary interests are no more onerous than those which are applicable to the Members of either Chamber in the Houses of Parliament. That would indeed pose a major restriction on provisions as regards this Chamber because, as many Members of the Committee have pointed out, Members of this Chamber are under no obligation whatsover to register their interests.
We believe that comparisons between the kinds of interests which Members of another place are required to declare and those which should apply to councillors can also be misleading. It is wrong to draw comparisons. Local authorities are not legislative bodies and the issues and the conflicts of interests that arise are different, as my noble friend Lord Renton and others have pointed out to this Chamber.
If Members of another place are concerned that their rules are not sufficiently stringent, it is open to them to change them. Meanwhile, I do not believe that we should draw up rules for local authority members solely with an eye on those which apply to Parliament. We are currently consulting the local authority associations about the details of the register and the interests to be declared thereon. We do not expect this to be unduly intrusive.
The purpose of the register is to highlight the existence of major interests. It is not proposed that members should be required to provide details of the amount and extent of their interest. We would, for instance, expect members to declare the fact that they have shares in a company, but not how many. Likewise, we would not require members to declare interests that are so insignificant that they
1138
could hardly be expected to influence their conduct as councillors.
At present we envisage that the broad headings to be covered by the register will include land, property and company interests as well as paid employments. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, asked for a distinction between direct and indirect interests. As I understand it, a direct interest involves one's salary, whereas an indirect interest would concern shares in for instance a building firm that could be awarded a contract. However, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and other Members of the Committee will be pleased to hear there is a far better definition laid out in Section 95 of the Local Government Act 1972. With that, I hope that the Committee will be able to resist the blandishments of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and reject this amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I did not think I had used blandishments. I thought I was putting a case for Members of this Chamber, with respect to the legislation we pass, to behave as though we were ourselves affected by it. That seems to me to be a totally responsible approach and not a blandishment.
I must first of all reply to the noble Lord, Lord Ross, who feared that the register of interests might be held up. There is no danger of that as the register of interests already exists under Sections 95 and 96 of the Local Government Act 1972. That provision could easily continue in force until the new legislation is ready, and until the Secretary of State is ready to make new regulations.
We are concerned here with a series of issues of practicality and with an issue of principle. On the practicalities, it has been argued that the nature of local government business is so different from the nature of parliamentary business that declarations of interest and registers of pecuniary interest should not be the same. I was chairman of the planning committee of a borough council for four years and chairman of the planning committee of the Greater London Council for four years. I am sorry to say that not once in those eight years was I offered a bribe. Similarly, not once in those eight years did I have any difficulty in declaring an interest on specific issues and in absenting myself from discussion or votes on those matters.
It is argued that the nature of local authority work is significantly different from that of Parliament. I cannot follow that argument. We deal with legislation which has an enormous effect on the finances of very large numbers of bodies, not just public bodies like local authorities but also private companies and, in many cases, private individuals. Evidence of that has already been given by a number of noble Lords. How many of your Lordships and how many Members of another place are approached by those who wish to influence us and do so presumably because they think that it is worth their while financially to seek to influence us and convince us of the rightness of their point of view?
Members of another place in particular, but also a number of Members of this House, are paid as consultants in order, presumably, not only to inform outside organisations about the activities of Parliament but also to influence the activities of

1139
Parliament. Indeed, recently a Member of another place went so far as to advertise his availability as a paid consultant for outside interests. There is plenty of scope for pecuniary interest and for it to be just as important in this House as it is in local authorities.
In our charming, quaint way we have rules of debate which state that:
"It is a long-standing custom of the House that Lords speak always on their personal honour. It follows from this that if a Lord decides that it is proper for him to take part in a debate on a subject in which he has a direct pecuniary interest, he should declare it.
"Subject to this, and to the guidance to Members or Employees of Public Boards (the Addison Rules), there is no reason why a Lord with an interest to declare should not take part in debate."
That is the point to which my noble friend Lord Graham referred.
"It is however, considered undesirable for a Lord to advocate, promote or oppose in the House any Bill or subordinate legislation, in or for which he is or has been acting or concerned for any pecuniary fee or reward".
A very large number of Members of the House declare interests—and then go on to advocate, promote or oppose legislation. Indeed, they go on to vote on, for or against legislation in which they have declared an interest. I believe that there is a good deal of scope for improvement in the rules of this House. The principle has been accepted in local authorities for many years that where there is a direct or indirect pecuniary interest the member of the local authority concerned should absent himself from the debate, not take part in it and not vote on it. Those are good rules which we could adopt in Parliament with considerable benefit to our own proceedings.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. He must remember that the value of this House lies in the fact that its Members have experience in so many different aspects of the life of the country and can contribute to debate on those subjects. If the Members who understand, for example, the land, the environment, farming, and so on, never spoke about it in this House and always absented themselves and never affected the way the House decided on such matters, the nature of the House would change considerably. I believe that the noble Lord has overstated the case. That was not what I meant when I spoke earlier in the debate.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am not convinced by that argument. There are perfectly good rules for distinguishing between general interests and particular pecuniary interests. In local government, for example, it has always been accepted that council house tenants can vote on council house rents. In many councils there would not have been anyone to vote except the council house tenants. Similarly, I do not think that there would be any difficulty in accepting that farmers could vote on matters affecting the regulation of farming. Those are general matters. However, there are specific matters in which noble Lords and Members of the other place have a specific interest. In many cases they are paid fees in order to affect the results of parliamentary proceedings. In those cases I think that the rules that govern us should be no less severe than those governing local authorities.
1140
It is not out of any desire to weaken the controls on local government that I move the amendment. It is out of a desire to see—and this is where we come to the matter of principle—that we do not say to other people that they should do what we are not prepared to do ourselves. That is an issue of principle on which I cannot retract. This is not a probing amendment for negotiation which I could bring back at another stage. This is a matter on which we on this side of the Chamber say what we think—namely, that the rules should be the same for all in public life. I commend the amendment to the Committee.
3.46 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 104) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 55; Not-Contents, 152.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Birk, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Bottomley, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Lockwood, B.

Broadbridge, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Mclntosh of Haringey, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Molloy, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Mulley, L.

David, B.

Nicol, B.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Peston, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Phillips, B.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Ennals, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Gallacher, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Galpern, L.

Serota, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Shepherd, L.

Stallard, L.

Greenhill of Harrow, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hayter, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Jeger, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Underhill, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Leatherland, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Listowel, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Amherst, E.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Ampthill, L.

Butterworth, L.

Annaly, L.

Caithness, E.

Arran, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Attlee, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Auckland, L.

Carnock, L.

Aylestone, L.

Cawley, L.

Balfour, E.

Cockfield, L.

Bauer, L.

Coleraine, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Cox, B.

Bellwin, L.

Craigavon, V.

Beloff, L.

Cross, V.

Belstead, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Bessborough, E.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Blatch, B.

De Freyne, L.

Blyth, L.

Denham, L, [Teller.]

Bonham-Carter, L.

Dundee, E.

Borthwick, L.

Eccles, V.

1141

Eiffingham, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Munster, E.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Ezra, L.

Nelson, E.

Falkland, V.

Newall, L.

Ferrers, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Ogmore, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Orkney, E.

Glenarthur, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Goold, L.

Pender, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Grey, E.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Gridley, L.

Porritt, L.

Grimond, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Haig, E.

Reigate, L.

Halisham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Renton, L.

Richardson, L.

Halsbury, E.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Rochester, L.

Harvey of Prestbury, L.

Romney, E.

Havers, L.

Ross of Newport, L.

Henley, L.

Rugby, L.

Hesketh, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Hives, L.

St. Davids, V.

Hood, V.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Hooper, B.

Seear, B.

Hooson, L.

Shannon, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Sharpies, B.

Ironside, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Sheffield, Bp.

Joseph, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Kennet, L.

Stedman, B.

Keyes, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Kimball, L.

Strange, B.

Kinloss, Ly.

Strathcarron, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Knights, L.

Strathspey, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Sudeley, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Swinfen, L.

Long, V.

Terrington, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Lurgan, L.

Tordoff, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Torphichen, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Trafford, L.

McNair, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Mancroft, L.

Trumpington, B.

Margadale, L.

Ullswater, V.

Marley, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Mayhew, L.

Walston, L.

Merrivale, L.

Westbury, L.

Mersey, V.

Whitelaw, V.

Middleton, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Windlesham, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Wise, L.

Morris, L.

Wynfoid, L.

Mottistone, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Clause 18 agreed to.
The Earl of Arran: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

War Crimes Inquiry: Report
3.54 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement about the report of the War Crimes Inquiry which is being
1142
made in another place by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. The Statement is as follows:
"I set up the inquiry in February 1988 to consider allegations that persons who are now British citizens or resident in the United Kingdom committed war crimes during the Second World War; and to advise whether the law of the United Kingdom should be amended in order to enable prosecutions for war crimes to take place in this country.
"The report as submitted to me was in two parts. The main report contains the inquiry team's analysis and conclusions. The second part contains detailed material on individual cases. The inquiry team intended that the main report should be published. I am today publishing it in full and without amendment. I also accept the expert view of the inquiry team that publishing the material in the second part about individual cases would risk prejudicing any proceedings which might be instituted. The House will see the wisdom of that distinction and understand why I cannot comment on individual cases.
"I believe the House will find the main report a full and impressive document. It lakes a broad view of the historical context affecting the territories and people involved in eastern Europe, of the conduct of successive British Governments during and after the last war, and of the legal and other issues. The team visited the Soviet Union and interviewed a large number of possible witnesses. I am most grateful to Sir Thomas Hetherington, formerly Director of Public Prosecutions, and Mr. William Chalmers, formerly Crown Agent, for their authoritative analysis.
"The inquiry deals with allegations of horrific killings on a very large scale—crimes which would constitute violations of the internationally agreed laws and customs of war. The allegations are not about actions committed in the heat of war. They concern individuals allegedly holding quite senior positions in paramilitary units operating in territories occupied by the German forces, whose task was the systematic murder of civilians.
"The inquiry examined in detail seven cases. They concluded in respect of four that there was sufficient evidence to mount a criminal prosecution (one of the individuals concerned has since died). The inquiry went on to recommend that further investigations should take place in respect of the other three cases; in addition, of the nearly 300 further cases drawn to the attention of the inquiry, they recommend further investigation of 75 and that attempts should be made to trace a further 46.
"The inquiry recommends that there should be a change in the law to permit the prosecution in this country of acts of murder and manslaughter committed as war crimes in Germany or German-occupied territory during the period of the Second World War, by persons who are now British citizens or who are resident in the United Kingdom. Additionally, certain procedural changes (including the taking of evidence by live

1143
television link from persons outside the United Kingdom) are proposed to facilitate the trial of such cases.
"The inquiry was conscious of the danger of creating retrospective legislation and have sought to meet that objection. They are addressing actions which they are satisfied constituted at the time clear breaches of international law, and which would constitute offences triable in British courts now, had the persons concerned been British citizens at that stage.
"The inquiry reached their recommendation on legislation and prosecution in this country after examining and rejecting other courses of action. In particular, they discussed but did not recommend extradition of the individuals concerned to stand trial in the Soviet Union. They set out the arguments for and against extradition. The Government find the arguments against extradition to the Soviet Union convincing.
"The inquiry's recommendations raise important issues of principle and practicality. It can be argued that it is no service to the memory of the victims of these crimes to resurrect, after so many years, the horror of what they endured. One can question what will be achieved by prosecuting very old men so long after the events. The practical difficulties of conducting trials include the age and frailty of witnesses; the problems of assembling evidence which is available, if at all, in the Soviet Union in a form in which it can be convincingly presented to a jury in Britain; and the problem of establishing identity and other key elements beyond reasonable doubt when witnesses' memories are more than 40 years old. The report deals with all these matters.
"On the other hand, it will be argued that, in the words of the report:
"The crimes committed are so monstrous that they cannot be condoned … To take no action would taint the UK with the slur of being a haven for war criminals."
"Other countries which have uncovered similar evidence have acted to enable the alleged offenders to be brought to trial, sometimes making broader changes in the law than recommended in this report. Despite the practical problems of conducting a trial, the experienced inquiry team, a former Director of Public Prosecutions and Crown Agent, reached the view that there would be sufficient evidence in three cases to mount a prosecution if there were jurisdiction.
"If and when the time comes for assessing the evidence, the prosecuting authorities of the day will need to make their own assessment of particular cases.
"We are impressed by the force of argument which led the inquiry to their clear conclusion that legislation was required. But we want to hear the views of Parliament before taking a final view on the principle of legislation.
"This is a matter on which the views of Parliament will be decisive. The Government will provide an opportunity for each House to debate the implications of the report and the action which
1144
should be taken in response to it. This will take place in the autumn once there has been a proper opportunity to study the report and reflect upon it. In the light of the views expressed in that debate, the Government will take a final decision on whether to bring forward a Bill on the lines proposed by the inquiry".
My Lords, that concludes the text of the Statement.
4.2 p.m.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Earl for repeating the Home Secretary's Statement and for making available the report of the War Crimes Inquiry conducted by two experts, who are men of great integrity and experience in this field; namely, Sir Thomas Hetherington and Mr. William Chalmers.
The recommendation of that inquiry was in the following terms:
"Some action should be taken in respect of alleged war criminals who are now British citizens or are resident in this country where the evidence is sufficient to justify such action".
It then goes on to say:
"Legislation to allow prosecution in this country is preferable to extradition. Other courses, such as deprivation of citizenship and deportation, and prosecution under the terms of the Royal Warrant of 1945, would not be satisfactory".
Then there is the conclusion:
"Legislation should be introduced to give British courts jurisdiction over acts of murder and manslaughter committed as war crimes (violations of the laws and customs of war) in Germany or German occupied territory during the period of the Second World War by persons who are now British citizens or resident in the United Kingdom".
There follow significant words which I venture to underline:
"Such legislation should be brought into force as quickly as possible".
A great deal of time has elapsed and I am quite sure that in advising the House that there was need for a further and final investigation and for a view to be taken by Parliament, the noble Earl took the view that the lapse of time will not be permitted once more to add to the problem that already exists. We have not yet had an opportunity of examining in any detail the commissioners' report but we are grateful to the Government for having made it immediately available for the House to consider.
As a democratic country, we shall not be unique if it is decided to introduce this legislation. It has already been done by both Australia and Canada, which your Lordships may indeed think are two splendid precedents. Recently, a case was brought to trial before the Canadian Supreme Court which tested the constitutionality of the Canadian legislation in this field. The court decided that there was no infringement of constitutional or other law in what was proposed. So there is a good deal of ground already available for examination of these matters.
The noble Earl indicated that we shall revert to these matters. Can he give an indication to the House at this stage of when it is proposed that that will take place? There will be an overlap period at the end of the present Session, which would seem to be an admirable time for dealing with this matter. I greatly hope that the Government will treat it as a

1145
matter of urgency. The more delay, the more difficult is the situation, for reasons that have been indicated. I hope therefore that we shall be given some indication at this stage of the Government's intention that Parliament should properly and rightly have an opportunity to deal with this grave chapter in human history and to dispose of it at any rate so far as concerns legislation.
The memories of Nuremberg are still vivid in my memory. There were millions who were deliberately put to death. That cannot be passed over as a mere aberration, forgotten in the mere tide of history.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, from these Benches I, too, should like to thank the noble Earl for repeating the Statement in this House. Perhaps I may say immediately that I entirely agree with the Government's view that there should be a debate in Parliament before legislation is introduced. I also agree with the remarks that fell from the lips of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, at the conclusion of his remarks. Nevertheless, the report highlights the many difficulties that face this country should we decide to change the law.
We should be seeking to change the law 44 years after the end of the War. We are faced in a sense, with the possibility of trial by live television. Some of the witnesses are described in the report as old and infirm and some of them may be witnesses as to identity. In fact, they would have to give their evidence by means of a live television link, which would cause difficulties in obtaining a conviction under our law with a jury.
Therefore there are many difficulties facing the Government. I agree with the course that they suggest. Mature reflection over the Recess should enable us to have a debate in the next Session so as to come to a conclusion.
In the meantime I should like to ask whether in this respect there have been any trials in Australia and Canada. My understanding is that those countries have changed the law but that in fact no trials have taken place. Because I have only been able to scan it, perhaps I may also ask whether any indication has been given in the report of how long it would take from the time that the legislation was passed until a case came to trial.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to both the noble and learned Lord and the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, for the cautious welcome that they have given to this Statement. I realise, as will your Lordships, that this is a very controversial Statement. I suspect that feelings will run fairly strongly in all directions on the matters considered by the report. I am grateful to both speakers for saying that they are happy that we shall be able to have a debate in this House as well as in another place in order to gauge parliamentary opinion before the Government have to make up their mind on what, I repeat, is not an easy matter.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, asked when we would be able to have a debate on this matter. All I can tell him at this instance is that
1146
it is the Government's intention to have a debate in the autumn. He would not wish me to be more precise than that at the moment. However, it is our intention to have the debate as soon as possible for the very obvious reason that when the Government make up their mind, if they do so in the way that the report indicates, the sooner the better.
The noble and learned Lord said that if we were to take action in this direction we would not be unique because Australia and Canada have done so. Of course different countries have reacted in different ways. It is perfectly true that ***Australia and Canada have legislated in a way that is more extensive than the report suggests that we should do. The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, asked whether there have been prosecutions. I understand that Australia and Canada have both established major investigative units and that they have legislated. I would have to seek confirmation; I am not aware that there have been prosecutions. The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, also asked how long it would take before the passing of legislation and the institution of prosecutions. Perhaps I may point out to the noble Lord that if Parliament were to pass such legislation it would then be legislation on the statute book. Whether prosecutions took place, and how many and in what respect they took place would be a matter for the Director of Public Prosecutions. One cannot tell at this stage whether there would be any, or how many there would be.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, I shall of course read this report with the greatest care. However, I must at this stage express very considerable misgivings about what is now proposed. It is proposed to take jurisdiction retrospectively to try crimes, the horror of which no one can obliterate and no one will attempt to mitigate, which were triable at the time of commission, and at the time of the Nuremberg trial, only under either the Nuremberg statute itself or under the municipal law of the countries where they were committed. That is a very serious step to take. It is not proposed to stop there. It is proposed to alter the laws of evidence which would be inadmissible in any other criminal case tried in this country especially for the purpose of trying these classes of cases, limited to two offences, and limited to the cases to which they would otherwise apply. If it is right to change the law of evidence, it is something that ought to be done for all offences. To do that retrospectively after 45 years is a very serious step to take.
There is another factor that I hope other people will take into account. My noble friend Lord Ferrers referred to the difficulty of establishing a case according to the ordinary rules of prosecution evidence here. That is a formidable difficulty. It will probably take years to mount a prosecution and to bring it to trial under any of these cases.
How about the defence? A man is entitled to a fair trial, and a fair trial includes the right of putting forward a defence. If there are any defendants, how will they be affected by the lapse of 45 years? I venture to say that the answer is that we have not the slightest idea. I venture to doubt the wisdom of this. With the promise that I have given that I shall

1147
read the report and try to digest its reasoning, I think it right at this stage that I should express my misgivings.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for what he has said because he expresses a view for which I have no doubt many people have a great deal of sympathy. He said that we would be altering the method by which evidence was taken. I assume that when he said that he was referring to the possibility of using live television. I point out to him that Section 32 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 allows evidence to be given by people from abroad via live television. There is therefore the ability for such use on the statute book at the moment.
My noble and learned friend referred to the aspect of retrospective legislation. That is very important indeed. The report addresses the argument because it is one of great importance. It states:
"It can be argued that enactment of legislation in this country to allow the prosecution of 'war crimes' in British courts would not be retrospective: it would merely empower British courts to utilise a jurisdiction already available to them under international law since before 1939, over crimes which had been internationally recognised as such since before 1939 by nations including both the United Kingdom and Germany".
I would not wish to argue with my noble and learned friend. He has made a totally valid point. I merely refer him to the way in which the report has addressed the argument. I have no doubt that we shall be able to return to that very important point later.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, are Her Majesty's Government taking any steps to stop the three persons most strongly suspected of war crimes from leaving this country until legislation has been determined?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, anyone has the right and freedom to leave this country if he so wishes. These people, as well as any other people, are not deterred in that way.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, will my noble friend make one matter clear? He has referred to German occupied territory. Does the report take account of the fact that the Italians occupied territory, first, in Italy, and, secondly, in Dalmatia under German tutelage? Does the report deal with events that may have happened in those areas?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, those areas were outside the scope of the report.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, perhaps I may add a word in support of what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, has said. All the difficulties to which the noble Earl has referred in relation to the report will become worse by effluxion of time. Therefore in the words of Macbeth:
"If it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well it were done quickly".
There must be a limitation on it.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, is perfectly correct. Obviously, bearing in
1148
mind the age of these people, if action is to be taken it must be taken fairly quickly.
The Earl of Halsbury: My age, my Lords!
Earl Ferrers: The noble Earl says "his age". That is the only similarity between the noble Earl and the matter that we are considering. I accept his point.

Electricity Privatisation and Nuclear Power
4.18 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy.
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a Statement about electricity privatisation and nuclear power.
"As a result of our preparations for privatisation, it has recently become clear that the cost of reprocessing and waste treatment of spent Magnox nuclear fuel will be a great deal higher than has been charged in electricity prices and provided for in the accounts of the CEGB and SSEB. The Magnox stations are drawing to the end of their lives. One is already closed, and most of the others are due to close within the next few years. Most of these costs therefore relate to the past, to electricity already generated and paid for. Future customers will be bearing the full cost of the electricity they consume. It would not be right to burden them also with costs arising from the past.
"It is important that the energies of the companies should be directed towards ensuring that their existing stations are run efficiently and at lowest cost. National Power will, subject to planning and other consents, also be building new PWRs. In order to enable the nuclear generating companies to focus their attention on the future, the Government have decided that it would be appropriate to relieve the new companies of dealing with these substantial problems of the past.
"The Government have considered carefully how best to implement this decision. It has been decided that both the assets and liabilities relating to the Magnox stations belonging to the CEGB and SSEB should remain under government control.
"The AGR stations will be assigned to National Power and the Scottish Nuclear Company, and will be privatised. These stations have many years of operation ahead. The operating performance of these stations has shown marked improvement and this can be expected to continue in the future. Therefore we have good reason to believe that the AGRs will have a long and successful future in the private sector. National Power will continue to construct Sizewell B and, subject to obtaining the necessary planning approvals and satisfactory contractual arrangements, intends to construct and operate three more PWRs.

1149
"No changes to the Electricity Bill are needed to bring the Government's decisions into effect. I shall be laying a draft order before Parliament during the autumn to increase the limit on the amounts payable under Schedule 12 to the Bill from the interim level of £1,000 million to £2,500 million. This order will be subject to affirmative resolution and will give the House a full opportunity to debate our detailed proposals. The order will enable grants to be paid to National Power and to the Scottish Nuclear Company for unforeseen costs, as previously explained to the House. These powers will also be used to ensure that the Magnox stations can continue to be operated and their liabilities to be met.
"I am most concerned that nothing is done to jeopardise the future of the employees concerned. Their pension rights, their ability to benefit from the flotations, and their career prospects will be protected. To this end I shall discuss the implementation of the proposal with all the parties concerned, including the unions.
"We shall ensure that the necessary resources are available to maintain the present high standards of safety and environmental protection. We shall not take any steps which are not approved by the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate.
"Preparation for privatisation has brought new information to light. The costs for the Magnox stations, which have now become clearer, would present major financial problems for the two nuclear companies. They can be paid for only by the customer or the taxpayer. The Government do not believe that this legacy of the past should be borne by customers in the future. The Government have therefore moved rapidly to deal with the issue. It is right to separate the problems of the past from the prospects for the future. The nuclear generators will be able to concentrate their efforts on building a new generation of PWR stations and further improving the performance of the AGRs. On the basis of the presently planned life, the last Magnox station will have closed by 2002. Thereafter, commercial nuclear power generation will be wholly in the private sector. This where it should be and where it will fourish".
My Lords, that completes the Statement.
4.24 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her important and interesting Statement. What the Government are proposing appears to be a half-way house between what they originally proposed—which was entirely to privatise all generation, including nuclear generation—and the suggestion that was made when your Lordships were discussing the Electricity MI, when many noble Lords on all sides of the House thought that the whole thing would be infinitely easier if the Government kept the whole of nuclear power in the public sector, at least for the time being.
This seems to be a half-way house and it is very puzzling. Before asking a series of questions, at least I welcome one aspect of the Statement, which is that
1150
nothing shall be done to jeopardise the future of the employees concerned. I am delighted to hear that and, as this has not been characteristic of the government, I am delighted to hear that they intend to discuss the proposals with all parties concerned, including the unions. That is a welcome return to rational behaviour on the part of the Government.
I have a series of questions to put to the noble Baroness. I am sorry that there are so many, but the Statement is important enough to warrant them and I should prefer to do it now rather than try to find some artificial way of raising the matter tomorrow when we return to our old friend the Electricity Bill.
My first question is fairly obvious. What does the phrase "remain under government control" mean? Will there still be a separate company somewhere (we do not know what it will be called) that will own these stations? Or are we to understand that the noble Baroness's department will own the stations? We should welcome an indication of what "under government control" means.
My second question refers to the reason why this will happen. Am I right in assuring that the Government's argument is that consumers of electricity in the past have not met the full costs of the nuclear generated electricity that they have consumed? Is that the point? They did not meet the costs, the Government have no idea about how to place those costs on them and therefore they have decided that they must place those costs on the taxpayer, because after all that is what this is all about.
If that is so, what about the AGRs, because the Government have decided that they will be sold off? Are the Government assuming—indeed, do the Government know—that the costs to date of the AGRs have been fully met by the consumer? I should be surprised to hear that the Government believe that, but I should like to know what the Government's view is. Why are the AGRs any different from the Magnox stations? I s it not too late for the Government to keep the AGRs in the pubic sector as well, which, I repeat, is the sensible procedure?
In the Statement the noble Baroness referred to the costs of reprocessing and waste treatment of spent Magnox fuel. She believes that will be a great deal higher than has been charged in the past. Is that the only reason? In other words, are there no decommissioning costs involved which are being taken into account? That is what we were debating when we last discussed this matter. Is it just a matter of reprocessing and waste treatment and no more? Has she anything to tell us about that?
Another question I have relates to the fact that the noble Baroness was reading a Statement that was given in another place. It says that the House will have a,
"full opportunity to debate our detailed proposals."
May I assume that "the House" for this purpose means your Lordships' House, even though the Statement is simply a repetition of that read in another place? We regard it as extremely important to debate these matters in some detail.

1151
I hate to rub salt into any wounds, but the noble Baroness has just announced that under Schedule 12 to the Bill her right honourable friend the Secretary of State already intends to raise the interim levels from £1,000 million to £2,500 million. Is she aware that we are surprised that we have reached this stage as quickly as we have? We assumed that that might be happening in some years' time rather than immediately. Is there any possibility that the £2,500 million could, in the Government's view, be exceeded: I do not expect an answer to that, but I have a more formal question. Am I right in thinking that if we ended up with more than a £2,500 million bill for this, then primary legislation would surely be necessary?
Although this is a short Statement it raises an enormous number of issues. I do not apologise for mentioning them at this time.
My final question is rather a raising of eyebrows. It was clear to many noble Lords on all sides of the House that the problem was central to the Bill. Can we believe that, because the implication of privatisation has suddenly dawned on the Government, this matter has only recently come to light? With no disrespect to the noble Baroness, I find that hard to believe. Is it the case not that new information has suddenly come to light but that it has suddenly dawned on the Government that the sums of money involved are so large that the whole of electricity privatisation is in peril, as we pointed out?
I look forward to the noble Baroness's reply and in particular to that concerning our ability to debate the matters in detail.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that Statement. I should like to carry on where the noble Lord, Lord Peston, finished. I have always believed that the nuclear aspect was the albatross hanging around the neck of the electricity privatisation Bill and that it was the big problem which must be faced. I am not particularly surprised that the Government have now come forward with this Statement.
It raises a number of issues. First, we were told that the Government have decided that both the assets and the liabilities relating to the Magnox stations belonging to the CEGB and SSEB shall remain under government control. That was clearly stated by the noble Baroness when repeating the Statement. However, I cannot understand why later we were advised that no changes to the Electricity Bill were needed in order to bring the Government's decision into effect. I may have misunderstood the whole purpose of the legislation that we have debated at length but I believe that it is a major change and that if it is to be abstracted from the terms of the Bill an amendment is required. I cannot see how today the Government can say that they will abstract it from the Bill but that at the same time no modification is required. I should be glad to hear the noble Baroness's views about that problem.
Secondly, it was made clear in the Statement that the Government did not wish to burden consumers
1152
with past costs in relation to nuclear. There have been many past costs but one of the most important was that which occurred in the early days of the AGRs. Enormous delays were then encountered in bringing those stations into operation. I agree that the later versions of the AGRs have been more successful. However, if the Government are true to their intention of not burdening consumers with past costs in relation to the Magnox stations why should they be burdened with the past costs in relation to AGR stations? I believe that there should be some logic in the approach.
Thirdly and more generally, would the Government not have been better advised to separate nuclear from conventional stations? Such an amendment was proposed and supported from all sides of the House. Many noble Lords on the Tory side also spoke in its favour. Would it not have been much simpler for the public to be quite clear in what it was being asked to invest? The nuclear stations have special problems such as past costs, decommissioning, the disposal of nuclear waste and other issues which burden the nuclear industry, important though it is in the energy field. Therefore, would it not have been better if right from the start the Government had decided to separate nuclear from conventional stations so that everyone knew where they were? The Government should then have accepted to take on that part of the nuclear burden which they have now decided to do in respect of Magnox and which they should do also in respect of the AGRs. Would that not have been a better and simpler solution and would it not have expedited the Government's intentions?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Peston and Lord Ezra, for their comments and the points that they have raised. As regards the welcome given by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, to the safeguarding of employees' rights and conditions, I point out that it is not unusual for the Government to consult widely and to include the trade unions. Considerable discussions about pension rights were held with the trade unions in respect of the Electricity Bill, as the noble Lord will remember.
I shall try to tackle some of the questions which the noble Lords raised. The type of company that is to be formed is still under consideration and the detail has not yet been finalised. That matter will be the subject of debate in the autumn. It is intended that it will be a separate company owned by the Government.
The noble Lord asked whether in the past insufficient provision was made by the consumers in respect of the charges. The provisions that were made have proved to be insufficient and they relate mainly to the charges in respect of Magnox stations, as we have always made clear. It is as a result of extensive scrutiny of the arrangements and extensive preparation for the privatisation that the full facts about those costs have emerged. In looking at the arrangements which now must be put in place we believe that it is important and right to separate the problems of the past from the prospects for the future, which we believe are good.

1153
The noble Lord asked whether AGRs are fully covered. That brings me back into the area of unforeseen and unforeseeable costs which we debated during the course of the Bill. The provisions contained in Clause 98 and Schedule 12 are intended to cover any unforeseen costs relating to future operation as well as the past. It will certainly be the intention of the new companies to provide in their charges for all costs that are known. It is the intention of the Government that those costs should be known at flotation. Clause 98 remains in the Bill in order to cover any unforeseen costs. I emphasise, as we have always done, that the difficulties that we now face and their magnitude relate principally to the Magnox stations.
As regards detailed discussion in the autumn, an order of the type provided under Schedule 12, paragraph 4(2), is subject to affirmative resolution by the House of Commons. If necessary, any orders made by the Secretary of State under Clause 34, relating to the non-fossil fuel obligation, and Clause 35, relating to the levy, would by virtue of Clause 107 be in the form of statutory instruments subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
Therefore, what all that means is that the order which is subject to the affirmative procedure and which is necessary to increase the £1 billion provision to the £2·5 billion figure would be subject to discussion only in another place; but since orders will be raised on the non-fossil fuel obligation and the levy under Clauses 34 and 35, the procedures there are open to discussion also in this House. In the event of any increase going over the £2·5 billion figure, as I said previously to the House primary legislation would be needed.
I hope that covers most of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Peston. I believe he asked why the information has only just come to light. In fact, the figures have emerged only over the past couple of months and it has been necessary to understand and analyse them before reaching a decision which we could put before your Lordships.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, asked for confirmation of the statement that there will be no changes necessary to the Electricity Bill. I can give him that confirmation. He also asked whether consumers were going to be further burdened with nuclear costs. I feel I must again make clear that the costs of Magnox stations are a legacy of government decisions taken 30 years ago, so the Government are taking the responsibility for dealing with those costs; not just because we have been urged to do so, as I recognise that we have, but because it is right to do so. Where future costs are concerned it is intended, as I said, that adequate provision for all foreseen costs will be made at the time of flotation of the company.
We remain firmly convinced that nuclear power will have a better future in the private sector. We believe that it is right to separate the problems of the past from the prospects for the future. We believe that Magnox stations will continue to perform realiably in the short term and that the AGR performance, which has been much improved, will
1154
continue to improve. I should add that in 1988–89 the AGR output in England and Wales was 27 per cent. higher than the previous record. The costs were potentially there, but their full extent has only recently been brought to light. The Government are determined to make clear the full cost of nuclear power. We believe it would be wrong to fudge this and that is why the matter has been brought before your Lordships at the earliest possible point.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I am not sure that one should raise large questions in response to a Statement, but one is left absolutely flabbergasted that a change of this magnitude and importance is brought forward now. Can the noble Baroness explain what process of investigation was undertaken before the Electricity Bill was drafted and which failed to throw up the facts of the issue? I realise that this is a big question to ask on a Statement but it leaves us speechless. Who advised the Government? Where did the information come from on which the Government based the Bill and which overlooked this trivial little matter of nuclear energy?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I said that the full extent of the figures emerged only over the past couple of months. The scrutiny of the accounts of nationalised industries, as the noble Baroness will know, is in the first place a matter for the auditors concerned. From time to time the department meets the industry and its auditors on the accounts. Clearly this happens on an ongoing basis in normal circumstances. However, in the preparation for privatisation all parties have been looking very keenly at the accounts to ensure that they properly reflect all the costs. It is as a result of that examination that the figures have emerged. There has been no attempt to deceive anyone, certainly not this House. We are laying our proposals and the facts before the House at the earliest possible time.
4.45 p.m.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her Statement. Will she confirm that everything towards the end of its life is a legacy inherited from the past? The cost of decommissioning is the cost of not having designed something as you would do 40 years later. In relation to AGRs, will the noble Baroness confirm that we are talking only of two groups of stations: Hunterston B, Hinkley B, Torness and Heysham 2? The others are low-performance prototypes which should be dealt with on the same lines as the Magnox because they will never be economic in terms of their historical cost. Therefore, to that extent I am in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Ezra.
It seems to me that the noble Baroness is trying to pre-empt the decisions of governments 40 years hence. I have always been taught that no government can commit their successor save through an Act of Parliament which is repealable. I cannot see that it is going to be a business proposition to sell to the City of London something unknown that is to be decommissioned in 40 years' time when we have no experience of decommissioning the first.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for his contribution, which is, as always, well founded on his knowledge of the industry. However, on the facts that the Government have been considering in reaching this decision the problem area is very much the Magnox stations which we feel should be kept under sector control. The information coming forward about the progress of the AGRs shows that some of the problems that have emerged in the past have been overcome and that all the AGRs—not only those referred to by the noble Earl—have a long and successful future ahead of them.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble friend add a little to her answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear? As I understood my noble friend, she said that the extent of these costs had only recently come to light. Can she explain how that could be? As I understood her earlier answers, many of these costs go back a great many years. Surely, the government system of accounting took account of them. They must have been available to her department and to Ministers. Can my noble friend explain why only at this very late stage the existence has come to light of these large liabilities which require to be dealt with?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, provision that had been thought adequate as regards future liabilities on de-commissioning, re-processing and so on, stood both on a historic cost and on a current cost basis at £3.4 billion in the 1987–88 accounts. The provision in the 1988–89 accounts is likely to be at least double that figure. The majority of these costs are for nuclear provision which will be inherited by National Power. It is simply a matter of fact that the full extent of these future costs has only been definitively worked out in the recent past.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that her Statement this afternoon will have been received with incredulity by those who have had anything to do with the electricity supply industry and nuclear power over a period of time? The Minister will know that on many occasions figures supplied by the CEGB to the Sizewell inquiry and to the Energy Select Committee in another place gave the impression that the Magnox stations were efficient and that they produced electricity at lower cost than coal-fired stations. Those figures were used for all kinds of purposes—for bolstering up a future nuclear power programme as well as for other reasons.
Is the Minister telling us the that CEGB has only found out the real cost of Magnox stations at this stage? If so, what right had it to give information to Select Committees of this House and other important bodies without perhaps paying proper regard to the truth of those figures? Can the Minister also say whether it is not a fact that as regards the Magnox stations the capital costs of most of them have been virtually written off'? Therefore, are we not talking only of the operating costs and the costs of reprocessing concerning the total cost of energy per unit sent out from those power stations?
1156
If those are the only costs involved and there are no capital costs to be amortised, then it is incredible and impossible to believe that such costs are below those of the early AGR stations. The Government should look again at this problem and at the figures on which their decision is based. I really do not know quite how to conclude, I am so concerned about this matter. Obviously, other noble Lords are concerned. I wish to emphasise to the noble Baroness the seriousness of the Statement and the considerable doubt which can be thrown on the basis on which it is made.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am well aware of the importance and significance of the Statement. I repeat that the process of privatisation has focused attention on the true cost of nuclear power and of the Government's determination to make the cost transparent. That has resulted in new figures being brought to light. The industry, the Government and their advisers have undertaken a thorough analysis of the make-up of the provision as part of the preparation for privatisation. Some costs had not been previously identified, and others were accounted for differently. There are a variety of reasons.
The 1989 accounts will include for the first time costs which had not been previously provided for and the impact of tax on long-term provision. Most of the costs involved are those of reprocessing and disposing of the spent fuel from past generation. These costs will not go away.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, I ask my noble friend to clarify one point. I do not think that we want to turn knives in wounds at this stage. With regard to the provision of money that has to be increased, we understand that that is a matter for the other place. But since much wider issues, apart from the provision of money, arise, can the Minister assure us that there will be an opportunity to debate the matter in this House? If she is not herself a usual channel, perhaps she will communicate the view that this House must have a good look at the subject in the autumn?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. I shall certainly communicate with the usual channels. I am sure that we shall be able to inform your Lordships at the earliest possible opportunity what the procedure will be. I indicated that there are other orders and regulations due to be made under the Bill which would give an opportunity to debate, if not the specific increase of funds, then the wider issues which have been presented in this Statement.
Viscount Hood: My Lords, the figures that the Minister has given are somewhat confusing. We have heard before and during the debate of the very large provision made by the CEGB. The figures that the Minister has now given are shown to be very large indeed. I assume that this must necessarily be provision out of revenue. It follows therefore that the consumer pays. I assume that the provision has been re-invested in the business and does not have a corresponding cash availability to meet the costs when they arise.

1157
I hope that, in the fullness of time, the Minister will be able to provide figures which will relate the provision already made to the very large additional appropriation included in the Bill.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, yes. The provision, that I quoted earlier and which exists in the CEGB's accounts, standing at £3·4 billion in the 1987–88 accounts, was the result of charges made to the consumer. In that sense the consumer paid. Apart from the Magnox stations which are to be dealt with separately by the Government, future costs will also be accounted for in the charges to the consumer. I believe that most investors would treat such provision as equivalent to debt in many respects.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that in my experience in both Houses I have not come across a situation comparable to the present one? She has repeated a Statement of the utmost significance and of national importance. It affects the Electricity Bill. As I understand it, the question of nuclear power is dealt with in Schedule 12 and in related clauses of the Bill.
In the light of what noble Lords, including the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, who has just left the Chamber, have said, it seems that there is a strong case for the Government withdrawing from the Bill Schedule 12 and the relevant clauses so that this entire matter can be considered. For some reason or another the Government and their advisers had not given proper thought to this aspect of the electricity industry before the parliamentary draftsman handed them the Bill. Therefore, will she consult her right honourable friend Mr. Parkinson and ask him whether he will now consider withdrawing the parts of the Bill relating to the Statement?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we still believe that the Bill is a good one and will achieve our objectives. Our proposals are consistent with the Bill as presently drafted. Indeed the proposals which are the subject of this Statement will contribute to the success of the privatisation. A good deal of extra work will be needed but we are confident that privatisation of the electricity industry can be completed as intended.

Local Government and Housing Bill
5 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Clause 19 [Duty to adopt certain procedural standing orders]:
[Amendments Nos. 105 to 109 not moved.]
Clause 19 agreed to.
Clause 20 [Interpretation of Part I]:
Lord Ross of Newport Lord Ross of Newport moved Amendment No. 110:
Page 27, line 32, at end insert—
(" "local authority" does not include parish councils;").
The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment. At the end of Part I we are dealing with interpretation. While I assume it is the case that parish councillors are excluded from Part I, there is an anomaly on which I should like some guidance from the Government. My attention has been drawn to this by a county council officer who is a parish councillor. He also happens to sit on a district council and earns more than £13,500 a year. He recognises that in the future he will be barred from sitting on the district council but he will wish to continue his work as a parish councillor.
We know that when the Bill become law the Government intend to introduce regulations which will restrict certain political activities. Those are likely to include writing or speaking publicly on controversial issues, canvassing at elections, holding office in a political party or even having in one's home or one's car a poster supporting a political candidate. Whether we like it or not, the fact is that many parish councillors and town councillors are members of political parties and canvass as such. What restriction will there be on such local government officers who are parish councillors? Will they be able to speak publicly or canvass on controversial issues when they are standing for election to town or parish councils?
Will the effect of the legislation be that local government officers in politically restricted posts will be able to stand for parish councils only as independents and will not be able to have posters or stickers in their cars which might have political connotations? Will these officers be able to sign petitions on controversial issues or write letters to the press, and so on?
The amendment may not be in order but it gives me a chance to raise these points about parish councillors. What is their position to be? Will they be included in these regulations? If so, will that not destroy the ability of those people to serve on parish councils? Many of them serve with great distinction. As a county councillor I sat for hours at local parish meetings which went on interminably. Those meetings were chaired by officers. What is their future to be? Are they to be barred? I beg to move.
The Earl of Arran: I appreciate that the amendment is a probing amendment but it may be helpful to the Committee if I briefly set out the reasons why we consider that parish councils should be excluded from Part I of the Bill. The clauses in Part I which apply to parish councillors are Clause 7—all staff to be appointed on merit; Clause 10—limit on paid leave for local authority duties; Clause 13—voting rights of members of certain committees; and Clause 19—duty to adopt certain procedural standing orders.
Clause 7 is a statutory declaration of the long-standing tradition in the public service in this country that public appointments should be made on merit. We cannot see that the case for an exception for parish councils has been made. Is it realistic to say that parish councils are to be allowed to make appointments of paid staff on grounds other than merit? We consider not.

1159
Clause 10 provides a statutory upper limit on the paid leave which a local authority may grant to its staff to carry out their duties as councillors on another authority. Some large parish councils employ full-time staff. We believe that the principle of the limit should hold good for parish councils in the same way as for other councils.
Clause 13 confines voting rights on local authority committees and sub-committees to elected members, except in the cases where a special exemption is made. This effectively places responsibility for executive decisions and actions with the democratically elected members. It does not stop other members being appointed in a consultative role. Some parish councils use committees, and we see no reason to make an exception for parish councils in this matter.
In the case of Clause 19—the provision for requiring a compulsory core of standing orders—we have no plans at present for using it in relation to parish councils. From time to time, however, there are complaints about abuses of procedure in relation to parish councils. This power would be an appropriate means to take preventive action if it was ever needed. We therefore think that there is good justification for the application of these four provisions to parish councils. The other clauses do not apply, since they apply only to the relevant authorities listed in Clause 20, which are defined for each group of provisions.
Finally, I should mention that the amendment is defective in that it exempts parish councils, which are found only in England, and does not exempt community councils, which are the equivalent in Wales. We would not regard it as satisfactory to treat these differently. We have had no representations from the National Association of Local Councils, which represents parish councils, about the provisions of the Bill.
The noble Lord asked whether parish council membership would be restrained. There will be no restriction on parish council membership. Parish councillors will be able to canvass for themselves but will not be able to canvass for a political party. We shall be consulting on this proposal. In the light of what I have said, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Ross of Newport: I am grateful to the Minister. He went at a fair pace to start with, so I shall need to read his words rather carefully. He came to the point which I raised. I welcome that. It clarifies the position to some extent. As I said earlier, it was a probing amendment. I felt that it was probably wrongly drafted, and he has confirmed that it should have included community councils. I shall study with interest what he has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 20 agreed to.
Clause 21 [Advisory commissioners]:
On Question, Whether Clause 21 shall stand part of the Bill?
The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Serota): Clause 21 is the first clause in Part II of the Bill, which deals with local government administration. I should like the Minister to explain to the Committee the role and function the Government see for these new advisory members of the Commissions for Local Administration in England and Wales.
As he will know, the present commissions consist of the local commissioners together with the parliamentary commissioner ex officio. That provision was made in Part II of the Local Government Act 1974 and has proved extremely valuable, particularly as the same Act also made provision for composite investigations to be undertaken by the local commissioners together with the parliamentary commissioner, or in his role as health service commissioner when complaints were received which affected both local government services and central government and/or health services.
I should be most interested to know what kind of people these new advisory members will be, who will appoint them and for how long. Of course, the present commissioners hold office during pleasure until they reach the age of 65 and are bound by certain conditions of confidentiality in the legislation.
I presume that they are the external members who first emerged as a proposal when the Government responded to the Widdicombe Report. It would be extremely helpful if the Minister could enlighten us as regards the new membership of both commissions and if he could also give the Committee some idea of what they will do and for how long they will be doing so.
Lord Hesketh: It is always a great pleasure to have the company of the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, in Committee. I stand here feeling a certain amount of awe and trepidation because, as Members of the Committee will be aware, the noble Baroness was the chairman of the Commission for Local Administration in England. As a result, I should have thought that there were 'few people in this country better versed as regards the matters contained in this part of the Bill.
Clause 21 amends the Local Government Act 1974 to allow the appointment of advisory members to the Commissions for Local Administration in England and Wales. The number of such members appointed to each commission may not exceed the number of local commissioners, who continue to retain sole responsibility for carrying out investigations.
The purpose of this provision is to bring a wider range of interest and experience to the commissions. The advisory commissioners will be particularly concerned with the running of the commissions —their general finance and administration—and should be able to advise on wider issues affecting the ombudsman. This should lighten the load on the investigative commissioners which has increased significantly over the last year.

1161
Although the clause would enable the appointment of a maximum of three advisory commissioners in England, we are at the present time only proposing to appoint two. My right honourable friend is considering whether there is a need for such an appointment in Wales, given the small size of the commission.
I trust that Members of the Committee will recognise the value of bringing additional experience to the commissions, and that the advisory commissioners will usefully complement the existing membership, and serve to strengthen the efficiency of those bodies.
As regards the question as to who the advisory members will be, we expect them to be drawn from business and from the academic world and appointed for a fixed term by the Monarch, on the advice of the Secretary of State. It is to help the investigative members of the commissison to achieve better performance that the advisory members have been added to the Civil Service Commission.
Baroness Serota: I am extremely grateful to the Minister for his explanation. The present commissions are under pressure, especially the English commission, because of the great increase in the number of complaints in recent years. I must, however, confess that I am still a little puzzled as to what these advisers will do if they are not going to investigate complaints. I say that because the commissions are relatively small organisations and, in my experience, are already extremely efficiently run. Nevertheless, it is helpful to have on the record just what the Government have in mind for these particular appointments. I shall watch with interest to see how the proposal works out when these people are actually appointed.
Clause 21 agreed to.
5.15 p.m.
Clause 22 [Advice and guidance by Commissions for Local Administration and Scottish Commissioner]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 111:
Page 28, line 24, after ("appropriate") insert ("in relation to its other functions").
The noble Lord said: I, too, rise with trepidation to speak on Part II of the Bill, conscious of the experience and wisdom of my noble friend Lady Serota. I can only say that as the son-in-law of the late Tom Sargant who was the founding secretary of Justice, and as one who took a leading part in the movement to establish the post of ombudsman, I have a longstanding interest—if, perhaps, no qualifications—enabling me to speak on the matter.
The object of Amendment No. 111 is again to question the Government about the intention of the wider powers which are given to the commissions for local administration under Clause 22. The commissions will now be able to give advice to local authorities about good administrative practice, or
1162
such advice and guidance about good administrative practice as appears to the commission to be appropriate.
Our amendment would insert the words,
"in relation to its other functions",
so that the advice and guidance is not simply an open-ended opportunity for the commissions to become involved in all aspects of the administration of local government. This not in any way intended as a criticism of the work of the commissions; but it is intended to find a mechanism—although we may not yet have the wording right—whereby the investigation of complaints of maladministration shall remain at the centre of the commissions' activities.
We already have an Audit Commission which looks into the administration of local authorities. However much the commissions for local administration may be able to contribute to that work, it seems to us that the Audit Commission should stick to its own job and that the commissions should stick to their job which is to protect the ordinary members of the public from maladministration by local authorities.
We hope that it is not the Government's intention to lose sight of the primary reason for the establishment of the commissioners for local administration and the Scottish commissioner and that we shall receive satisfactory assurances on that point from the Minister in his reply.
The Earl of Arran: I must assure Members of the Committee that, whatever the circumstances, I always rise to speak with trepidation. However, surprisingly, this amendment does not seek to confine the advice which may be issued by the Scottish commissioner.
We welcome the opportunity which this amendment provides to clarify the role which the commissions in England and Wales and the Scottish commissioner will play in issuing advice and guidance. We do not see this as a major extension of the commissions' role. The local ombudsman's prime function will continue to be the investigation of complaints by individuals. The provisions are more by way of enabling powers to allow local government to benefit from the wealth of experience that the commissioners gain in carrying out those investigations, which it would be foolish to continue to allow to go to waste.
The advice and guidance which the commissions will issue will tend to be in the area of administrative practices and procedures with the aim of pointing to common faults and highlighting examples of good practice where they occur.
The advice will be what it says—purely advisory—and there will be no obligation on local authorities to follow it. Clause 22 also requires the commission to consult representatives of those concerned before issuing advice, so the local authority associations will have ample opportunity to comment.
The advice and guidance will thus be related in general to the investigative functions of the

1163
commissioners. However, we think that it would not be desirable to impose an absolute restriction on the matters which the advice can cover, as the amendment proposes. That might prevent the commission from drawing wider conclusions from the knowledge and experience it has gained through investigations. In view of those comments, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: What the noble Earl has said sounds reassuring. If the commissions are to confine their advice and guidance primarily to good administrative practice in relation to the pattern of complaints of maladministration that they have received, the Government's intention is close to that which we intended in moving the amendment.
The amendment is in any case as the noble Earl has indicated, defective in that it does not include an amendment under Clause 22(2) in relation to Scotland. However, that is a problem which could easily be remedied at a later stage or even by a manuscript amendment now. However, I am, as I say, relatively reassured by what the noble Earl has said, which I shall read carefully before deciding whether I need to refer to the matter at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 22 agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 112:
After Clause 22, insert the following new clause—
("Investigation by Commissioner.
.—(1) In section 23 of the local Government Act 1974 (appointment and functions of Commissions for Local Administration) there shall be inserted after subsection (12) the following subsection—
"( ) Each of the Commissions may investigate a matter in relation to which no person has made a complaint in circumstances where it considers that an injustice may have occurred, or is likely to occur, or where it considers that a complaint is unlikely to be made, and where in the opinion of the Commission an investigation would be appropriate for the purpose of preventing or remedying maladministration.".
The noble Lord said: Although the new clause is not in the same form, it is related to the matters which we have just been discussing. Widdicombe, at paragraph 9.75, referred to the present restrictions on ombudsmen to pursue an investigation where a complaint from the individual concerned is not referred to them in writing. That has been a matter of debate by the commission and Justice for a number of years. Justice carried out research as long ago as 1976 and 1977 which showed that there was a strong middle class bias among complainants. Over 70 per cent. of complaints were made by non-manual households. Those findings were published in 1980 in Justice's review of the first five years of the institution of the local ombudsman.
There is a risk that those who are less well educated and less sure of their rights may find it more difficult to make complaints in writing, even with the help of their local councillors. We propose in the new clause that under certain circumstances—clearly the commissioners will wish to use the circumstances
1164
carefully—where no person has made a complaint, but where the commissioners consider:
"that an injustice may have occurred, or is likely to occur, or where it considers that a complaint is unlikely to be made, and where in the opinion of the Commission an investigation would be appropriate for the purpose of preventing or remedying maladministration".
they may be able to make an investigation. As I have said, that is a power which would have to be used cautiously or the commissioners' work would become intolerable. It is a power which is strictly complementary to the commission's work. It follows research which has been well established over a period of years. It coincides with Widdicombe's recommendation. I beg to move.
Baroness Serota: I support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey, which would enable the commissioners to investigate on their own initiative. As he has said, it is a well-founded proposal. It was recommended in the earlier and later Justice reports. It is a power that exists in other jurisdictions in other parts of the world: in common law countries, Commonwealth countries and countries on the Continent of Europe.
I entirely agree with my noble friend that it is a power that should be used cautiously and sparingly. It is fair to say that the record of the local commissioners is such that there is every reason to believe that that would be so. Of their 7,000 complaints, I see from last year's annual report, which was published only last week, that they took only 5 per cent. to full investigation and public report. That is hardly an indication of fools rushing in where angels fear to tread.
There is a need in matters of public importance —that has been evidenced in recent years, especially in relation to the deaths of children and the care of vulnerable elderly people in residential institutions—for complaints to be investigated where the individuals concerned cannot themselves bring a complaint. Such cases are currently the subject of ad hoc inquiries, conducted under commissions of inquiry set up by Ministers under other statutory powers; but there are still other cases which, in my experience, would have been the subject of complaint if the individuals had been able to make such complaints.
Without appearing to be biased, I believe that I stand sufficiently distanced from the commission now to take an impartial view of its operations. It is fair to say that the commissioners are singularly well-placed to undertake such investigations. They are extremely familiar with the working of the local authorities through their day-to-day work. They have an able and experienced staff, well used to conducting investigations, some of which require a considerable degree of confidentiality as they deal with many personal matters.
Clearly the commissioners would not wish to pursue such an investigation except when there was good ground for concern and prima facie evidence to suggest that injustice had occurred.
The amendment may commend itself to the Government because the ombudsman's investigations are far less costly than those

1165
undertaken by high-powered and legally chaired independent inquiries set up under statutory powers. Indeed, their costs are modest. The commissioners' continuous investigative experience would be of great value in those few, but nevertheless important, cases where individuals are unlikely to be able to bring a complaint themselves.
Lord Hesketh: The amendment would enable the local commissioners in England and Wales to carry out investigations on their own initiative where they had reason to believe that a member of the public may have suffered injustice as a result of maladministration by an authority.
The amendment would constitute a radical change to the local ombudsman's role. Instead of carrying out investigations into individual complaints of injustice, he would become a general purpose watchdog over local government. We do not consider that those two roles are compatible or that such a watchdog is necessary at present. The Widdicombe Committee made a recommendation along the lines of the proposed amendment. It suggested that it would shine the local ombudsman's torch into dark corners and would offset the inclination of certain groups not to complain.
There are such dark corners in local government and they need illuminating; but we have set up other search lights to seek them out. The new range of measures in Part I will get rid of many of the abuses and ensure that councils operate fairly and democratically. The Bill, together with last year's Local Government Finance Act, also provides for councils to appoint separate finance and monitoring officers who will be under a duty to blow the whistle if they consider that the council is about to act illegally or improperly, including taking action likely to result in injustice due to maladministration.
It is also clear that the local ombudsman is becoming more widely known and accepted as a way of seeking redress from local authorities. That is evidenced by the substantial increase in the number of cases that the local ombudsman is now receiving. Much of that is attributable to the introduction of direct access in last year's local government legislation which made it possible for complaints to be made directly to the local ombudsman instead of through a councillor. The commissioners themselves have also taken steps to publicise their activities, and information about the service and how to complain is available through the citizens advice bureaux and other consumer groups.
Those measures have made the local ombudsman much more accessible to the general public so that maladministration is more likely to be brought to the attention of the local ombudsman by those who have suffered injustice. He will need to go out and look for it.
Clause 22 also supplements the local ombudsman's powers by enabling him to issue advice and guidance based on the wealth of experience which he gains through the investigation of individual cases of maladministration. This will
1166
enable him to focus on common problems and mistakes that occur within local government and indicate ways in which they can be remedied.
Finally, the ombudsman already has the power to investigate a complaint brought by a person who represents someone who he feels has suffered an injustice. So already there is a source of restoration available through a third party. I hope that in these circumstances the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will see fit to withdraw his amendment.
5.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That was very much the reply that I feared. It shows that the Government's thinking has not only not advanced since we last talked about these matters last year, but in some ways has actually retreated. The whole point of the local ombudsman system, as my noble friend Lady Serota has made clear, is that it is a system which is applied selectively when it is really necessary. It is an economical and efficient system for remedying maladministration.
What the Government are doing all the way through the Bill is imposing more obligations on local authorities, providing more administrative remedies rather than quasi-judicial remedies and giving the Secretary of State more and more power to control local authorities in every detail. That is exactly what we wish to avoid and why we think that the analogy of the local ombudsman is a much better approach to maladministration than the heavy-handed attitude of the Government which is expressed in over 200 pages of the Bill.
I have not in any way been convinced that the very modest extension of the powers of the local ombudsman which was supported by Justice as long ago as 1980 and by Widdicombe in 1986, is not a valuable addition to the work of the ombudsman. It could replace page upon page, tens of pages upon tens of pages of regulations. I am deeply sorry that the Government should take this attitude to the work of the ombudsman and that their alternative should be so heavy-handed, overpowering, untrusting and so lacking in understanding in its approach to local government. I do not think that this is a matter on which I wish to divide the Committee now, but it is something to which we shall have to return at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 23 [Expenses of Commissions for Local Administration]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 113:
Clause 23, leave out clause 23 and insert the following new clause:
("Funding of the Local Commissioners.
.—(1) In Schedule 4 to the Local Government Act 1974, the following paragraphs shall be substituted for paragraphs 6 to 11—
"(6) Expenditure incurred in any year by each of the Commissions shall be defrayed from the Consolidated Fund, subject to the consent of the Secretary of State.
(7) Before granting consent under paragraph 6 above, the Secretary of State shall consult such associations of local authorities as appear to him to be concerned."
(2) Each of the commissions shall prepare a general report on the discharge of their functions in each financial year and shall arrange for its publication.
(3) Before arranging for the publication of a report under subsection (2) above, each of the commissions shall give a reasonable opportunity for such local authority associations to comment on it, and if any comments are made, shall (when arranging for the report to be published) arrange for it to be published with an annex containing such of the comments as the local authority associations concerned consider appropriate.").
The noble Lord said: Once more this is an amendment which has a respectable lineage. Again, in 1980 Justice recommended that the representative bodies should be wound up. This was confirmed by Widdicombe in 1986. The representative bodies, consisting of representatives from the local authority associations, were undoubtedly the right way to start off the local ombudsman system. They were able to take an active part in helping the local ombudsmen to set up their procedures, in helping them to develop methods of investigation which were effective and they provided a valuable contribution to the budget-making and the annual reporting of the local ombudsmen.
However, within a very short time, certainly within five years of the establishment of the local ombudsmen, the representative bodies no longer fulfilled the original role. The basic anomaly of the representative bodies that the local authorities themselves should be paying for the policing of their activities, so to speak, came to the fore.
The Government have taken account of that and now propose in Clause 23 that the funding of the commissions should be an expense of central government and be part of the revenue support grant under the Local Government Finance Act. However, although this moves away from a solution to the funding of the local commissioners which is no longer relevant, it moves away in the wrong direction. It is now putting the funding of the local ombudsmen under the control of the Secretary of State. As we have seen throughout this Bill and throughout nearly all the 50 Bills which have been before Parliament since 1979 on the subject of local government, to use the Secretary of State is a very heavy-handed and overpowering approach. In our view the Secretary of State ought not to have the responsibility for the expenses of the commissions.
So in effect we propose an analogy with the quasi-judicial functions of other similar organisations. We suggest that the funding of the local commissioners should come under the Consolidated Fund, subject to the consent of the Secretary of State who after all is the nearest Government Minister. He should have the duty to propose the amount of expenditure which is considered necessary in respect of the Consolidated Fund.
We agree that the commissions should prepare annual reports and that is provided for in subsection (2) of the new clause. We also take the view in subsection (3) that the commission should give the local authority associations a reasonable opportunity
1168
to comment on their annual report and that these comments should, if necessary, be published in an annex. In effect, this replaces the vestigial role of the representative bodies which is now no longer appropriate in its original form.
In the amendment we agree with the Government that the funding of the local commissions should be taken away from the local authorities who are being investigated. However, we think that the role of the Secretary of State should be limited to making a proposal for the Consolidated Fund and that this would maintain and enhance the independence of the local commissions and help them to make their work truly independent both of central government (the Secretary of State) and of the local authorities themselves. I beg to move.
Baroness Serota: In moving the amendment, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, mentioned the role of the representative bodies, particularly in the early days of the establishment of the commissions in the local ombudsman system in 1974. It would be a pity, when these representative bodies are being abolished not to take the opportunity to pay tribute to their work. I do so with all my heart.
I must confess at the same time that there were occasions when I found the representative bodies extremely negative, if not infuriating, when they met as a group, together with the local commissioners, at a time when we were trying to develop the work of the local ombudsman system. Of course they were trying to keep the costs down. Nevertheless, that was part of their role and in saying farewell to them I think that the Committee would want to thank the individual members of the local authority associations who played a key part in that early work.
With regard to the amendment itself, I am inclined to agree with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, that if local government or its representatives—through the three local authority associations in their membership of the representative bodies—are no longer to have a working interface with the commissions for funding purposes, it would be right and proper for the commissions to be funded in the ways suggested in the amendment rather than in the way that is suggested in the Bill.
It follows the procedures which were adopted in the late 1960s for the funding of the parliamentary commissioner for administration. In my view the commission must be seen by the public, particularly by complainants, as standing independent both of local government and of central government. The proposal that it should be funded through the Consolidated Fund rather than by the department through the rate support financing arrangements suggested in the Bill, seems to me to be an admirable suggestion. I support it fully.
Lord Hesketh: This amendment deals with two separate issues. With the leave of the Committee, I propose to deal with them separately. Subsection (1) would provide for the commissions for local administration in England and Wales to be funded directly by central government, subject to consultation with the local authority associations.

1169
This would replace the provisions in Clause 23 for funding the commissions by top-slicing from revenue support grant under Section 78 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988.
We considered very carefully the whole question of how the local ombudsman should be funded, in the light of the Widdicombe Committee's recommendations. We were concerned that the existing system was excessively bureaucratic, requiring the commissions to levy individual authorities. We also considered the view expressed by the Widdicombe Committee that it was anomalous in principle for the representatives of those subject to investigation to play a major part in dictating the budget of the investigators. Above all, we were conscious of the need to preserve the independence of the local ombudsman in carrying out investigations.
One solution to these problems—perhaps the simplest—would have been for the Government to fund the local ombudsman directly. However, this was an option which was rejected in 1974 when the local ombudsman was first set up, because it would have made it appear that the local ombudsman was a central government service investigating local government. It is important that the local ombudsman is seen as an independent service for local government. These arguments still apply today, and we have concluded that the cost of the local ombudsman should continue to be met by local government. Likewise, we think that local government should continue to have some say over those costs, although not the final say.
The provisions we have included in Clause 23 do, we believe, meet these objectives. They eliminate the bureaucratic collection arrangements by enabling the funds to be paid centrally, whilst at the same time ensuring that the cost is met by local government by way of a reduction in revenue support grant. The clause will require the commissions to consult local government representatives before submitting their estimates. The Secretary of State will have the final say in determining the amount of RSG to be paid to the commissions, and will have a role in scrutinising the commissions' proposals, and ensuring the regularity and propriety of expenditure. I hope the Committee will agree that these are satisfactory arrangements for funding the local commissions, and that central funding would be undesirable.
The second feature of the noble Lord's amendment is to change the arrangements for consulting representatives of authorities within the local ombudsman's jurisdiction, which are provided in Clause 24. I have to say that there is a technical flaw in the amendment as drafted as it does not replace the provisions already provided in Clause 24, so that we would have two alternative arrangements on the statute book. However, I shall address the substance of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh.
The current arrangements provide for the commissions to consult the representative body on its annual report. This is a statutory body set up by order under the Local Government Act 1974 to
1170
represent authorities within the local ombudsman's jurisdiction. We have concluded—and the local authority associations and the representative body itself have agreed—that it is no longer appropriate or necessary for the commissions to consult a specially constituted statutory body. There is no reason why the commission cannot consult the local authority associations and representatives of other bodies within jurisdiction, directly. This is the way that central government traditionally consult local government.
Clause 24 therefore replaces the representative body with direct consultation arrangements. The commissions will be required to submit copies of their annual reports to representatives of authorities within their jurisdiction, and allow sufficient time for them to comment before publishing their report. However, it no longer seems appropriate in these circumstances to require the commission to include all the comments received in the report itself. This right, currently enjoyed by the representative body, is quite an unusual privilege, and from a practical point of view, it would be difficult to continue these arrangements when divergent comments may be received from the proposed broader consultation base. I am sure that the local authority associations will, with their usual efficiency, find other ways of making their views known—vocally, if they need to—to a wider audience if they wish to do so. It is for those reasons that we resist the amendment.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Serota: I am grateful to the Minister for his detailed reply. I entirely agree with him about the changed arrangements for the publication of the annual reports. That is agreed all round. However, I did not hear him reply in any way to the arguments put forward by my noble friend Lord McIntosh and myself about the use of the Consolidated Fund for the purpose of defraying the expenditure incurred each year by the commission. That argument was not mentioned at all.
Lord Hesketh: We believe the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, gives t he Secretary of State as big a role to play as the Government's own current clause does. We believe it is well established that the funding arrangements proposed by the Government will ensure that both central and local government, as well as the commission itself, will have a say. It is this tripartite arrangement which we believe will go so far as is possible to ensure the independence of the commission. That is why it is our preferred choice.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I think I understand what the Minister has just said. However, I wish to check that I have understood by asking whether, when the Minister refers to top-slicing the revenue support grant, he is saying that when the Secretary of State fixes the total amount for the revenue support grant, he adds the cost that we are discussing and then takes it away again and pays it to the commissioners? I believe that is what the Minister is saying; and from the way the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is smiling, I believe he agrees with me.
Lord Hesketh: The noble Baroness is entirely correct.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I accept, as the Minister said, that the amendment is technically defective. Therefore, I should say at once that I shall not seek to divide the Committee on it. However, I am very dissatisfied by the tone and content of the reply which has been given. It seems to me that what is being proposed is the worst of all possible worlds in that local authorities shall pay for the local ombudsman's services, just as they do now, but they shall have no effective say in determining what the expenditure will be. Further, they will have no very effective way of commenting on the work of the local ombudsman.
I was not defending the representative body. Not only was I not defending that body, but I was also assenting to the abolition of the representative body with the agreement of the local authority associations which have all agreed that the representative body is no longer the way to proceed. However, if we are to move away from the theory of local authority control which was established in 1974, we have to move to something which really establishes the independence of the local ombudsman. I though that our suggestion of using the Consolidated Fund on the analogy of other tribunals and other quasi-judicial bodies was the right suggestion. What we have now is a curious solution in which local authorities pay all the money and have nothing to show for it. This is rather like the late foreign Minister of Canada, Mike Pearson, who described diplomacy as persuading other people to do what one wants.
However, here local authorities are being given no opportunity to do anything other than have their rate support grant cut in order to pay for the local ombudsman. Let me make it clear that local authorities support the principle of the ombudsman. They do not agree with the other amendments that I have tabled, but they agree with this particular one. I should have thought it deserves more serious consideration than it has had up until now. I shall withdraw it, with the leave of the Committee, because it is defective, but I should like to have an opportunity to discuss the matter with Ministers between now and a later stage. I hope that they will agree that that could be helpful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 23 agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 114:
After Clause 23, insert the following new Clause:
("Contractual matters and commercial transactions
.—(1) The Secretary of State shall, within three months of the date of passing of this Act, by Order repeal so much of Schedule 5 of the Local Government Act 1974 as relates to the exclusion from the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of actions taken by an authority relating to contractual matters or commercial transactions.
(2) The Secretary of State may by Order make such consequential amendments to Schedule 5 of the 1974 Act as are necessary for the purpose of this section.").
The noble Lord said: With this amendment we move forward in the Bill and slightly back in
1172
Widdicombe to paragraph 9.73 on page 221. It is not a very clear paragraph; I had to read it several times before I understood what it meant. I now think that Widdicombe was pointing out that there are some prohibitions on the jurisdiction of the local ombudsman which are not particularly desirable. The example taken up in the proposed new clause concerns cases involving commercial and contractual transactions.
Widdicombe was not convinced that cases involving commercial and contractual transactions with members of the public are different in kind from cases involving other local authority dealings with the public. I think that the Widdicombe Committee was not convinced that as a matter of general principle such dealings should be excluded from the ombudsman's remit. We agree. This new clause would reinstate contractual matters and commercial transactions into the jurisdiction of the commissioner and empower the Secretary of State to make such necessary provision by way of a repeal of the appropriate parts of Schedule 5 to the Local Government Act of 1974.
That is not a very dramatic change. Nevertheless, the view has been expressed by the commissioners that they have felt the lack of such jurisdiction. They have felt that it has restricted them, and presumably it has inhibited them from investigating cases of maladministration which they would otherwise have wished to investigate. It is with the support of Widdicombe and of the commissioners that I beg to move the amendment.
Lord Hesketh: The amendment would extend the ombudsman's jurisdiction to the investigation of commercial and contractual matters by requiring the Secretary of State to repeal paragraph 3 of Schedule 5 to the Local Government Act 1974 which at present specifically excludes such matters from the ombudsman's purview. The repeal would be made by order within three months of the date of the passing of this Act.
The primary concern of both the local and parliamentary commissioners is with the relationship between the executive arm of government and the general public. The local ombudsman is there to ensure that individuals who have suffered a grievance, or have a complaint against a local authority, are able to secure some redress without the need to go through the courts. Such provision is needed because local authorities exercise statutory functions.
Where, on the other hand, a local authority or other public body is involved in commercial transactions, such as the buying or selling of goods or services, it does so on the same basis and under the same conditions as other employers or contractors. We believe that there is no reason why special arrangements should be available to enable other parties to such transactions to seek redress. The law already provides stringent protection for individuals involved in commercial transactions and there is no argument for extending those provisions just because one of the parties concerned happens to

1173
be a local authority. Indeed, successive governments have rejected such an extension, and that is why we continue to do so today.
However, in the White Paper responding to the Widdicombe Report we undertook to keep under review specific areas where the commercial aspect might be regarded as secondary and where a council's tendering procedures involve non-commercial considerations. We are currently considering, for instance, whether the allocation of market stalls by local authorities should be brought within the local ombudsman's jurisdiction. Such changes can be made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State under his existing order-making powers under Section 26(9) of the Local Government Act 1974, so that primary legislation would not in any case be needed to make such adjustments to the local ombudsman's jurisdiction.
It is for those reasons that we resist the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I suppose that I shall have to be satisfied with that response. The problem is that the Government are forcing local authorities to undertake more and more of their business in the form of commercial and contractual transactions. Therefore, if the Government have an opportunity to pursue that policy, more and more of the local authority's business would fall outside the jurisdiction of the local ombudsman. That cannot be desirable.
The case of market stalls is interesting. I was not aware of that point. I suppose that it is mildly reassuring to know that the Secretary of State has the power to vary subsection (3) of Schedule 5 by order if he thinks it necessary. Rather than prolong the debate on what must be to most Members of the Committee an intensely boring matter, I think it better that I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 115:
After Clause 23,
("Matters affecting educational establishments
.—(1) The Secretary of State shall, within three months of the date of passing of this Act, by Order repeal so much of Schedule 5 of the Local Government Act 1974 as relates to the exclusion from the jurisdiction of the Local Commissioner of complaints concerning administration in schools and colleges.
(2) The Secretary of State may by Order make such consequential amendments to Schedule 5 of the 1974 Act as are necessary for the purposes of this Section.").
The noble Lord said: With Amendment No. 115 we come to a matter which arouses a little more passion; that is, the question of the exclusion from the remit of the local ombudsman of all matters educational. The changes that are taking place in the management of our public sector education as a result of legislation are quite extreme. I shall not venture into the subject of the recent education Acts. The spread of responsibility from local authorities to governing bodies and the role of parents and outside members in governing bodies in my view means that the jurisdiction of the local ombudsman
1174
should not be extended to educational issues as a whole. They would be quite unqualified to deal with such matters. They are not educationists and would be second-guessing not only local authorities but also those who are involved in the professional aspects of education outside the local authorities. It is much better if we keep ourselves and the local ombudsman clear of that area.
However, there are areas in the educational sphere, in schools and colleges, which are administrative. They concern the way in which the rules of the local authorities with regard to administration are carried out and whether those rules themselves are fair and protect the interests of the ordinary citizen. They are matters which are strictly analogous to the administration of other local authority services which are within the remit of the local ombudsman. It seems to us—although not necessarily to the local authority associations—that that is an anomaly which could be remedied without intruding on more strictly educational matters. I hope that the amendment will commend itself to the Government and the Committee. I beg to move.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord whether he has in mind that administration, in terms of the amendment, includes the running of the school by the head teacher. If, in the view of a complainant, the head teacher is not administering the school properly, would he be caught by the amendment?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: In so far as the administration of the school by the head teacher is within the scope of the education Act it would be excluded, because the education Act proposes ways of remedying maladministration by head teachers. The way that head teachers themselves are chosen could be an administrative matter. Decisions taken by local authorities on administrative matters, rather than by the head teacher, are matters which we consider to be analogous with administration of other local authority services. Where they are education matters and dealt with by the education Acts, we do not think that they should be included.
6 p.m.
Lord Hylton: I am inclined to think that the amendment is relevant to the recent education Act which provided for the devolution of quite considerable administrative matters from the education authority to the individual school. When that legislation comes into force, it will be a totally untested and untried area. It could go seriously wrong if schools are not given sufficient administrative personnel to do everything properly and those personnel are not properly funded. It would be in the national interest that the local government ombudsman should be able to look into those matters of administration. I am not talking about the quality of teaching or the subjects taught; I am talking about administration.
I recall that we debated the question of school records, affecting individual pupils in connection with an education Act of several years ago, although I am not quite certain which one it was. If those

1175
records get into the wrong hands and are not properly looked after or are destroyed when the child leaves school, they may affect that person's future career. That is an example of the kind of administrative matter with which we are concerned and which should probably be better protected than it is now.
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps I may inject into the debate a note of confusion in my own mind; namely, the distinction between what may well be a purely administrative matter and what may well be partly an education matter. It strikes me that, if one puts oneself in the shoes of the customer, an injustice is an injustice. If we put into effect legislation that at least allows for a grievance to be heard and an injustice to be righted, we should not be in the business of making distinctions. As more autonomy goes down to school level, it is important that the customer—the parents and/or the young person—has somewhere to go other than, occasionally, the local education authority which is in the business of defending its schools and its own responsibilities. There is therefore a case for there being recourse to the ombudsman. I see no reason for the exclusion or for the distinction.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Perhaps I may be allowed to speak again before the Minister replies. The noble Baroness has made an interesting point, but I am not convinced by it for the following reason. Parliament spent a great deal of time in 1986 and 1988 debating education legislation which, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, rightly said, devolved a considerable amount of power from the local education authorities to head teachers and governing bodies. The basis of the existence of the local ombudsmen is that they deal with the responsibilities of local authorities and maladministration by local authorities. The Government's education Acts have sought to draw a distinction between what is the local authorities' responsibility and what is the responsibility within the schools. Whether or not they have drawn it correctly remains to be seen, but they have sought to provide remedies for injustice in our education establishments—our schools and colleges—where the local authority is no longer responsible for the detail of them.
I did not propose in this amendment—and I did not think it wise to propose in this amendment—to go against the 1986 and 1988 education Acts. If they are right, they are right. If they are wrong, then they are wrong. We shall see. They have not yet been fully tested, but it would be foolish to seek to extend the role of the local ombudsmen beyond the responsibilities of the local authorities, limited as they are now in education establishments.
Lord Hesketh: Like the previous amendment, Amendment No. 115 seeks to extend the local ombudsman's jurisdiction in this case to the administration of schools and colleges within the ombudsman's purview.
The ombudsman can already investigate some education matters such as allocations, grants, catchment areas and school buses. However, the
1176
local ombudsman is prohibited under Schedule 5 to the Local Government Act 1974 from investigating complaints about internal affairs of schools and colleges including curriculum, discipline, conduct and internal organisation. That is so because of the intrinsic difficulties in defining where the boundary lies between professional judgment and administrative action. The education function in the control and instruction of children is essentially professional and the administrative element cannot be easily hived-off to pin-point matters that might fall within the ombudsman's scope. As the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, pointed out, it is also the case that there already exist various mechanisms for the handling of complaints about education concerns. For example, under Section 23 of the Education Reform Act 1988 local education authorities must establish local arrangements, approved by the Secretary of State, to deal with complaints about the school curriculum and related matters.
The amendment would therefore enable the ombudsman to encroach upon matters for which there is already an established complaints machinery, and where it would be inappropriate for him to intervene. That is why we resist the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not think that the amendment has effectively achieved its objective. As I read it again, I now realise that the word "administration" is difficult to define just as it is difficult to define in education Bills. I do not claim any greater wisdom than parliamentary draftsmen in this matter, but I do not think that I made it clear in drafting the amendment that it was the responsibilities which remain in the hands of local authorities that we intended to attack. I shall have to take the amendment away and think about it rather than ask the Government to take it away and think about it. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 24 agreed to.
Clause 25 [Implementation of recommendations of Commissioners for Local Administration in England and Wales]:
Baroness Stedman Baroness Stedman moved Amendment No. 115A:
Page 31, line 42, leave out from ("he") to end of line 30 on page 32 and insert ("shall inform the person aggrieved in writing and that person shall have the right to seek an Order in the County Court requiring that the authority take appropriate action to remedy the injustice reported by the Local Commissioner and to prevent similar injustice being caused in the future.").
The noble Baroness said: We now come to the question of what happens when the ombudsman has considered a case of maladministration and has reported back to the authority which has declined to take any action on the ombudsman's report.
At the moment, where a case of maladministration is referred to the local ombudsman in England, Scotland and Wales, the local authority concerned is not obliged to take any action to remedy the situation. Its response is purely voluntary and it is under no obligation to redress any

1177
maladministration of which it may be guilty. While those rights are denied to complainants in England, Scotland and Wales, those suffering as a result of maladministration in Northern Ireland have recourse to the county court if the local authority refuses to act on the ombudsman's report.
In the House of Commons, during the Committee stage of the Bill, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State said that judicial or statutory enforcement would be "formalised, legalistic" and would involve "costly and lengthy investigations". That is nonsense. The system of county court redress works very well in Northern Ireland. It is instructive and interesting to compare the annual reports for 1987 of the Northern Ireland commissioner for complaints and of the Commissions for Local Administration in England and Wales. The English commission was concerned at what it described as the
"continuing increase in time taken to deal with complaints".
The Northern Ireland commissioner states that the average time taken between receiving a complaint, investigating it and issuing a report is roughly 10 months, whereas the equivalent time in England is some 52 weeks or 12 months.
The ability of the complainant to seek redress in the county court does not seem to have produced any excessive litigation in Northern Ireland. Cases of maladministration over which the local authorities have refused to act are relatively few. In the period from the beginning of the service until March 1985, which is the last set of figures I have been able to obtain, only 6 per cent. of cases in which maladministration was found had not been settled. Few in number though they may be, in my view there are still too many such cases. A number of bodies throughout the country have taken an interest in the ombudsman system and have commented on the reasons why we do not opt for enforcement. In its 1984 review of the 1974 Local Government Act, the Commission for Local Administration in England called on the relevant Secretaries of State to urge all authorities always to provide prompt and positive remedies where injustice is found by a local ombudsman.
It went on to say that legislation should be introduced for the enforcement of remedies if a marked improvement were not made voluntarily in a reasonable time. It recommended the Northern Ireland system as a model that might perhaps be followed.
In his annual report for the same year the ombudsman for Scotland concluded that statutory provision for enforcement had become necessary. He said:
"My predecessors and I have been very reluctant to come to this conclusion, feeling that it was much better to retain the voluntary system as long as failure to comply was a rarity, but the time has now come to say that the voluntary system is not working adequately".
The Welsh local ombudsman in evidence to the Widdicombe Committee wrote:
"It is intolerable that any injustice caused by maladministration identified in the course of an objective and impartial investigation should be allowed to go unremedied".
The Widdicombe Report itself suggested that where a complainant was dissatisfied with the remedy offered by the local authority one should look at the system in being in Northern Ireland. Indeed, the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration in another place took evidence from public bodies, local authority representatives and government Ministers. It concluded in its report:
"We consider that the best method of providing support for the local ombudsmen's reports would be for our remit to be extended to allow the possibility of our calling recalcitrant local authorities to account. If experience showed that our involvement did not, however, have an improving effect on the treatment of the reports of local ombudsmen, we would recommend serious consideration of the involvement of the courts".
All those people looked at the Northern Ireland situation and at the few cases in which there had not been agreement and where local authorities had not acted.
In July 1988 in the White Paper on the Widdicombe Report, the Government concluded that non-compliance with the local ombudsman's report, which the Government then put at a rate of 5 per cent. served,
"to produce a particularly marked sense of grievance on the part of the complainants, as well as undermining the credibility of the local ombudsman system as a whole".
The National Consumer Council has taken that view from as long ago as 1982. It says that,
"the Northern Ireland policy has not released a flood of applications to the courts, for the existence of the powers of enforceability seems to result in compliance"
It acts as a deterrent to those authorities who do not want to take any notice. Yet the local ombudsman in the latest annual report for 1988–89 makes clear that some authorities are still, as he puts it, "stubbornly refusing" to remedy injustices found by the local ombudsman. As the report says:
"Councils which hold out against putting right the wrongs they have done are failing in their duty to the people they are supposed to serve".
I contend that they are also giving local government a bad name. It is time that the ombudsman was given some teeth: this amendment is one way of doing so. I beg to move.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Hayter: By purest coincidence, I read in the newspapers over the weekend of exactly the situation the noble Baroness has just described. The ombudsman said in his report that although he complained last year about the action of a local authority no remedial action had been taken; therefore, he could only again draw attention to the incident and hope for the best. I support the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: This is probably the most difficult and contentious issue to face the Committee in dealing with Part II of the Bill. It is certainly true, as the noble Baroness said, that enforceability of the ombudsman's findings through the county court is established in Northern Ireland; it does not involve an increase in court cases nor extend the length of the inquiries. And it is supported by both the commissioners themselves and Widdicombe.

1179
However, I want to sound a note of caution. It is not related to any of the remarks of the noble Baroness. If the ombudsman's conclusions were to be enforceable in that way, it would have an effect not on the length of the investigation but on the way in which the investigation is conducted. The work of the local ombudsman would become in effect the tribunal: it would have to be subject to the rules of the Council on Tribunals. In the view of a number of people who have advised me (for example, from the ranks of Justice, which was always in favour of enforceability in the past) that could well damage the ability of the local ombudsman to conduct a wide-ranging investigation without too much concern for the quite rightly restrictive rules of the Council on Tribunals.
That is an issue to which the noble Baroness did not refer when she moved the amendment. It makes me not just doubtful about the wisdom of what she proposes but in the end, after very careful consideration, reluctant to agree with it. I am sorry about that. I do not like to go against the noble Baroness. I respect her judgment on these matters. I respect too the view held by the commissioners and Widdicombe. But, on balance, I think that we should lose more than we should gain if we went over to enforceability.
Baroness Blatch: I sympathise with the principle of the amendment. I do not know whether or not it is technically correct. However, the one argument used over the years (with which I agree) against any kind of sanction beyond that of printing in the local press that the local authority has refused to comply with the recommendations of the local ombudsman has been that the number of recalcitrant local authorities is so small that it is better to leave these matters to the voluntary system.
Let us take the figures given by the National Consumer Council and used by the noble Baroness. I believe they are the same as those that I have. Of 145 cases between 1974 and 1989, 97 continued not to comply, which represented 21 per cent. of those who were found at fault. That is a considerable number.
I am concerned about anybody who is aggrieved, who has gone through the pain of speaking informally to the local authority to try to resolve an issue and who, having taken the matter to the ombudsman, has obtained a first hearing in which the authority has been found wanting but has then had to wait many more months while a second application is made to the ombudsman and again found that the authority is declared wanting.
I told the Chamber at Second Reading of an instance when I first came into local government. I took my local authority to the ombudsman and twice it was found wanting. At the end of the day my local authority said that it was going to run the local authority its way and that it would not be told how to do so by the ombudsman. I felt that the aggrieved parties in that situation had absolutely nowhere to go. There was no sanction whatever against the local authority. However small the number of people who are aggrieved, one needs to have the long stop of being able to go to a court to
1180
say that there has been a judgment on the local authority, not once but twice, that it has been printed in the local press and that still the local authority is not prepared to comply with recommendations. There ought to be some sanction against the local authority.
The point made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is correct. If one moves into that sphere a right of appeal for the local authority is appropriate. I am not sure that the amendment is correct in every sense. However, I very strongly support the principle that where a local authority has been judged wanting by the local ombudsman, not once but twice, there ought to be somewhere for the aggrieved person to go. I believe that it has to be the courts.
Lord Ross of Newport: Does the noble Baroness wish to speak first? She has great knowledge.
Baroness Serota: No.
Lord Ross of Newport: I have great sympathy with the amendment. I shall listen to the Government's response with some interest. My experience agrees very much with that of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. With regard to a health matter, the ombudsman was so disgusted that the area health authority would not pay compensation of about £40 that he took the matter to a committee in another place presided over by Sir Anthony Buck, the Member for Colchester, North. It is a committee which has some strength. I vividly remember the chairman of the health authority and the chief executive sitting in the corridor outside one of the committee rooms worried that they were going before the committee. In the end the authority paid up. It was absolutely ridiculous that the matter had to be taken to such length. If it had not been for the ombudsman's initiative it would not have gone that far.
That is one resort. I believe I am right in saying that the committee in another place can put some pressure on local health authorities and others in the worst cases to do something. If at the end of the day they still refuse to act, I gather that they cannot be made to pay. I wish that the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, had spoken first. I have sympathy for the amendment. It is absolute nonsense that in many cases local authorities have not paid what they should rightly have paid to put matters right.
Baroness Serota: Like all other noble Lords who have spoken on this amendment, I have great sympathy for the case that the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, has put to the Committee about the enforceability of the ombudsman's findings. The account that she gave of the different recommendations that are made from time to time on this subject were absolutely accurate.
However, like the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, I accept that if the proposals in this amendment were carried into the Bill they would undoubtedly affect the way in which ombudsman investigations were carried out. Above all, I believe that they would affect the way in which local

1181
authorities responded to the investigations. In the interests of natural justice, if one has an authority able to impose a solution on any individual, surely in all conscience he must have a right of appeal. Therefore as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said, we are in an area similar to that of tribunals, with all that that means.
I have always believed that ombudsmen—be they local or parliamentary—should act wherever possible informally and through the conciliation process in order to bring justice where maladministration has been found. I know that I differ from my successor commissioners who have recommended the Northern Ireland procedure. But I believe that at this stage we should accept the proposals of the Government to strengthen the public impact of the local ombudsman's findings and not introduce into the Bill a provision where an appointed individual—the ombudsman is an appointed individual—however distinguished and impartial, would be given the right to impose his view and findings on an elected authority. One can see the difficulties in that situation.
In my knowledge, with the exception of Northern Ireland, no classical legislative ombudsman system in any other country in the world has that authority. The ombudsmen must work by consent. They must work with the co-operation both of the body that is under investigation and of the complainant who feels that he has suffered an injustice. If I had my way the Bill would include powers of conciliation for the local ombudsman. I accept that that may be going a bit far. But ideally we should work by consent and co-operation in this field if injustice is really to be remedied. That is why I welcome the commission's current annual report which points out that 13 per cent. of the complaints that it has considered are settled locally. That is the direction in which we should go rather than in the direction of the courts, with all that is involved in court procedures.
I look forward with interest to hearing what the Minister says about the amendment. If the new provisions in the Bill do not work, and if the rate of non-compliance rises, we shall have to produce an enforceable system. I would deeply regret it, but such time must surely come if local government does not see the red light on this occasion.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: With my very much more limited experience, I should like to support what the noble Baroness has said. The atmosphere and style of the ombudsman system has enormous value. The trouble is—and it is very much felt at the receiving end by the person who has a complaint —that the adverse publicity for the local authority is often not enough. As I understand it, the Bill is strengthening that position. Much more will be printed in the press about maladministration. There ought therefore to be an incentive to councillors who are in a position to do so to criticise their authority for what it has done. There will be a chance for other people to take the matter up in the public domain. Much more will therefore happen.
1182
However, if the provisions in the Bill do not work and it continues to be impossible for people to have redress from the local authority, Parliament should go further.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I have a compromise to suggest to the Minister. Why not have enforceability only in the City of Westminister?
Lord Hesketh: It would be some form of pilot scheme. With my hand on my heart, this is the first time this summer that I have been able to say what a great pleasure it is to have had the case supported by such an eminent figure as the noble Baroness, Lady Serota. It is a very difficult area.
The amendment which the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, has put before the Committee would remove the provisions in Clause 25 requiring local authorities who decide not to comply with a local ombudsman's further report to publish a summary of his findings in local newspapers and replace them with a power for the aggrieved person to seek an order in the county court requiring the authority to remedy the injustice and prevent similar injustice being caused in the future.
This raises fundamental issues about the role of the local ombudsman which have recently been considered by the Widdicombe Committee, and by the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. Both committees concluded that more needed to be done to improve the rate of compliance with local ombudsman recommendations, which is currently running at about 5 per cent. of cases where injustice due to maladministration is found. That may not sound very many for a voluntary system, but these failures produce a particularly marked sense of grievance and they tend to undermine the credibility of the ombudsman system as a whole.
I therefore have a great deal of sympathy with what the noble Baroness is trying to achieve with her amendment. However, I do not think that it is quite the right approach. I agree wholeheartedly that all local authorities should comply with local ombudsman recommendations, whether or not they agree with them. Although the local ombudsman is not a judge sitting in a court, he acts as an independent arbiter between the complainants and the council. He will have carried out a full and thorough investigation of the facts.
It is presumptious of any council in these circumstances to say that it knows better: one must accept the umpire's decision. To do otherwise undermines the whole credibility of the ombudsman system and compounds the sense of grievance of those who complain.
Judicial enforcement of remedies is not the answer, simply because they bring the court and the judge into the process and the benefits, of an informal system are immediately lost. I know that the noble Baroness will be disappointed when she hears once again the words concerning investigations that, we believe, if the amendment were accepted, would immediately become more formal, legalistic, lengthy and expensive. Moreover, we believe that local authorities would challenge the facts at every

1183
opportunity. Moreover, it would no doubt engender a negative, defensive and unco-operative attitude in local authorities, especially among those who are presently prepared to abide by the ombudsman's decisions despite not being in agreement.
We have in Part H introduced measures to require timely and thorough consideration of the ombudsman's reports, together with a requirement that local authorities who decide not to comply with the recommendations contained in a further report should publish a summary of the local ombudsman's conclusions. The combined effect of these measures should encourage more local authorities to comply with the recommendations of the local ombudsman. As the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, has pointed out, we very much hope that they will work and thus remove the problems that are now perceived. It is for those reasons that we resist the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Stedman: I feel some disappointment and draw some encouragement from the Minister's reply. I accept the point that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, made; it is good and valid and one which I had not considered too deeply. I shall certainly consider it again. I am worried that some who have spoken in the debate say that if this does not work we shall have to go for enforcement. That would go on and on and we should have to find another Bill or another means of including that enforcement. However, I accept that it is a difficult problem.
I accept also that only a few councils do not abide by decisions of the ombudsman. My understanding from someone who has been involved in the work is that, contrary to what one might have expected, it is not the big militant authorities who do not comply. They do; they take their jobs and the criticism seriously. It is more likely to be the smaller authorities where there is a much closer officer/member relationship than in the bigger authorities. But even so I deplore the fact that there is this small minority of authorities who do not accept the judgment when it is placed upon them.
However, I should like to read what has been said and in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 25 agreed to.
Clauses 26 to 28 agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 29 shall stand part of the Bill?
The Earl of Balfour: This is the first time that I have had an opportunity to join in the debates on the Bill because I have been completely tied up with a few things at home. In Clause 29 the exact terms of the declaration of acceptance of offices by councils should be included in the Bill and not left in the rather vague terms under the new Section 33A of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973.
I should like to raise one other point which I feel might be of concern to all sides of the Committee. Unfortunately our electorate can sometimes elect
1184
people, for whatever reason, from the extreme Left, let us say, communism, or from the extreme Right, such as the National Front. Clause 29(3)(a) reads:
"two members of the local authority to which the declarant is elected".
Could two members of the National Front slip through the net and support one of their own if a third person was elected? Otherwise I approve of the clause. That is the only point that I wanted to make.
Lord Hesketh: Under the new Section 33A to be inserted in the 1973 Act, the form of declaration is to be described by order rather than by the election rules. We have taken the point that the form of the declaration to be made within a period of two months after an election cannot appropriately be prescribed in the rules for the conduct of elections. But as regards the terms of declaration that should be in the Bill, those terms have always been prescribed in subordinate legislation and we see no reason to change that.
The Earl of Balfour: I am most grateful. I believe the other points can be met.
Clause 29 agreed to.
Clauses 30 and 31 agreed to.
Clause 32 [Promotion of economic development]:
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 115B.
Page 38, line 41, leave out ("Subject to sections 33 and 34 below").
The noble Lord said: I also speak to Amendments Nos. 115C and 115J and, as the Marshalled List indicates, I also speak to the intention to move that the clause do not stand part of the Bill.
To set the scene, because these amendments are part of a piece, I should like to remind the Committee that Clause 32(1)—this is the area of the Bill that deals with economic development and discretionary expenditure by local authorities—reads:
"Subject to sections 33 and 34 below, the functions of every relevant authority shall include the taking of such steps as they may from time to time consider appropriate for promoting the economic development of their area".
The important words there are:
"Subject to sections 33 and 34 below".
In reading that one might say "Well done" to the Government. They are keen to expand the promotion of economic development in the local authorities, subject to Sections 33 and 34. Section 33 is sidelined:
"Restrictions on promotion of economic development".
So on the one hand the Government hold out the prospect to local authorities that they will be given powers to engage in promoting economic development within their areas. But Clause 33 says "Just a minute", on the other hand there are restrictions. Clause 33(1) reads:
"The powers of a relevant authority by virtue of section 32 above, and their powers by virtue of other enactments, shall not include power, for the promotion of the economic development of their area, to take any such steps as may be specified or described for the purposes of this section in regulations made by the Secretary of State.
Subsection (2) contains a similar provision.
Either the Government are in the business of encouraging local authorities to engage in activities designed to expand the economic development of their area, or they are not. Over at least the past five years we have seen a range of initiatives by local authorities of all political persuasions. They have recognised that the Government have a number of commendable initiatives of which they are proud and in the macro-economic situation they seek to make them available in a nationally planned and organised state.
However, there are also other considerations. Both small and large local councils have been engaged primarily in economic expansion in order to create work. Many jobs have been created by local initiatives. The estimate of the cost of the jobs created by the Government's regional policy and enterprise zone initiatives has been estimated at £30,000 per job. The cost of jobs created by local authorities ranges between £3,000 and £5,000.
If the Government are serious about wishing to create a climate in which jobs are encouraged and produced, it is cheaper to do so by providing the local authorities with the powers. I am not talking about the money and so forth, but about the powers. On the one hand the Bill concentrates on giving the semblance of providing the powers, but on the other hand it takes them away.
I live in Edmonton which is in the London Borough of Enfield. Other nearby local authorities are either Conservative or Labour. They are all engaged in trying to fill the gap left by central government planning. They know more about the local situation than the central or regional planners. I am puzzled about why the Government believe that it is right and proper to constrict the ability of local authorities to do what I consider to be a good job.
The local authorities have the responsibility to maintain a buoyant economy by attracting new firms and assisting local firms. I suspect that Enfield is no different from boroughs of different political persuasions; they are all desperately keen to retain the viability of existing local firms. The authorities have a number of ways in which they can do so. They can provide first-class liaison between the schools, the civic centre, the Chamber of Commerce and so forth. Enfield has a most satisfactory record in that regard.
The authorities must also recognise the need to build factories and other workplaces which will act as an inducement to people outside the area. They are competing one against the other. I fail to understand why the Government are acting in this way.
My part of the world may not have suffered as badly as others regarding the number of closures. The industrial town that I know from my boyhood is Jarrow, concerned with shipbuilding. In the past 10 years we have seen the closure of the steel plant in Consett. There have been other places where the catastrophic closure of one industry has affected the whole community. It is the job of local councils to be sensitive to closures. They just make sure that
1186
other initiatives are considered and taken before a factory closes as a result of being rationalised out of existence.
Can the Minister say what will be left to the local authorities? He may well say, "It's all very well, but we believe that the council is limited in its ability to be the best judge of spending capital and investing money. There are other people who can do it better". W are not engaged in an argument about who can do things better. The Government, regional government, enterprise zones, development agencies and the urban development corporations can do things better in their way. There is a place in which the local council can do things better. I make no political point and hope that noble friends will not do so. I believe that most local councils which wish to spend money in such a way are properly motivated by their desire to ensure that local people are provided with opportunities for work.
It is disappointing that at a time when the Government are attempting to tackle the problems of the inner cities and advocating closer working between the private and public sectors, and when the UK looks likely to lose out in terms of the availability of EC structural fund assistance, they appear not to be acting in the best interests of maintaining a buoyant local economy. That is particularly so when one looks at the provisions contained in Clauses 32, 33 and 34.
We plead with the Government not to damage the partnership between central and local government which all too sadly has been damaged in other ways. We ask them to encourage councils by giving them powers to assist the local economy when they can see an opportunity but which is not provided for in the Bill. I beg to move.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: It is excellent that the Bill encourages local authorities to have more scope to contribute towards the economy of their areas. The noble Lord, Lord Graham, described what he believed to be wrong with the Bill and wishes to leave out two clauses which limit the powers of local government. I believe that the two clauses are essential in enlarging the scope. His speech sounded like one made in the late 1970s or early 1980s when local government had to be the entrepreneur and go into competition with the private sect or in the local area. We now know that does not work because competition between local government and the private sector damages the private sector. It is made more difficult for the local market to work because the authority is in a special position.
However, there is now an important role for local authorities in the local economy. It is to operate in the same way as the Scottish Development Agency now operates: as an enabler of the private sector, The local authorities must be enablers and make it possible for private industry to operate freely in the area and create jobs. There is a great deal that the local authorities can do in that respect.
If they are not prevented from expanding into the private sector they will not assist the economy in the modern setting. Local government can only do what

1187
legislation says it can do and cannot go beyond that. It is difficult to set out in legislation all the details of what local government can and cannot do. These clauses are an attempt to make it possible to control that. The clauses are important in the modern setting. It would not have been important 10 years ago, but now it is important to word clauses as in this instance. I hope that they stay in the Bill.
Lord Renton: We are in a rather unusual position. We are discussing the possible omission of two clauses—Clauses 33 and 34—and doing so on a necessary paving amendment to Clause 32. We cannot complain about that; however, we should be clear about what we are up to.
It is interesting and helpful that the noble Lord has put down on the Marshalled List at the end of the amendments to Clause 33 notice of his intention to oppose the Question that Clause 33 stand part of the Bill. Although it is clear from his speech and from his paving amendments that he also wants Clause 34 left out, the noble Lord has not indicated on the Marshalled List any notice of his intention to oppose Clause 34. Perhaps after all, in spite of his paving amendment, he does not intend that that clause should be left out.
I endorse what has been said by my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour. I should have thought that the noble Lord would be reassured by, and would rejoice over, Clause 32(3) which makes it perfectly clear that the relevant authority will be able to make a grant, a loan, a guarantee or an indemnity to anyone who is going to be economically active in its area, or invest in that person's undertaking. That is very forthcoming on the part of a Conservative Government who believe in private enterprise but who nevertheless are willing for local authorities to have a stake in private enterprise and various other things.
I should have thought that there must be some limit to the exercise of the powers in Clause 32. There must be some kind of financial limit. Are we to accept the possibility that local authorities will be majority shareholders in the undertakings in which they may invest? I would not be surprised if the Secretary of State, using his powers under Clause 33, said, "Yes, useful investment, but we do not want them running local industry to the extent of becoming majority shareholders". These powers could be used on a wide scale. The Government must have the power in the national economic interest, especially if there is a threat of inflation, to limit the total amount of funds spent by local authorities on these matters.
To say that the splendid Clause 32, about which we can all rejoice, stands on its own without any limitation on the powers to be used in pursuit of it seems unrealistic. Realistically, there must be some kind of ministerial responsibility regarding the financial extent to which the powers are used. That is why we must have Clause 33. Bearing in mind that the noble Lord has not expressed his intention to oppose Clause 34, I consider that the guidance and consultation about promotion and economic development referred to in the side heading—amounting to a description of some of the
1188
clause—could be helpful to local authorities. Speaking for myself, I would not wish to see the terms of the clause omitted.
Lord Ross of Newport: On first seeing these clauses I welcomed them very much. In many parts of the country it is to local government that people turn at times of difficulty. It could be the closure of a major business or sudden high unemployment.
I was serving on an authority in 1971 when such an incident occurred. Our third largest employer closed down and the unemployment rate rose to 18 per cent. I did my best to persuade the Government that we should become an assisted area. That was, and always has been, refused. The only help forthcoming was from the development commission, but that is now drying up. Therefore, the local authority dealt with the situation. All parties were involved in combating the situation. What we did was very much in line with these clauses although I have to say that it was in the teeth of opposition from the then county treasurer who did not believe that local government should be involved.
We set up an enterprise agency which I chaired. All the other members were from private enterprise businesses which had put money into the project. I should like to put on record all the help we received from BP and Lloyds Bank in that respect. More recently a development board has been set up, originally chaired by a Lord Lieutenant and now by an industrialist. It is doing extremely well. That would not have come about if the local authority had not taken the initiative. Not a large amount of money was involved—between £300,000 and £400,000, I imagine. Looking at these clauses that would be about the limit we would be allowed if the same thing were to happen today.
I should like to put on record that our second largest employer in the Isle of Wight is Plessey. If Plessey is to be the subject of a takeover bid it would be disastrous for the economy of my former constituency. Under any such merger we do not believe that the company will be maintained in the way it is now. The chairman and managing director of Plessey in the Isle of Wight have played a major role in stimulating the economy, helping the schools, in training and in very other way. It is due to pressure from the development board, and from the Plessey Company in particular, that we have our own technical training area, for which we have fought very hard and which has just been granted to us. It is important and fully backed by industry.
I see local government as encouraging enterprise—not overbearing but putting money where necessary on behalf of the ratepayers and promoting initiatives. We have been able to do that because to a large extent the people on the island accept that what has happened has been through local government initiatives.
I should have indicated earlier my intention to speak on Clause 34 stand part. There is one part I wish to raise on the clause that I hope the Minister can deal with. I disagree totally with subsection (2) that local authorities should determine at the beginning of each financial year whether they will take any steps in the year for the promotion of

1189
economic development in the area. How on earth can they do that? These events suddenly occur. A closure happens overnight. An American multinational can suddenly decide to close a factory. It has happened on a couple of occasions in Scotland recently. Suddendly there is disaster. It may be that the local authority has made no preparation. I will raise this later in the Bill. But are we actually saying that local authorities cannot do anything until the beginning of the next financial year? That would be totally mad.
Apart from that, and subject to other later amendments, I welcome the clauses. I hope however, that we shall amend those that are too restrictive. However, they set a pattern which I accept is an innovation for this Administration. There are restrictions but, on the whole, the clauses are to be welcomed. There are some areas that I certainly want to see changed. I specify one in particular because the amendment refers to taking out Clause 34. A part of Clause 34 is a total nonsense, and I give notice that I shall refer to that again.
7 p.m.
Lord Elton: Very briefly, I advise my noble friend the Minister that if he is for a moment entertaining the idea of withdrawing the power to restrict the economic involvement of the local authorities in this way, he should consider the history of the metropolitan authorities when approaching their conclusion. They demonstrated dexterity and vigour in applying local authority funds to all kinds of sectors that went far beyond what could have been the intention of the legislation under which they did so. Therefore, while it is a regrettable fact it is a necessary one that the Secretary of State should have power to restrain this employment of money if it appears to be inappropriate.
Baroness Blatch: I wish to add one point to what was said by my noble friend Lady Carnegy, who spoke in favour of the limitations, as indeed did my noble friend who has just spoken. I think that is right. The other point I wish to make is that I do not believe that local authorities should be frustrated by the limitations set out in Clauses 33 and 34. The one provision that local authorities can make to promote the economy in the area is to provide good services. The provision of good schools, the building and maintenance of roads and the provision of other services does as much to promote the economy of an area as the provision of direct promotional activities. Therefore I do not believe that there should be a frustration. The limitations are important.
To cover the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport, and the case of a large company going out of business and causing the kind of repercussions he has outlined, as regards Plessey, I believe the Government's record of bringing assistance into play—one only has to think of Corby, Consett and other instances—with a co-operative approach to a crisis is preferable to building something that is the norm on the face of the Bill
1190
for the everyday management of local authorities. I do not believe that there needs to be frustration about the limitations set out in Clauses 33 and 34.
Lord Hesketh: These amendments are intended to provide that the power for local authorities to incur expenditure in the promotion of economic development is placed on the statute book without any limitation. The amendments effectively delete references to Clause 33 of the Bill, which would enable the Secretary of State to make regulations to limit the scope of the very broad power given to local authorities under Clause 32(1) and Clause 34, which sets out the consultation procedures with the local business community.
These amendments attempt to attack the heart of the new power. The basic principle behind our proposal was to give local authorities a specific power to promote economic development in their areas. If I may explain a little of the background to our decision it will be easier to see why we did not merely give local authorities an unqualified enabling power, and how flexible the new power will be in practice.
As the Committee will be aware, the decision to introduce such a power stemmed from the review of the proper role of local authorities in economic development which we carried out on the recommendation of the Widdicombe Committee. Our review concluded that local authorities were using a wide range of specific functional powers and their discretionary spending power to carry out an equally wide range of activities in the economic development field. Their activities included grants for enterprise boards and for individual firms; funding of training schemes; capital investment in starter and other individual industrial units and general and specialist advice to potential businesses.
I could go on, but I am sure that ':he Committee can see very clearly from those activities which I have already mentioned that the Government's conclusion was that local authorities had a very important role to play in promoting economic development. Indeed, in many cases local authority economic initiatives have been an important element in the success of central government policies. My own department's urban programme schemes, for example, require an input by local authorities.
Hence the decision to introduce a specific power for local authorities which it is hoped will give them a clearer footing on which to undertake their activities. However, while our investigations confirmed our view that local government had a vital role to play here, they did at the same time demonstrate that there was some lack of direction in some areas of activity and that there was a need for a economic activities by local and central government and the private and voluntary sectors to be complementary rather than competitive with each other. It was clear that where faults did exist these were exacerbated, if not caused, by the fact that local authorities had no clear powers to promote economic development and hence no parameters within which they could carry out their programmes.

1191
The intention of Clauses 33 and 34 and the regulations which we will be making is to set the new power in as clear a context as possible in order to focus the activities of the authorities to best effect. While we have said many times that we have no intention of hindering local authorities in the useful work that they do in this field, there are undoubtedly areas in which we do not think it appropriate for them to be involved. There are examples of best practice in terms of organising a programme of activity which we think it important for local authorities to follow. Thus, as I think the Committee will agree, it would be very odd to hear that a local authority had set itself up as a manufacturer. There are others far better placed to do so. I cannot see how such activities could or would be appropriate to encouraging economic development in a particular area.
We have made no secret of our intentions as regards the probable restrictions on the power. From the beginning when details of the power were announced in another place we set our cards on the table. Furthermore, the usual consultations that precede the making of such regulations began as far back as January. Three meetings have already taken place between officials and the local authority associations and I am pleased to say that we will very shortly be issuing a consultation paper on these matters.
As regards the procedural items in Clause 34, which the amendments seek to make ineffectual, there is nothing here that any sensible authority would not be doing already. It is only common sense to draw up a clear strategy before embarking on expenditure at the ratepayers' expense and to ensure that any programme of work is complementary to the policies both of central and local government. We shall talk in more detail about this on later amendments, but I cannot see how such requirements will restrict any authority in exercising its powers under Clause 32.
We shall also discuss in other amendments the more detailed aspects of the restrictions that will apply to the new power. It is not our intention to restrict authorities' use of the new power unduly. We have discussed all these matters quite openly and extensively with those concerned and discussions will go on. I can assure the Committee about our intentions as regards the new power. As my noble friend Lord Renton pointed out, it would be quite impossible for the Government to provide a Bill which has enormous flexibility but is without any form of control in order to provide opportunity for local authorities. For that reason, we resist these amendments.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I am conscious that I stand between the Committee and pleasure. Therefore I shall not take as long as I might otherwise have taken. This is a big issue. The Minister was quite right and fair to say that these amendments go to the heart of this part of the Bill. I make no apology for that. What puzzles us is that by the whole range of measures and changes in the controls that the Government exercised over local government before
1192
this Bill and these clauses came to be, it was very difficult for local authorities to do very much that did not have the approval of central government.
This Bill and these clauses are studded with phrases such as, "subject to regulations", "subject to matters that may be specified", and "regulations made by the Secretary of State". There are also references to,
"transitional provisions in connection with other provisions as the Secretary of State considers appropriate".
It is a fact that before very long nothing will move on the face of local government that has not been expressly authorised, never mind generally authorised, by the man or woman in Whitehall. That is why we are protesting in this manner.
The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, was quite fair in saying that what she objected to in the success of local government enterprise was that it competed with private enterprise. As such she does not like the idea that if there was to be a loser it might be private enterprise even though the winner was municipal enterprise. She is saying that local enterprise from the council is all very well provided it is not too strong or too successful as a competitor with local private enterprise. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, nods her head in support as vigorously as she can with decorum from a sitting position.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: Surely the point here is that a local authority cannot go bust. It is very unfair competition if a local authority which cannot go bankrupt competes with traders which can. That is something which traders up and down the country have found when they have had to compete with local authorities in areas such as funeral services and so on. It is damned unfair competition. If the regulations deal with that, they will be performing a notable service.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I gather from the chorus of "Hear, hear" from the other side of the Committee that what private enterprise does not want is competition; and certainly not from municipal authorities. Most small local businesses want to become big local businesses and ultimately gobble up everyone else. We do not want to provide unfair competition. We want to provide what the Minister himself wants, which is flexibility for local government where it finds that there is a need to act quickly in order to protect the local environment.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said that she wanted the co-operative approach in these matters. She will be well aware, because she follows these matters closely, that the Labour Government set up the Co-operative Development Agency in 1978. The Government have just announced that it is to close. The Co-operative Development Agency stimulated the co-operative approach in many ways and created work which needed the stimulation of a local council. I have before me its last annual report which contains very good work. The Government have rewarded the CDA by closing it down. That is what the Government mean when they talk about these matters. The Minister says that a consultation

1193
process is going on and that a paper is likely to be published. I should like to believe that those who are being consulted are of a like mind with the Government on the ways in which they will be further hog-tied in respect of their flexibility.
Nothing in what the Minister said has encouraged me one iota to believe that the Government are serious in wanting to stimulate initiative and enterprise in local councils where it is required. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, referred to funeral services. That hare was run a few years ago. That hare is not running at this time. The noble Lord is fighting the battles of 1982, 1983, 1984 and 1986 which he lost when he was tackling a great many areas of local government. The Bill sets out to ensure that anything which moves at a local government level can move only with the approval of the Secretary of State. That is why I intend to seek the opinion of the Committee on Amendment No. 115B. I commend the amendment to the Committee.
7.12 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 115B) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 38; Not-Contents, 83.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Broadbridge, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mclntosh of Haringey, L..

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Nathan, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Nicol, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Phillips, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L [Teller.]

Ennals, L.

Falkender, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Stedman, B.

Gallacher, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Galpern, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Underhill, L.

Jeger, B.

Walston, L.

Kagan, L.

Whaddon, L.

Kirkhill, L.

White, B.

Lockwood, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Arran, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Auckland, L.

Elton, L.

Balfour, E.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Bauer, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Belstead, L.

Gridley, L.

Blatch, B.

Haig, E.

Blyth, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Borthwick, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Halsbury, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Caithness, E.

Hayter, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Henley, L.

Carnock, L.

Hesketh, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Hives, L.

Coleraine, L.

Holderness, L.

Colville of Culross, L.

Hooper, B.

Craigavon, V.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Crickhowell, L.

Ingrow, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Dundee, E.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Joseph, L.

1194

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Kenilworth, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Reay, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Renton, L.

Lawrence, L.

Romney, E

Lindsey and Abingdon,

St. John of Bletso, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Sanderson of Bowden, L

Mackay of Clashfern, L

Sharples, B.

Margadale, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Marley, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Strange, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Merrivale, L.

Sudeley, L.

Mersey, V.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Torphichen, L.

Monson, L.

Trafford, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Ullswater, V.

Mottistone, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Mountevens, L.

Windlesham, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Wise, L.

Orkney, E.

Wynford, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
7.20 p.m.
The Earl of Arran: I hope that Members of the Committee will agree that this is a suitable moment at which to break for dinner. I suggest that we return to the Committee stage of the Bill at 8.20 p.m. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 1989
Surface Waters (Classification) Regulations 1989
Controlled Waters (Lakes and Ponds) Order 1989
Water and Sewerage (Conservation, Access and Recreation) (Code of Practice) Order 1989
Director General of Water Services' Register (Inspection and Charges) Order 1989
Water Reorganisation (Pensions etc.) (Designated Persons) Order 1989
Trade Effluents (Prescribed Processes and Substances) Regulations 1989
Control of Pollution (Discharges by the National Rivers Authority) Regulations 1989
Control of Pollution (Radioactive Waste) Regulations 1989
Water Supply and Sewerage Services (Customer Service Standards) Regulations 1989
Control of Pollution (Registers) Regulations 1989
Water Reorganisation (Pensions etc.) Regulations 1989
Control of Pollution (Consents for Discharges etc.) (Secretary of State Functions) Regulations 1989
Water Appointment (Monopolies and Mergers Commission) Regulations 1989
Control of Pollution (Revocations) Regulations 1989
7.21 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey rose to move, That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the regulations and orders be annulled.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not propose to make a long speech about the contents of these regulations, although I can assure your Lordships that if I did so we could readily fill up not only the dinner hour but also the rest of this evening's business.
I prayed against these orders because they so accurately and immediately bore out the fears which I had, and the fears which I expressed in my reasoned amendment on Third Reading of the Water Bill on 27th June. Perhaps noble Lords will recall that in a relatively unusual procedural Motion I moved an amendment to the Motion that the Bill be now read a third time. The amendment proposed the insertion of the following words:
"but this House regrets that completion of consideration of the Bill in this House is sought in the absence of adequate information in respect of the terms of water and sewerage undertakers; the likely terms of the flotation and the sale of securities; the basis on which prices to consumers will be set; the final terms of the code of practice on environmental and recreational matters; the detailed requirements in respect of the quality of drinking water and river water, and the relevant timetables for compliance".—[Official Report, 27.6.89; col. 586.]
We were assured by the Minister that everything which was normally done in privatisation Bills had been done; that the House had been kept as fully informed as possible about the progress of the supplementary documentation which, as I think he agreed with me, is desirable when the House is considering such important legislation; and that everything would be published as soon as possible. That certainly was true.
However, the moment that the Bill received Royal Assent, 15 orders were placed by the Secretary of State covering the very matters to which I referred in my reasoned amendment: the final terms of the code of practice on environmental and recreational matters; the detailed requirements in respect of the quality of drinking water and river water; and the relevant timetables for compliance.
When we were concerned with the terms of appointment of water and sewerage undertakers, the Minister was kind enough to let me have—although it was too late for me to do anything about it; but, I accept, that he let me have them as soon as he could—the final terms of appointment; that is, the model terms of appointment. But, these 15 regulations were all there. They had all been
1196
prepared. As soon as Royal Assent was given, they were available for publication and within 24 hours they were on the news-stands on every street in the capital.
Our complaint, and the reason why we are praying that these regulations should be annulled, is that they could have and ought to have been available to us in final draft form as the Bill went through this House. That is the burden of our complaint. There are many matters which are wrong about them, and I know that other noble Lords have comments to make upon them. But our fundamental complaint and the fundamental criticism that we make of the Government is that we ought to have known the contents of these regulations; we could have known their contents; and the proper respect would have been paid to your Lordships' House if these regulations in their final draft form had been available for debate as the Bill passed through its many stages. Otherwise, as I complained then, and as I complain again now, the Bill is in very material aspects a hollow Bill; it provides for regulations but does not tell the House what they will be.
At the time I said that we had achieved certain improvements in the codes of practice. The Minister had been good enough to write to me about the ways in which the codes of practice were to be improved and I believed him when he said that these improvements would be found in the final form. I was right to believe him. He behaved totally honourably, because the improvements which he undertook to make in the codes of practice were made.
I said that I knew, because I had a letter about it, that of the matters in the codes of practice would be better; but, I also said that I did not know whether some matters would be worse. That was also right because some aspects of the codes of practice are substantially worse than we expected, substantially worse than that which the Government ought to be proposing and substantially worse than those outside the House, who have been concerned with such matters and who have been reading the regulations in great detail, feared. Indeed, this has caused them a great deal of worry.
Let me give just a few examples of the ways in which such matters are wrong. The Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 1989 provide for a time-scale. The House will note that the time-scale provided for in these regulations is already out-of-date. The European Commission has already demanded that a time-scale be agreed within a period of two months. If that is not done, there will be legal action in the European Courts. That is the demand that has been made by Senor Ripa Di Meana, the European Commissioner for the Environment.
What has happened, not only since the Bill reached the statute book but also since the regulations were laid, is that our amendment on the time-scale for the improvement of drinking water quality is to be enforced—enforced despite the fact that the Government overturned that decision in another place. Therefore our amendment will in fact win through. The time-scale will have to be agreed, otherwise we shall be taken to court by the European Commission.
I turn now to the Water and Sewerage (Conservation, Access and Recreation) (Code of Practice) Order, 1989. I should remind your Lordships that these regulations are only here because the Government accepted an amendment in this House on Report that they should be subject to the negative resolution procedure. But this order has been widely attacked by those who are concerned with these matters on the grounds, fundamentally, that it is not enforceable, and also on the grounds that nature conservation has not been given the necessary precedence to achieve what was desired by noble Lords on all sides of the House as the Bill proceeded on its course. I know that my noble friend Lady Nicol has points to make on this particular order.
As regards the Water Supply and Sewerage Services (Customer Service Standards) Regulations 1989, these are unacceptable because they do not provide any guarantee of compensation for the supply of unwholesome water.
There should be a no-quibble guarantee similar to the kind given, for example, by Marks and Spencer. We have no such thing. If the House had been told that the regulations on customer service standards would not cover tha case of Camelford (which was referred to by noble Lords on a number of occasions during the Bill's passage) it would have been outraged. Amendments would have been moved—I have no doubt they would have been agreed to—in order to secure that the regulations covered the necessary points.
The Control of Pollution (Registers) Regulations: I do not know what the Government's attitude is towards freedom of information, but the control of pollution registers are to be made available in the NRA's regional headquarters and not where people need them, for example, at local council offices, or, as we argued throughout the Bill's passage, on customers' bills. Here again, the regulations are grossly inadequate.
The Surface Waters (Classification) Regulations are interesting because they provide a standard of a maximum concentration of nitrate of 50 mg per litre for surface water which is abstracted for drinking water purposes. That is a tighter condition than the one imposed by EC directive 75/440 and yet the Government have throughout been arguing—the Secretary of State was arguing in another place only within the past few weeks—that the European Commission had it wrong about nitrate, that the maximum acceptable concentration of nitrates were wrong, and that it was scientifically undesirable as well as practically impossible to achieve those standards. Why has that standard now been entered into the classification of surface water regulations when water is abstracted for drinking water quality purposes?
I could have given many more examples of the way in which the regulations are defective. I need do no more than refer to the fact that the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has examined three of the regulations in detail and has found the drafting of them all to be unsatisfactory. The joint committee was asked to deal with all 15 regulations
1198
in a period of five days. It was unable to do so. It would be humanly impossible to do so; but it found serious drafting problems with all the regulations. They were not merely produced too late for the House to consider them properly when the legislation was going through, they were badly produced. Heaven knows what defects there are in the other regulations!
In the manner and timing of the presentation of the regulations to Parliament and in the way in which the House has been treated in relation to considering them as part of the proper consideration of the legislation, the Government have failed on all counts.
The regulations should be annulled so that the Government have an opportunity to think again and to correct not just the drafting errors but, much more importantly, the substantive faults in 1he regulations. I hope that the Government will take the opportunity to do so. I beg to move the Motions en bloc.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 1989 [S.I. 1989 No. 1147] be annulled; an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Surface Waters (Classification) Regulations 1989 [S.I. 1989 No. 1148] be annulled; an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Controlled Waters (Lakes and Ponds) Order 1989 [S.I. 1989 No. 1149] be annulled; an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Water and Sewerage (Conservation, Access and Recreation) (Cope of Practice) Order 1989 [S.I. 1989 No. 1152] be annulled; an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Director General of Water Services' Register (Inspection and Charges) Order 1989 [S.I. 1989 No. 1154] be annulled; an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Water Reorganisation (Pensions etc.) (Designated Persons) Order 1989 [S.I. 1989 No. 1155] be annulled; an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Trade Effluents (Prescribed Processes and Substances) Regulations 1989 [S.I. 1989 No. 1156] be annulled; an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Control of Pollution (Discharges by the National Rivers Authority) Regulations 1989 [S.I. 1989 No. 1157] be annulled; an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Control of Pollution (Radioactive Waste) Regulations 1989 [S.I. 1989 No. 1158] be annulled; an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Water Supply and Sewerage Services (Customer Service Standards) Regulations 1989 [S.I. 1989 No. 1159] be annulled; an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Control of Pollution (Registers) Regulations 1989 [S.I. 1989 No. 1160] be annulled; an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Water Reorganisation (Pensions etc.) Regulations 1989 [S.I. 1989 No. 1161] be annulled; an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Control of Pollution (Consents for Discharges etc.) (Secretary of State Functions) Regulations 1989 [S.I. 1989 No. 1151] be annulled; an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Water Appointment

1199
(Monopolies and Mergers Commission) Regulations 1989 [S.I. 1989 No. 1162] be annulled; and that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Control of Pollution (Revocations) Regulations 1989 [S.I. 1989 No. 1150] be annulled.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
Lord Shaughnessy: My Lords, as a Member of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, I should like to endorse the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, both in the substance and in the particulars. It is extraordinary that with legislation of this magnitude and importance, the regulations have been found by our committee to be defective in at least three instances. I should like to hear the Minister's comments on why they have had this rather slipshod treatment from the point of view of drafting and other points of view. Why were they not more carefully addressed in relation to a Bill which has attracted as much attention and controversy as the Water Bill has? Perhaps the Minister will address that point when he comes to reply.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I can only endorse what has been said by the noble Lords, Lord McIntosh of Haringey and Lord Shaughnessy, about the regulations and the report which I have looked through and which stated that they were not very good. I found the fact that they came out a little too late extremely irritating to say the least.
Certain issues crop up in respect of the regulations and the code of practice. When it comes to conservation we have more of the old argument on "may" or "shall" cropping up. For instance, page 17 of the code states:
"In particular, where an SSSI is sustaining damage as a consequence of nutrient enrichment, to which sewage disposal is making a significant contribution, the relevant body should consider suitable remedial action".
Surely "should take" or "will take" would be more appropriate. If damage is being done, something should be done about it.
When it comes to matters such as access, there are two categories of access—either by right of way or by a local government Act—as opposed to rights which are granted by the new water companies. There should surely be some way of ironing out that problem.
On recreation, there is the possibility of conflict between angling and boating interests. Once again, something should be done to ensure that if such conflicts arise something is done about them. We can go on to deal with things such as water quality. There is a structure whereby the control of pollution, for instance, will be relaxed if the ground quality is causing any deterioration in water quality.
We should look at what is causing the deterioration in ground quality. If man-made pollution of the ground is affecting the water, something should be done about it. The regulations should cover that point.
I agree that the Government have made a notable step forward in recognising the problem caused by pesticides. I wish that more such steps had been taken. On registration, we have a solution that is
1200
good as far as it goes. We shall be told what is put into water. We are told the state of the water before the additives are used or its state afterwards. We should be given more than merely half the information.
We then have the classification regulations. The regulations are an improvement in that somewhat tighter standards are being imposed by the Minister than the directive requires, and I thank him for them. However, when it comes to the three classifications—DW1, 2 and 3—will the Minister tell me whether, where water is being taken for drinking water, there are any water undertakers which do not have plant necessary to bring the water up to the desired quality. Also, it is rather a pity that only drinking water is covered by the directives. Surely, there should be some classification for quality when it comes to fisheries, bathing waters and shellfish. There should be a directive covering those. When we start to deal with the problems we shall not have to consider the water quality for the simple reason that the water will already be of a sufficiently high standard to make bringing it up to standard far easier.
Just as a start, the regulations on water source protection zones require the implementation of protection zones. These regulations are quite a good step towards the desirable state of affairs of better water quality. However, they are only a start. Much more is needed and, as has already been stated, unfortunately they are not very well drafted. I hope that these regulations are a start on something that will come and that where there are flaws—as there will be—the Minister, in his usual gracious manner, will be prepared to make changes to them.
Baroness White: My Lords, I have no intention at all of speaking on any of the details of the regulations. I simply wish to indicate my very strong support for my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey and the representative of the Liberal parties, I suppose I should say, since there is only one representative on the Benches. I also wish to say how glad I am that the noble Lord, Lord Shaughnessy, has taken the trouble to come here and tell the House what your Lordships' Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments feels about the way in which these regulations have been dealt with.
It appears to me that this is not an occasion on which we can satisfactorily discuss any of the details. However, it is possibly the most gross example that we have ever had of the way in which the present Administration has been treating the House in its handling of legislation. It is disrespectful to the House as a legislative Chamber for a group of proposed regulations to be presented to us in this way, without an adequate examination by our own statutory committee which is set up to undertake precisely that task. It is only right that one should make it quite clear that this is not the way in which responsible legislation should be carried out in the House.
I hope that the feelings of those of us who are present can at any rate be conveyed by the Government Front Bench. In our view, this is not the way in which responsible legislation should be

1201
dealt with. It is an insult to us and we cannot possibly be expected to deal with the details. They have not been adequately examined by the statutory committee.
Perhaps I may raise one other little matter which interests me from the constitutional point of view. I do not expect the noble Earl to respond because it is not really his function to do so. Perhaps he will ask his noble friend the Leader of the House to inform us what is the shortest period which is accepted as satisfactory between the acceptance by the House of the Motion that the Bill do now pass and the Royal Assent. In this case it was something like one hour 10 minutes. I may be wrong, but it was something of that order.
One may say that this is a constitutional charade, but it seems to me to be rather disrespectful to Her Majesty. One does not imagine her sitting at her desk with her biro at the ready in order to indicate her assent to something passed by this House. I would find it of interest if perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, who regards himself, I know, as a great authority on these matters could help us. Perhaps he will be able to enlighten us. What is the shortest period that should elapse before the Royal Assent is pronounced on a Bill which has been pushed through the House as this one has?
7.45 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I share the disquiet which has already been expressed by a number of noble Lords. I wish to return particularly to the regulation which covers the conservation, access and recreation code of practice. Perhaps I may remind your Lordships that we were given a draft code of practice in January this year. Many of us based our contributions to the Water Bill on the provisions of that draft code of practice. We had every expectation that the majority of the promises at any rate would be fulfilled.
Now we have the actual code. Perhaps I may remind your Lordships of one paragraph in it which will be found on page 7, under the heading:
"Integrated Land Use and Management Plans".
This very important paragraph says:
"The objective should be to resolve most conflicts between different land uses by zoning for those uses by area and over time. In cases where conflicts between recreation and the conservation of landscape, flora and fauna cannot be resolved by zoning, preference should normally be given to conservation, especially where this involves securing the protection of vulnerable and endangered species of flora and fauna."
That is clear enough. That kind of general expectation ran through the entire draft code of practice. So I was rather disappointed to go through the actual code and find not a mention of zoning and no mention at all of the general approach to conservation and the general feeling that conservation should not dictate any sort of precedence in any circumstances other than sites of special scientific interest and other specially designated areas. What the new code does is to echo the removal of the general approach to conservation which we tried so hard to save.
I have not gone through all 15 of the regulations but I think that as concerns those which I have
1202
examined my noble friend on the Front Bench is absolutely right to feel unease at the way they have been handled. I hope that it is not too late for the Government to think again. If they are not prepared to think again, I hope that my noble friend will feel that he can press the rejection of all these regulations.
7.47 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, I am grateful to all your Lordships who have taken part in this short debate on the instruments before us. The debate is concerned with 15 statutory instruments covering a number of matters relevant to the implementation of the regulatory framework for the privatised water industry which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, has asked the House to pray against this evening.
I have to say that I thought this was an extraordinary proposal by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. I know that he has ritually, throughout the passage of the Water Act, expressed his discontent with the degree of information that we have made available to the House on various matters. That in itself was surprising, as I explained at some length, but it is perhaps even more surprising that his response to the Government's prompt publication of many of the detailed proposals he has been pressing us for is a Motion for their rejection.
Yes, the Government have moved swiftly. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, and the noble Baroness, Lady White, said that the regulations were laid immediately after Royal Assent. This should come as no surprise to the House. If your Lordships will refer to the points which I made on 27th June on the reasoned amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, in col. 592 of Hansard your Lordships will see what I said at the bottom:
"The regulations themselves will be laid immediately after the Water Bill receives the Royal Assent and will be based on the consultation documents".
So the Government have moved swiftly to produce these measures, a number of which are key elements of our plans to provide a new protection for the water environment. I understand why the noble Lord might not wish to draw attention to the lamentable record of his own party when it was in government in implementing water pollution control legislation. I know he would prefer to forget that it was the government of his party who, having passed the Control of Pollution Act in 1974, failed ever to implement its main water provisions. Nevertheless, it is disappointing to hear only a reprise of the unconvincing arguments we heard during our earlier debates on the Water Act itself.
I put it to your Lordships that the noble Lord has made no case for praying against these instruments. In making these instruments, the Government have fulfilled their undertakings to bring forward key subordinate legislation under the Water Act promptly. The drinking water quality regulations are perhaps the most significant of all the measures we are debating this evening. They incorporate the EC drinking water directive into domestic legislation for

1203
the first time, and in a number of respects go beyond its requirements. They provide for all water supplies to comply with EC standards, and set 14 additional national standards. For example, the lead standard is tighter than the one set in the EC directive. Why is that? It is of course in recognition of the need to continue to reduce exposure to lead from whatever source.
The regulations provide for frequent monitoring and analysis, and lay down minimum sampling frequencies much higher than the EC directive requires. They require sampling normally to be done at the consumer's tap and set down procedures for the collection and analysis of samples. There will be independent quality control checks of laboratories, and, in addition, the new drinking water inspectorate will monitor the work done by the water undertakers.
There will be new provisions on water treatment. Supplies will have to meet certain minimum treatment requirements. For example, the use of new chemicals or products in treatment or mains relining will not be permitted without the Secretary of State's approval. Thus, denitrification processes currently being investigated by my department will be able to be used in the programme of reducing nitrate levels only if we are satisfied that they are safe. That was a point to which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, alluded when he was talking about what had happened on the reasoned opinion, and the points made by the Environmental Commissioner in Brussels. Of course we seek to mitigate the potential damage from nitrates in order to agree the limits as set out in the directive. We shall be able to do that in most cases except for two—one area in Norfolk and one in Stafford. The reason for that is that we have to introduce new complicated denitrification plants, and we need those to be tested.
I hope that I shall be allowed to ask the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, a question. The question arises from the debate on these instruments in another place. It was a question that my honourable friend the Minister responsible for water asked the honourable friend of the noble Lord, the honourable Member for Dewsbury. The question was this. If we cannot meet the timetable for the nitrates by 1993, was the party of the noble Lord challenging the basis on which we have yet to test the technology? Surely the noble Lord would not wish us to introduce a denitrification plant in order to meet the directive when it had not been properly tested? Perhaps the noble Lord will comment on that when he replies.
For the first time the drinking water regulations place a duty on water undertakers to provide the public with comprehensive information about the quality of their water supplies. From next January information on compliance, any relaxations, and about undertakings given under Section 20(5)(b) of the Act will be kept in a publicly available record. Water undertakers will also be required to send additional information to local authorities at regular intervals. Both the local authority and the local health authority would have to be told immediately of any significant health risk due to water quality. In summary, these regulations provide for the
1204
maintenance and improvement of our already high standards of water quality. In the Government's view they should be generally welcomed.
The regulations on surface water classification and the associated order relating to ponds and reservoirs provide a critical link between the quality of water in the environment and in supply. They make a preliminary use of the powers to introduce systems for water quality classifications, to put in place immediately a system for the classifications in respect of abstraction for human consumption, so that the level of treatment required for different qualities of water entering the supply system may be determined. These instruments allow us to give effect to the EC Surface Water Abstraction Directive, to charge the NRA with the responsibility for monitoring for compliance, and enable us to ensure that all abstractive waters are properly classified and regulated. They are a necessary supplement to the water quality regulations, and should be applauded as a major step towards better water standards.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, asked whether water would be abstracted from water supply in the DW1, DW2 and DW3 qualities without the relevant treatment capability. The short answer to that is "No". The purpose of the classification regulations, taken with the water quality regulations, is to prevent that happening.
I would have expected the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, to support the control of pollution measures. These instruments will put in place from the transfer date the requirements for regulating effluent discharges which are fundamental to the pollution control system. They ensure more openness and better accountability, for example by requiring additional information to be published and by removing anomalies in the present provisions. They provide for the separation of the regulator and the regulated so that a water or sewerage undertaker can no longer be accused of being both poacher and gamekeeper in matters relating to pollution control.
The noble Lord asked that the pollution registers' information should be available locally. I have to say that in our opinion that would be quite impracticable. On any reasonable grounds it is surely sufficient that they should be available, as they are now, at 10 regional centres. That provides reasonable access at reasonable cost.
When the noble Lord, Lord Addington, was talking about fisheries, he asked about the matter of river quality and what matters are to be regulated. I repeat the Government's view that it would be unreasonable and inappropriate to establish the relevant classifications and river quality objectives before the NRA is able to give advice and consult on them. The regulations we are debating this evening put in place the framework necessary for the maintenance and development of existing systems.
I shall now turn briefly to some of the other measures which the noble Lord wishes the House to pray against. The customer standards regulations, otherwise known as the guaranteed standards scheme, will enable the domestic customer to claim a £5 cash payment or credit for each occasion or day

1205
that certain standards are not met. I am sure that the early implementation of this scheme will be generally well received.
The two measures relating to pensions will ensure that pensions payable at the transfer date in respect of former employees of seven predecessor organisations will be treated in the same way as pensions payable in respect of former employees of the water authorities; and that certain unfunded liabilities of the water authorities will transfer to the National Rivers Authority.
The order relating to the inspection of the director general's register, which includes particulars relating to the appointments of water and sewerage undertakers, specifies the times at which the register is to be open for inspection and the fee payable for certified copies of extracts from it or documents referred to in it. It follows the precedents of previous privatisations.
I now turn to the regulations concerning the procedures of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission for references for determination of questions relating to the appointment of water and sewerage undertakers. These apply standard provisions, and would come into play only if determinations by the director general concerning the level of charges were disputed by appointed companies.
Before I come to the code of practice on conservation, access and recreation, which is of great interest to many of your Lordships, as has been made abundantly clear tonight, I should respond to the noble Lord's comments on the report of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments which was published on 19th July. I can assure the House that the Government consider the committee's comments to be valuable and constructive.
I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Shaughnessy, that we shall reflect on what the joint committee has said; in most cases we have already indicated that we will bring forward amending regulations to just three of the 15 instruments. I can only apologise to the noble Lord and to his committee that mistakes were made. They were not intentional, and we tried extremely hard not to make mistakes. However, I apologise for the extra work that I caused the noble Lord.
I now come to the code. This is an important part of the environmental package in the Water Act. I hope that noble Lords on all sides of the House will agree that as a result of the changes made in the light of consultation, and as a result of comments made by a number of noble Lords this document is now even better than the draft we published earlier in the year.
I take the point of the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, who by and large does not agree with that. I shall read very carefully what she has said and draw her comments in particular to the attention of my right honourable friend.
The code provides the best available guidance on matters relating to conservation, public access and recreation. The negative resolution procedure for its approval, which was included in response to
1206
amendments proposed by this House, means that we now have a full and robust statement of the matters to which the NRA and the new water and sewerage companies will have to have regard in performing their general environmental duties.
In conclusion, the laying of these statutory instruments emphasises the Government's determination to act as quickly as possible to maintain and improve the quality of our water environment. They are a first and important step in implementing the new regulatory regime for the privatised water industry from which we shall all benefit. While I am pleased to have the opportunity to debate them, I do not think that there can be any real doubt about the contribution they will make to improving standards in the water industry. On that basis I ask the House to reject the Prayers of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, for their annulment.
8 p.m.
Lord Shaughnessy: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, perhaps I may say that I am grateful to him for his remarks about any inconvenience that may have been caused to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. No great inconvenience or extra work has been caused to me. The point I tried to make was that speeding through regulations of this order with these consequences resulted in anomalies which, as has been mentioned, are reported in the 26th Report of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments in respect of Statutory Instruments Nos. 1147, 1159 and 1161.
Our job is to deal with such anomalies, instances of defective drafting, possible doubt as to vires and the necessity for elucidation. I wanted to impress upon the noble Earl the importance of getting right before they are brought back to your Lordships' House for discussion at whatever time might be indicated on the Order Paper matters of such importance that have such far-reaching consequences.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I listened with great care to what the noble Lord said. I can only apologise again; I shall certainly draw his remarks to the attention of my right honourable friend.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Minister has been in his job for 18 months now. I have faced him across the Dispatch Boxes for all of that time. He is by no means as naive as he would like the House to think him, either in terms of the procedures of the House or in terms of political debate.
On the procedures of the House he seeks to persuade your Lordships that my Prayer to annul the instruments reflects a general dissatisfaction with all of the conditions of the statutory instruments. That, of course, is not the case. Under the negative resolution procedure, as he knows very well, the only way in which these statutory instruments can be debated is by a Prayer to annul them. That is the basis on which I proceeded.
The noble Earl knows equally well that it is an established procedure of this House, whether laid down in Standing Orders or not, that we do not seek

1207
to divide on a Motion to annul orders that have already been approved by another place. We should not dream of doing so. If another place has already considered the statutory instruments as it has, and has decided to approve them, we should consider it a gross excess of the powers of this House if it were to seek to go against another place.
The Minister knows also that the negative resolution procedure, like the affirmative resolution procedure, makes it impossible to do anything but accept or reject in toto. There is no possibility for us to produce amendments. The fact that we have made criticisms—virtually none of which has been answered—does not imply that we disagree with very large parts of the regulations. The idea that the noble Earl should seek to persuade the House that we object to many of the good things in the statutory instruments is a travesty of the truth. I am sorry that the Minister should have felt impelled to speak as he did.
I am also sorry that his political argument was so weak that he felt it necessary to refer again—I think for the seventh time during the passage of this Bill—to the record of the Labour Government in 1974 to 1979 on investment in sewerage. As before, he sought to use the fact that investment went down between 1974 and 1979 under a Labour Government to convey the totally false impression that the record of investment by a Labour Government was worse than the record of a Conservative Government. If one takes the average investment by a Conservative Government as compared with a Labour Government the average was higher under a Labour Government. That is despite the fact that the Labour Government came into office in 1974 after the oil crisis and a period of severe economic unrest throughout the developed world.
The Minister has sought—let us hope for the last time—to allow the House to draw false implications from a statement he has tried to make on the record of the Labour Government on water and sewerage investment.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way and for reminding me of the Labour Government's record. I did not mention investment. I said that the Labour Party did not implement many parts of the Control of Pollution Act which related to water.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it was equally inexcusable, whatever he referred to. It was inexcusable to drag up history of more than 10 years ago to bolster a very weak case. If the case had not been weak he would not have thought to intervene in the way that he did.
What is significant about the debate is not so much procedure. It is the fact that the Minister has not been able to defend the very specific criticisms that have been made on the form of the instruments by the noble Lord, Lord Shaughnessy, and on their content by my noble friends Lady White and Lady Nicol. He has not given adequate answers to those questions.
1208
The Minister sought to revive a particularly fruitless debate in another place in which his colleague, the Minister for Water, challenged my honourable friend Mrs. Ann Taylor on nitrates. I can only say that he cannot have read Hansard very thoroughly. Mrs. Taylor gave a very clear response to the Minister. Her response applied specifically to the complaint that had been made by Mr. William Cash that in his part of the country geological faults made it impossible to achieve the full nitrate standards required by the European Commission. Mrs. Taylor said in reply that undoubtedly, where there are geological reasons, as there are in Staffordshire derogations can be negotiated with the European Commission. That was a full and complete reply to the questions raised by Mr. Michael Howard.
It is pity that the Minister thought fit to reply to the serious criticisms that have been made of the form and content of the regulations in the way that he did. It is not worthy of him or of the House. If it were not for my profound respect for the relationship of this House with another place I should be sorely tempted to divide the House on the humble Address that the regulations be annulled. I do not think that we have been given an adequate reply. I do not think that we have been treated with the seriousness which the House deserves, either during the passage of the Bill or during this final stage of the laying of regulations. However, in accordance with precedent, I beg leave to withdraw my Motions.
Motions, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Long: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.20 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.10 to 8.20 p.m.]

Local Government and Housing Bill
House again in Committee on Clause 32.
[Amendment No. 115C not moved.]
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 115D:
Page 39, line 10, at end insert—
("(aa) the creation or protection of opportunities for training with any such undertaking or with any commercial, industrial or public undertaking opportunities for employment with which have been or appear likely to be made available to persons living in that area;").
The noble Lord said: This amendment also has a strong local employment enterprise initiative aspect. The skills of an area's population are seen as increasingly important for promoting local government development. They secure the expansion and success of existing firms and act as a bait for securing new mobile investment. Many local authorities are closely involved with the local business community in training or retraining the employees of local firms. They run training courses at local colleges or ITECs in skills such as electronics and computing which are in short supply. Local

1209
authorities also train in advance of demand in key skills which are nationally in short supply; for example, clerical work and typing. Some local authorities and metropolitan areas in the early 1980s realised the importance of skills to the regeneration of their local economies and undertook to finance the off-the-job training of apprentices in local colleges after their sponsoring firms had gone into liquidation. The wisdom of such an initiative is seen today when there is a famine in key industrial skills.
Training is an important activity carried out by local authorities and direct reference to that point should be included in the Bill. Some direct reference should be made to training as not all local authorities undertaking training are education authorities which are able to justify their training activities by virtue of education Acts.
I simply ask this question of the Minister: will those district councils which wish to improve the skills available to local employers be able to continue to do so if no specific reference to training is made in the Bill? We believe that local authorities play a vital role in identifying gaps in current provisions and funding innovative schemes to plug those gaps. In the context of sectoral restructuring in local economies and the substantial barriers to labour mobility, training and retraining is critical to local economic development.
Local authorities have sought to develop and enhance the quality of training provided under the government national schemes while others have organised their own training and retraining courses to meet the specific needs of the local labour market. Small employers are not always in a position to invest in training and a number of local authorities have sponsored apprenticeship training. Great Yarmouth Borough Council encourages smaller engineering firms which are outside the Engineering Industry Training Board levy by giving grants to pay the wages of apprentices for time spent in off-the-job training. It has now been extended to encourage other types of training in small firms.
Many authorities are involved with business training schemes for occupants in small units or starter units. Bournemouth Borough Council has recently been successful in obtaining much in funding from the European Social Fund for its project. That has enabled it to give free training to all unit occupiers in two enterprise centres and it is hoped that around 60 people will take advantage of that training. The conversion costs relating to the Bournemouth enterprise centre were £40,000. Revenue costs amounted to around £23,000 per annum.
Many local authorities have addressed the training needs of the disadvantaged. Sheffield City Council has a technical training workshop which provides vocational training in micro-electronics and computing for women over 25 years of age who wish to return to work. Brighton Borough Council has, in conjunction with the Brighton Friend Centre, targeted a £10,500 training programme at the specific needs of ethnic minority workers and the skills requirement of the financial services sector.
Given the central role of training in local authorities' economic development strategies, it would be wrong for local authorities to have to rely on financially restricted discretionary powers. The aim of the amendment is perfectly simple. It seeks the creation or protection of opportunities for training with any such undertakings or, with any commercial, industrial or public undertaking and opportunities for employment which have been or appear likely to be made available to persons living in that area. It is not an isue that the Government have overlooked, but it is, I am sad to say, something for which they have not made provision. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: In the last set of amendments we discussed whether there should be any restrictions on the use of the economic development power. This amendment, and those that follow, attempt to ensure that certain activities are included in the Bill as pertinent to economic development by local authorities.
Clause 32 gives the power for local authorities to take steps they think fit to promote economic development. Subsection (2) specifies what those steps can include. The power is deliberately drafted in very wide terms to cover everything that might be relevant. Subsection (2) puts beyond doubt what the power can cover, but it is not exhaustive. A local authority can do anything that it reasonably thinks will promote economic development, even if it is not in the list in subsection (2), provided that it is not prohibited by the regulations. To that extent, it is unnecessary to add further specific activities to the list.
Amendment No. 115D proposes that the creation of opportunities for training should be added to the list. Amendment No. 115E proposes a similar addition; namely,
"the provision of training, including training to enable persons to take up employment".
Let me make it quite clear from the outset that it is our firm intention that training should be regarded as one of the activities that all local authorities can support under the terms of the new power. That is without question. Assurances on this have been given in another place and in meetings between officials and the local authority associations. I can do no better than to repeat those commitments and to confirm that any guidance issued by the department will state that training is an appropriate activity for the new power. I can see no reason why the categories of training listed in these two amendments should not be included among local authorities' economic development plans.
Understandably, we do not wish local authorities which are not education authorities to set up in competition with those which are, but we think that any potential conflicts there can be overcome by the authority seeking the agreement of the education authority before going ahead.
Given those assurances, I do not believe that it is necessary to place training on the face of the Bill. There is a great variety of activities that will fall under the umbrella terms of subsection (2) and we

1211
could not hope to put all those on the face of the Bill and at the same time ensure that no worthwhile activity was omitted from the list. For those reasons, we urge rejection of the amendment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I am satisfied that it is the Minister's intention that those activities will be covered by the Bill, but I shall need to look carefully at what he has said. There is only a slight doubt in my mind as to whether all areas will be covered by local authorities which study the local situation to ensure that training facilities are available for the undertakings that we have in mind.
I am grateful to the Minister. He seems to have indicated not only that the amendment is unnecessary but that he wants training to be encouraged as part of the activities undertaken by a local council in pursuit of its local economic imperatives. That certainly satisfies me at this stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 115E and 115F not moved.]
8.30 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 115G:
Page 39, line 34, at end insert—
("(gg) provide a subsidy in respect of the remuneration of any employee of that person;").
The noble Lord said: I move this amendment which stands in the name of my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey. As is proper when dealing with this part of the Bill, the amendment deals with the local economy.
Many local authorities provide wage subsidies or give recruitment grants to firms taking on school leavers or the long-term unemployed. That activity should be specifically referred to in the Bill. The subsidies last for a limited period, generally six to 12 months, and are conditional upon the job being a new one (so that there is no displacement of existing employees) and permanent. These temporary subsidies are important in influencing firms to take on employees in areas of high unemployment, effectively reducing the cost to firms of new recruits for an initial period when they are at their least productive.
The effect of these subsidies on competition is very limited. The grants average only about £1,000 to £1,500 per new employee and do no more than cover the extra cost of taking on "green" or brand new employees. Many of these wage subsidy recruitment grants are directly supported on a matching basis by the European Social Fund.
I understand that in discussions between the DoE and local authority associations the department's officials have indicated that they would support the provision of wage subsidies by local authorities provided that they are for a limited period. The recognition of the important role that local authorities play in making available temporary wage subsidies should be reflected on the face of the Bill. I commend the amendment to the Committee.
Lord Hesketh: Amendment 115G is similar in intention to the previous one in that it would insert an extra category into the list of activities which can be regarded as financial assistance. In this case it suggests providing subsidy in respect of remuneration of any employee. In other words it proposes that wage subsidies be regarded as an element of fostering economic development.
Again, unless the regulations that we propose making specify that an activity is inappropriate, the assumption must be that a local authority can reasonably do what it thinks will promote economic development. As regards wage subsidies the Government's opinion is that it would be inappropriate in general to pay grants which were to meet part of the costs of a commercial or industrial undertaking being conducted with a view to profit, and we propose to say so in regulations.
There are, however, a number of very important exceptions to that which I suggest will meet the concerns that are reflected in this amendment. The exceptions are, first, grants towards the cost of employing persons who have been unemployed immediately before becoming employed by the recipient of the grant, provided that the grant does not continue for more than one year; secondly, grants towards the cost of employing trainees during their training period; thirdly, grants towards employing not more than three people with particular skills to act as trainers; and lastly, grants which form some part of a scheme supported financially by a government department or the European Community.
We believe that this covers most of the areas where local authorities are active in filling the short-term gaps that can sometimes arise, particularly where some other body is unable to cover the full cost of some initiative. Finally, it is worth emphasising that grants to non-profit-making bodies for wages or salary cost will not be prohibited, nor grants to meet the costs of consultancies.
These matters will all be set out quite clearly in the consultation document that we hope to issue shortly on the detailed use of the new power. Given that undertaking, I ask the Committee to resist the noble Lord's amendment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I am heartened by what I believe is the Minister's desire to assist an authority that genuinely wants to encourage employers to provide work for people. He said that the general ability to do that would not be given but that there would be exceptions. One of those exceptions was people who were unemployed immediately before becoming employed by an employer who is to receive the grant.
I am sure that the Minister has taken on board that such expenditure is not given lightly. A local authority which, at budget time, is faced with many calls upon its money has to say for example, "We shall put £10,000 or £100,000 aside to encourage local employers to take currently unemployed people off the local unemployed register and provide them with work". According to my information, if the average grant lies between £1,000 and £1,500 it is really a question of an employee who would be in

1213
receipt of a wage of about £120 a week being offered employment because the employer will receive a local grant of £25 or £30. I believe that the Minister also said that he had in mind to propose that this would be time-barred after 12 months.
I have been satisfied that the generality of the provisions of this additional paragraph is not acceptable because it is too wide, too sweeping and too capable of being applied to anybody.
The intention behind the amendment is not simply to make employment cheap from the employer's point of view. The purpose was for employers to be encouraged to provide work for those who sadly have not been offered a job over a period of time. However, I am grateful to the Minister. I shall read very carefully what he has said. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 115H and 115J not moved.]
Clause 32 agreed to.
Clause 33 [Restrictions on promotion of economic development]:
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 115K:
Page 40, line 2, leave out ("and their powers by virtue of other enactments,").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment which is tabled in the name of my noble friend, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, I shall also speak to Amendment No. 115L.
The purpose of these amendments is to remove the Secretary of State's right to impose limitations on local authorities by way of regulations, hindering them from making full use of the economic development powers and opportunities which are conferred by other Acts of Parliament. Examples of the powers that would be constrained include the Local Authorities (Land) Act 1963, which enables local authorities to develop land and promote development by building advanced factory units; or the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 which enables local authorities to finance employment training activities.
This provision places an acceptable limitation on the lawful exercise by local authorities of their existing economic development powers. If the Secretary of State intends to continue the use of this provision, he should be asked to clarify specifically when such a power will be used. I commend the amendment to your Lordships.
Lord Hesketh: These amendments seek to remove the words "and their powers by virtue of other enactments" whenever they appear in this clause, which establishes the restrictions to apply to economic development activity. The effect would be that restrictions under this Bill, or regulations ensuing, would apply only to economic development under the new power. They would not apply to economic development activities funded through other powers.
1214
These amendments were also tabled in the other place and were, I think, the result of the same misunderstanding. The new power, as we have discussed, is not, in essence, new: it is a rationalisation of the existing position whereby local authorities rely upon a large number of different powers for the pursuit of economic development activities. There is therefore a need to establish a single, clearly defined power which is general in scope and which will help local authorities to direct their activities for the maximum benefit.
The new power will give individual local authorities a good deal of discretion in the way in which they chose to promote economic development in their areas. This however cannot be granted without restrictions covering inappropriate activities. These restrictions will not frustrate important local initiatives but will instead ensure that resources are directed to those areas where they can be of most benefit to the economy.
As I have said, there are at present a number of powers which permit certain forms of economic development. If the new arrangements are to be successful they must apply to enconomic development in toto, irrespective of the power used to authorise expenditure. The new power does not repeal existing powers; but it will exist alongside them. To prevent confusion therefore, and to ensure that there is a single system to cover all activity undertaken for the purposes of economic development, the same restrictions will apply to uses of existing powers for economic development as to the new power.
Let me make it quite clear that we are not placing any restrictions on other functional powers, where these are used for any purpose other than economic development. For example, a power to provide employment opportunities for the disabled in sheltered workshops, if used for the benefit of the disabled and not to promote economic development will be unaffected by these proposals. The restrictions apply only to economic development.
If the new power is to provide the framework for local economic development which we seek, it is essential that the provisions apply to all economic development activity irrespective of the power used. Without such a provision, the situation will in effect remain unchanged and this power, which has been widely welcomed from all quarters, will be weakened. That is why we urge the Committee to resist the amendment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Will the Minister give us the long list of bodies which are included in the phrase "all quarters"? He says that the power has been welcomed in all quarters. The night is young. I believe that we can with profit listen to the list of bodies—which I hope are very representative and authoritative—that agree with what the Minister has said.
I well understand the desire of the Minister and his colleagues to use the phrase that the restrictions apply only to economic development. He then stated that it was essential that the provisions apply to all economic development. What do the Government

1215
have against a local authority engaging in local economic development initiatives that are designed to provide work, stimulate the economy, and improve the infrastructure at a local level?
The Minister is making very heavy weather of denying the charge that the Government are continuing the vendetta against local government down to the last dot and comma in the Bill. I was a local government man before I had the opportunity and privilege of working at a national level. I can tell the Minister that it is this niggardly, nit-picking attention to the minutiae of the task of local government—looking after its local people—that is resented very much by members of his own party, a resentment shared from time to time by members of my party. Can the Minister tell me the bodies represented by "all quarters" which approve of his action of centralising in the hands of the Secretary of State the ability to take economic initiatives?
Lord Hesketh: The noble Lord, Lord Graham, tends slightly to confuse the issue. When I say that economic development has been welcomed, it certainly has. The noble Lord does not like Clauses 33 and 34. He combines them with Clause 32 and says that nobody likes such provision. Just before retiring for dinner earlier this evening, we discussed the fact that in order to provide the most flexibility the Government have to have some form of control. The noble Lord does not like it but it has to be there. All governments would have had to put in some form of control. We believe that it is a sensible move in order to provide opportunity for local authorities. The noble Lord, Lord Graham, tries to persuade the Committee that the intention is something different. I am perfectly sound in my belief that that is what we are trying to do.
Lord Dormand of Easington: Answer the question.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My noble friend Lord Dormand of Easington asks the noble Lord in very persuasive tone to answer the question. The Minister did not answer the question. I share the Minister's support for initiatives that are designed to improve the local economy. However, when he spoke of the amendment—which refers not only to the present Bill but also widens the net to take into account all other economic initiatives covered in other Bills—the Minister said that in that respect the clause was widely welcomed. I have asked him which bodies widely welcome the neutering of their existing economic powers, putting them into a straitjacket. Obviously the Minister—I say this with great respect, and no disrespect—speaks from a brief which indicates to him that what he has told the Committee is widely welcomed. There are people not a million miles away from here who have an obligation to support the Minister, and to tell the Committee who those people are who are in favour of this straitjacketing of their current economic powers.
Lord Hesketh: Local authorities of all kinds have welcomed the proposals of the Government. I do not have with me at this moment a list of the individual local authorities. However, I shall be
1216
more than happy to furnish in a letter to the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, further details on the point that he has raised.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I have in mind the difficulties of the Minister. He is the one who has confused the issues. I have never said that local authorities do not widely welcome measures by central government which enable them to stimulate the local economy. There is no dispute there. But the Minister runs that into my criticism that we are not disputing the support of local economic initiatives but the Minister's intention in the Bill to neuter currently held powers and put them into the straitjacket of this clause.
I am grateful for the Minister's promise that he will write to me further on the issues. When he and his advisers read the record, I believe that they will see that we have been at cross-purposes. Perhaps I may have stated inadequately what I wanted. I look forward to hearing from the Minister. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 115L not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No 115M:
Page 40, line 12, at end insert ("save that no such regulations shall prevent, restrict or impose conditions on the exercise of such powers by any relevant authority on the grounds that the area of the authority, or part of it, falls outside an area recognised by the Secretary of State as having special economic needs, such as an assisted area, rural development area, derelict land clearance area, urban priority area or other similar designation.").
The noble Lord said: In many ways this is the most important way in which the Government are seeking to appear to recognise—as they have in Clause 32—the importance of economic development activities by local authorities and then to take the powers away in subsequent clauses.
In the subsequent clauses we discover bit by bit the extent to which these provisions restrict the power of local authorities to carry out very important economic development work. The most important single restriction is of the power to do economic development work on a geographical basis according to the diktat of the Secretary of State. The way in which it is achieved—I suppose that it is quite neat—is that the economic development powers are to be exercised only in assisted areas and travel to work areas which have above average unemployment. In all other areas, the permission will not be given.
It is not the Labour-controlled local authority associations which are objecting to that. It is the Conservative-controlled associations, and in particular the Association of District Councils, which has calculated, on the basis of a survey by the Institute of Local Government Studies in Birmingham, that no fewer than 40 per cent.—that is, 139 local authorities mainly shire county district councils—will be excluded from the power which they now have under Section 137 to undertake economic development activity. Those district councils are far more likely to be Conservative-

1217
controlled than Labour-controlled, it is the Conservative-controlled associations, through the Association of District Councils, which are leading the objection to these provisions.
I can give the Committee examples of the way in which this restriction to assisted areas and travel-to-work areas will work in practice. I start with the travel-to-work areas. I wonder how many people realise, because of the nature of the London labour market, that London consists of only two travel-to-work areas: London and Heathrow. In both unemployment is on average, over the whole travel-to-work area, either average, or in the case of Heathrow below average. It is well known that within the London travel-to-work area substantial parts of inner London—I cite Haringey because it is nearest—have vastly higher unemployment than the average, but because they are in the same travel-to-work area as the richer parts of London, they will be excluded from the powers to carry out economic development activities.
Let me take an example further away from London: on Humberside. The whole travel-to-work area of Bridlington and Driffield has unemployment at about the average and therefore would be excluded by the Secretary of State; but Bridlington has an unemployment rate of 19 per cent. The local council can do nothing about it because it has been excluded on geographical grounds.
As if that were not enough, the way the Government have planned economic development powers ignores the fact that the powers are not necessarily exercised directly in the local authority area for which the statistics apply. Very often to deal with unemployment levels that are unacceptably high, the powers are exercised by stimulating an adjacent area. That too will no longer be possible.
There are considerable concerns about the ability to carry out relatively minor economic development activities in rural areas. Again these are Conservative-controlled rather than Labour-controlled. In North Bedfordshire there has been considerable activity in the form of employment grants for small companies. That would all have to go if the Government's intentions go through. In South Norfolk the local council has had quite an imaginative scheme for converting barns into workshops and other places of employment. That will all have to go.
Another consideration that has been totally ignored by the Government and does not have any effect on their plans is the need for, let us say, workshops in areas of high land value. In large parts of central London and in most of the central parts of our cities there is a very local need (sometimes a neighbourhood need) for employment in the form of small workshops. My own borough of Haringey has been very good about providing some of these. They are necessary, not because there are no premises available, but because the land values and the rental values available are too high to make it economical for it to be done on a commercial basis. Therefore a very proper use of local authority pump-priming power has been to provide workshop
1218
premises to pay for the conversion and to provide premises at an affordable rent.
I have given only a few examples of the kinds of things that can be done, but I remind the Committee—I believe our new procedure committee does not allow us to display items and to show maps, but I hurriedly pass them to the Minister—that very large parts of London and South-East England are excluded from the powers which now exist under Section 137 of the Local Government Act. Although the Government appear to be giving recognition to ecnomic development powers, in practice they are doing no such thing. For considerable parts of the country those powers are now being taken away. We do not believe that that is the right way to approach something that has been a success in pump priming, in collaboration between the public sector and the private sector and has been a success in terms that this Government have constantly encouraged. We hope that the Government will see the good sense behind the amendment and they will feel able to give it the support that we wish it to have and the Committee feel the same. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: This amendment seeks to put in the Bill a stipulation that nothing in tie regulations issued under this clause will restrict the economic development activities of a local authority if part of that authority's area falls outside of those areas recognised as having some form of central government priority.
The new economic development power encompasses a wide range of activities. It is very important to realise that there is only one aspect of the new power which the Government feel ought to be restricted. This is the proposal, announced in December last year with the introduction of the new power, that economic development in the form of cash grants, cash loans and guarantees of borrowing to profit-oriented businesses should be restricted to those areas most in need of such assistance. We have said that those areas will include at least those areas currently recognised by some for of central government priority. These include all development areas, intermediate areas, rural development areas, urban programme areas and derelict land clearance areas. It has, however, always been the intention that other areas would also qualify. An additional category of areas therefore will be those with unemployment above the national average.
The department will be issuing a consultation document in the next couple of days which will give further details of this. We have already had a series of meetings with the local authority associations and have repeatedly invited their suggestions for other areas which might suitably be included. There is no question therefore of the Government trying unduly to restrict the availability of this power.
There is however a very real need to give special consideration to disadvantaged areas, and this is what we are trying to achieve here. Instead of working on the principle which the proposers of the amendment seem to have in mind—to those that hath, give more—we are aiming to focus this type of support on areas of greater need. To permit financial assistance of this nature across the board would

1219
be to risk significantly increasing existing regional disparities.
Of course we recognise that the application of this strict rule would not be appropriate for all levels of grants given under the new power. We propose therefore to have a de minimis limit for such financial assistance outside of the recognised areas. Current thinking favours a figure about £10,000 per annum per recipient; but this will of course be the subject of further consultation. I am sure that this will be welcomed by the local authorities as a useful addition to their powers.
It cannot be stressed enough that the proposed geographical restriction would apply only to the giving of grants, loans and guarantees to profit-oriented business. It would not affect other forms of economic development, such as assistance for training, the development of sites, concessionary rents or indeed the provision of such financial assistance to the voluntary or charitable sector where the recipients are non-profit-making.
In the light of these comments, I am sure that the Committee will agree that this is a sensible and necessary directing of valuable aid to areas of the country most in need of it. There is flexibility built in; and for that reason, and for the reasons I have already outlined, we hope that Members of the Committee will resist the amendment.
9 p.m.
Lord Ross of Newport: I do not know how the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will respond to the Minister's reply. However, it is important that such aid as the noble Lord outlined should be allowed to continue and that there should be flexibility. Having fought successive governments over the designation of assisted area of rural development area status where part of one's constituency was inside but another was not, I know that the local authority knows where the stimulus and help are needed. Some of the schemes outlined by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, are worth while and it would be tragic if they were put at risk. Parts of the Minister's reponse gave me hope, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will pursue the matter.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It was interesting to learn from the Minister that a consultation document will be produced within the next couple of days. In the light of our debate on statutory instruments relating to the Water Act, it is an extraordinary piece of bad timing that the Government have chosen to issue a consultation document two days after the matter has been considered in this Committee. It must raise the question of whether the Government want the Bill and the whole issue to be debated properly in this Committee. How are we to take on trust something that will be issued in two days' time when we have not seen it and do not know of its intentions? It is simply an invitation to us to withdraw the amendment but to bring it back at the Report stage. We certainly cannot be satisfied with the vague assurance that there will be a consultation document
1220
and that local authority associations are being consulted; we know that. It is because they are not satisfied with what is being said to them that they are encouraging us to table these amendments.
I should like to ask the Minister some specific questions which he may now be able to answer. Presumably he has a draft of the consultation document which we are not privileged to see. First, can he assure us that the rate of unemployment which is used as a basis of restriction will not be the whole travel-to-work area, as in my example of London and Heathrow, but will be substantially smaller? At the maximum it should be the borough or district, but rather it should be the small areas in which there are serious pockets of unemployment.
Secondly, what will be the threshold unemployment rate at which authorities will not be permitted to make loans, grants and guarantees? I suggest to the Minister that the threshold should be substantially lower than the national average unemployment rate so that there is no sudden reduction in the number of local authorities which are able to give grants. Certainly it should not be the case that the list of local authorities unable to make grants varies from month to month and year to year according to the unemployment rate.
Thirdly, let us look at the list of restricted areas. In his reply the Minister gave examples but it was not a complete list. Can we be assured that the list of eligible areas will include enterprise zones, urban development corporations and free ports? Can we be sure that it will include not only all of the DTI's assisted areas, including the development and intermediate areas? Will it cover derelict land clearance areas and rural development areas? Will it cover the European Commission's objective 2 and 5B areas or areas in receipt of special European Commission assistance counteracting employment run-down in basic industries such as coal, steel, shipbuilding and textiles?
All those are specific points which have been the subject of negotiation between the local authority associations and the Government. If a consultation paper is to be issued in two days' time the Minister should have specific answers to those points. Can the Minister confirm that if part of an authority's area is included in a designation the economic development powers will be available throughout the district or borough? They ought to be because, as I previously argued, one must often provide employment and help anti-unemployment schemes in adjacent areas or areas with suitable sites rather than in small area where there is a particular problem? Will there be a specific provision enabling more non-qualifying local authorities which use the grant loan or guarantee powers to continue to do so? In other words, will there be any transitional provision?
The Minister ought to be able to answer those questions because they should be answered in the consultation document. Can he confirm that all authorities in all parts of the country will have the option to provide financial assistance to defined

1221
limits? In other words, will there be some kind of de minimis power which will apply in the areas where other powers are no longer to be available?
I have not been able to give the Minister notice of those specific questions. However, he has told the Committee that the thinking of the department is well advanced so I am sure that he will be able to answer them. I am also sure that he will encourage us to think that the Government are treating the matter with the seriousness it deserves and that we shall be able to withdraw the amendment as he suggests.
Lord Hesketh: I suspect that I am in error for having used the phrase "a couple of days". It was too specific and has led the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, to believe that I have a copy of the consultation document with me. Perhaps I was rather too hopeful but the fact is that I do not have a copy of the document. I should have said "a few days".
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, asked about the rate of unemployment and the travel-to-work area. The difficulty that we face is that there are no statistics for less than the whole travel-to-work area which leads to certain problems—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Minister has been badly briefed about employment statistics. Of course, they are brought together in travel-to-work areas, but I hope that he is not seriously telling us that in the whole of London only one employment rate is available for London and a second for Heathrow. That is not the case. Traditionally unemployment statistics were collected by what was called "employment exchange areas" which are now much smaller. There is no shortage of statistics about employment in areas much smaller than travel-to-work areas.
Lord Hesketh: I believe I am correct in saying that there are estimates for the smaller areas but there are not statistics. I believe that to be the case. If I am wrong I will certainly let the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, know and will apologise to him.
The noble Lord asked whether the areas would be confined to travel-to-work areas chosen on the level of unemployment. Of course, there will be inner-urban priority areas such as Haringey which will be included. There will be other tests. The district covering Bridlington, for example, will also be covered. We feel that the noble Lord should not jump to conclusions. He should see the full proposals before condemning them. We might benefit from waiting for the arrival of the consultation document rather than discussing it in absentia.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The only answer to that is that we should now adjourn because it is clear that the proceedings in Committee are incomplete. Are we seriously being told by Ministers on the Government Front Bench in this Committee that we must sit tight and wait and have faith in something that is known already but we cannot be told about?
1222
The consideration of this Bill in Committee is supposed to be the most detailed examination of the legislation, but it is simply incomplete because the Government do not have their act together and cannot produce the consultation document. We are told, first, that it is to be available in a couple of days. Now we are told that it will be available in a few days. I suppose we will find that it is produced immediately the House rises for the Summer Recess. If so, we shall not have a chance to raise the matter in any other parliamentary way.
This is not the way to treat such legislation. It is simply not good enough for us to be brushed aside in this way. I am accused of refusing to believe what the Government say. I am told that must accept assurances based on something I have not seen. That is not the way we should be proceeding. I did not intend to divide the Committee on this amendment but I must now do so.
9.10 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 115M) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 32; Not-Contents, 53.

DIVISION NO. 3

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Airedale, L.

Nicol, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller]

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), L.

Ross of Newport, L.

David, B.

Russell, E.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Seear, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Stedman, B.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Hayter, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hylton, L.

Underhill, L.

Lockwood, B.

Walston, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Whaddon, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

McNair, L.

Winterbottom, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Arran, E.

Hesketh, L.

Balfour, E.

Hives, L.

Bauer, L.

Hooper, B.

Beloff, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Belstead, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Blatch, B.

Joseph, L.

Borthwick, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Caithness, E.

Lawrence, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Carnock, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Craigavon, V.

Margadale, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Mersey, V.

Dundee, E.

Monk Bretton, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Monteagle of Brandon, L

Ferrers, E.

Mottistone, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Mountevans, L.

Greenway, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Gridley, L.

Norfolk, D.

Hailsham of Saint

Romney, E.

Marylebone, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Henley, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

1223

Strange, B.

Trumpington, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Ullswater, V.

Sudeley, L.

Windlesham, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Wynford, L.

Trafford, L.

Young of Graffham, L

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
9.17 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 115N:
Page 40, line 13, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Lord said: This amendment refers to Clause 33(3) which is quite an extraordinary subsection. Let us look for a moment at the existing powers that local authorities have to promote economic development. Under Section 111 of the Local Government Act 1972, local authorities have a subsidiary power including expenditure, borrowing or lending and the acquisition or disposal of property or rights calculated to facilitate, or to be conducive to or incidental to, the discharge of local authority functions.
Under Section 120 of the same Act local authorities have power to acquire land pursuant to their functions or for the benefit, improvement or development of their area. Under Section 142 they have power to provide information and to publicise services in a local authority area. Section 144 provides powers to encourage visitors and to provide conference and other facilities. Section 145 gives powers to provide entertainment including the promotion of arts and crafts. Section 65 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968 gives local authorities power to grant aid and to make available furniture, equipment or other practical assistance for voluntary organisations providing services for the needy.
Under the Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act 1970 local authorities have the power to make available bulk purchase materials and technical or professional assistance. Under the Local Authorities (Land) Act 1963 they have power to develop land and promote development by making advances for the erection of buildings. Under Section 45 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 they have power to enter into arrangements under the Employment and Training Act 1973. All of these are powers which local authorities have effectively brought together and used for something which has not only been an important part of their functions over a considerable period of time but is now in theory recognised by the Government in Clause 32 of the Bill as being an appropriate activity for local authority areas.
Not only do the Government seek to restrict, as they did in the previous amendment, the geographical scope of these activities and to do so in a peculiarly restrictive and overbearing way, but now, under subsection (3) of Clause 33, they propose that:
"The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument impose such a financial limit as may be specified in or determined under the order on the following expenditure, that is to say, such expenditure as",
1224
is intended under Clause 32. I shall not read the rest of the subsection. It is available for Members of the Committee.
Local authorities have responsibly and successfully used these varied powers before, and now the Secretary of State has the power to impose a cash limit on all of this expenditure which in effect can be whatever he likes. On 21st December 1988, the Minister said:
"The Government have considered the question of a financial limit on the use of the new power, to which they referred in the White Paper. They do not consider that the new power should lead to any significant change in the level of local authority activity in this field, since it is intended merely to simplify the framework within which this activity takes place. In these circumstances, they have concluded that it would be inappropriate to set any general financial limits on the use of the power: the general financial disciplines to which local authorities are subject will be sufficient".
What has happened since then? Bureaucracy in Marsham Sreet has taken over more and the idea that local authorities can act responsibly in control of their own expenditure has been cast on one side in this as in so many cases. We now find that, under regulation and by statutory instrument, the Bill gives the Secretary of State the ability to exercise any power he likes, with reference to Parliament but not in a way that Parliament can change, to cut down on what is universally recognised to be a valuable and responsible part of the activities of local government. It is another example—it may not be the worst—of the hatred which some people in the Executive have for local government and for local democracy. It may not be the worst, but it is bad and should not be allowed. Subsection (3) should not be part of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: The noble Lord seeks to persuade us as he has done through this and earlier amendments that the mischief which prompted the establishment of the Widdicombe Committee and prompted a great many of its recommendations is a thing of the past. To the Government, the noble Lord says, "You are shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted". I have no doubt that the noble Lord, who had long and distinguished service in local government until it was abruptly terminated, and his respected leader in another place, Mr. Kinnock, both passionately wish that that were true, that the kind of excesses that were going on in some authorities in the late 1970s and earlier 1980s were a thing of the past, that somehow all that had now been exorcised and that we should never again see the kind of problems which I faced as Secretary of State for the Environment between 1983 and 1985. The Committee would be very unwise to base its decisions on this legislation on the belief that that kind of thinking is founded in reality.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, knows as well as anyone that there were—and, for all I know, there still are—in local government a number of people who regarded local authorities as political instruments with which to challenge central government. They never accepted that the powers of local authorities themselves derive from Parliament and that therefore the proper relationship is one where Parliament lays down the broad framework

1225
and local authorities agree by convention to live within that framework. That used to be the pattern and it was never challenged. However, it has now been challenged and has been challenged, if I may put it this way, to destruction by a number of local authorities. The noble Lord repeatedly referred to Haringey. I can tell him that that was one of the thorns in my flesh.
It may be that under the influence of the Widdicombe Committee, under the influence of the knowledge that this Bill was forthcoming and, perhaps even more, under the influence of the Labour Party which really believes that it can be elected if only the loony Left would keep its head down and keep quiet, people believe we do not need this legislation. We do. It is absolutely right that we should change the framework and regularise the framework within which all these powers have been exercised.
When I come to move the amendment tabled in my name, I shall want to make it clear that there are many such powers which are entirely acceptable. It is right that they should be put into a proper framework, that they should not rest on old legislation which may have been passed with an entirely different intention and that they should be subject to proper control.
I have some sympathy with the noble Lord when he says that too much is being left to regulations. The problem is that if we tried to spell it all out in the Bill, we would end up with a Bill which would be a thousand clauses long. I am sure that the noble Lord would be the first to complain about that. It is not of the volition of the Conservative Party, or of this Government, that they have been forced to legislate in far greater particularity than any previous government; it is because they were confronted up and down the country with local authorities which seemed to be determined to use every possible way to challenge the accepted conventions by which—and I say this with complete sincerity—the majority of local authorities have always been perfectly happy to abide.
But, unfortunately, it was a case of the bad driving out the good in a sense in that the excesses of the extremists have required the regulation of the vast majority of moderate, sensible authorities. I regret this as much as anyone else. Subsection (3) is a good example of the kind of control which has now become necessary. The Committee would be deluding itself if it believed with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that this is all a thing of the past and that we do not need any of these powers. Regretfully, I have to say that we do. I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will stand firm on the matter.
Lord Hylton: Of course there have been abuses in local government, and no doubt some of them go back a very long time. Nevertheless, it is not possible to deceive every electorate indefinitely; eventually they see when local authorities are exceeding their brief or are using local questions to conduct national campaigns.
1226
If this Government persist, as they seem to do, in pruning, clipping and restraining the powers, the discretion and the responsibility of local authorities, very soon they will find themselves in a position where no valid candidates, no excellent citizens, are prepared to put themselves forward for election to local authorities, and where the quality of local government officers will deteriorate from year to year. When that process has—alas and unfortunately—gone far enough forward, it will then be necessary to recast the whole system. We shall need some form of regional government, perhaps on the West German model.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: The amendment seeks to delete the power in Clause 33(3) for the Secretary of State to impose a financial limit on expenditure by an individual authority under the new economic development power.
Let me assure the noble Lord that that is very much a reserve power. Its sole effect is to enable the Secretary of State to deal with any problems arising from excessive expenditure by a particular local authority, or authorities, if such a situation should occur. When the new power was announced, the Minister said that we knew of no situation at present which would justify the use of the power; that remains the case.
The new economic development power is very general in its scope and is free from the financial limits which some would like to have seen imposed. We feel that the introduction of a reserve power strikes the right balance between, on the one hand, the Government's desire not to frustrate local economic development initiatives and, on the other, the very sensible desire to guard against possible abuse. It would, for example, be extremely foolhardy if we were to find ourselves unable to intervene in a situation where one local authority was spending an inordinate amount of money on employment creation within its own area with a disproportionate effect of undermining the situation in neighbouring areas.
We are not introducing the new power with a view to increasing local government's expenditure on economic development. I repeat that this is a rationalisation exercise. We do not want to be saying to local government, "We are replacing your old, financially restricted powers with a new power with no financial limit", as that would clearly send the wrong message with regard to the level of overall expenditure. What we are in fact saying to local government is, "Steady as she goes". If local authorities recognise that message, then there will be no occasion to resort to the reserve power.
It is essential therefore that the reserve power is included in the Bill. I strongly urge the Committee to reject the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am always grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, for his reference to my career in local government. He seems to be stuck on one point. He seems to know nothing else; but, nevertheless, it is nice to hear that he has

1227
absorbed that fact. His contribution was extraordinary. He seems to believe that it is in the Labour Party's interests to pretend that abuses in local government have disappeared and that there is no problem over abuses of power by local authorities. He has forgotten that the classic example of the abuse of power by a local authority is the current example, which is that of the City of Westminster.
When we considered Clause 4 last week, I wondered why the Government were being so restrictive. The only answer which occurred to me when we were considering the role of the head of the paid service was that the Government had already anticipated that Lady Porter and the Westminster City Council would come under the deserved, justified and well-documented fire of television and of investigations into the propriety of their sale of the cemeteries for £1 which they are now seeking to buy back at £5·5 million. Oh yes! There are abuses by local authorities, and especially in the local authority in which we are now situated.
Rather than seek to drag up history and make political capital, it would be better if those on the Government Benches here and in another place were to look at what is happening around them.
I shall return to the more substantive issue, which is the reply. He quoted what the Minister said on 21st December 1988; that the power was intended as a reserve power since the Government were not aware of any current circumstances which would justify the use of such a power. Will the Minister tell us under what circumstances he sees the use of such a power? Eight months have passed since that statement was made. Surely they have been collecting a dossier of abuses of power, particularly by Labour local authorities. There must be Labour local authorities which are abusing the powers to create a better economic life for the citizens in their area. I do not want many examples—just a few—of abuses of the power to promote economic development. I shall gladly give way to the Minister. It is clearly his responsibility to show us what abuses there are.
Lord Hesketh: We have to take Clause 33 with Clause 32. It is perfectly clear that it will be rather hard to have a dossier concerning an abuse of power under the new situation that will pertain after the Bill becomes an Act. It is rather difficult to create a dossier before the Bill becomes an Act, and we live in the new world of enlightenment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That is very nice to know. How are we to be assured that this subsection provides only a reserve power? It does not say anything about a reserve power. It says:
"The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument impose such a financial limit as may be specified … on"—
not only such expenditure as—
"is of a description so specified or determined".
In other words, the statutory instrument will say, "This is the kind of expenditure we don't like. This is the amount of expenditure we're going to permit and no more". But then it goes on to say, not only,
"by virtue of section 32 above"—
1228
which is what the Minister referred to—but,
"or any other enactment".
Retrospective legislation? Any examples of other legislation to which I referred which has been legitimately, properly and responsibly used by local authorities for a period of 20 years can be taken out by a regulation made by the Minister by statutory instrument. He can amend not only this Bill but all other Acts as he thinks fit. Is that a precedent which we should like to see pursued—to have a regulation-making power given to a Minister to amend not only this Act but any other enactment? I am glad to hear a defence of this new constitutional principle.
Earl Lytton: When the Minister comes to reply, perhaps he would like to say what is the meaning of "any financial year". How far back can it extend or how far forward?
Lord Hesketh: We seem to have strayed some way from reality, I fear. We have now forgotten about parliamentary control itself. As I pointed out in my original reply to the amendment, it is a fact that it would be very foolhardy of the Government if they got themselves into a position where they could not intervene in a situation where one local authority was spending unlimited sums of money. That has always been the case. When we discussed this before dinner my noble friends Lord Jenkin and Lord Renton pointed out that we could not possibly introduce the flexiblity that we have endeavoured to achieve without control.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: There are two overwhelming answers to that. The first is that of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, who said that in the end there is no free ticket to over-expenditure. Those who spend too much money will have to face the ballot box in the end; they will have to face re-election. If they have behaved wrongly in their electors' view, they will be kicked out. That is the first answer.
The second answer is that there are very extensive capital controls in Part IV of the Bill—those are enormously complicated powers based again on regulation-making. In Part IV there are 15 new regulatory powers for the Secretary of State which control local authority expenditure. In the view of the Minister, those are not enough to make it possible for him not have what he calls reserve powers. They are not reserve powers, they are dictatorial powers given to the Secretary of State to override not only the Bill before the Committee but also any other enactment. That cannot be acceptable. I commend the amendment to the Committee.
9.40 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 115N) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 23; Not-Contents, 45.

DIVISION NO. 4

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

David, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Dean of Beswick, L. [Teller.]

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

1229

Hayter, L.

Ross of Newport, L.

Hylton, L.

Russell, E.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Seear, B.

Lawrence, L.

Stedman, B.

Lockwood, B.

Thomson of Monifieth, L

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Underhill, L.

McNair, L.

Walston, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Whaddon, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS

Arran, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Balfour, E.

Carnock, L.

Bauer, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Beloff, L.

Denham, L. [Teller]

Blatch, B.

Dundee, E.

Borthwick, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L

1230

Glenarthur, L.

Mottistone, L

Gray of Contin, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Norfolk, D.

Henley, L.

Romney, E.

Hesketh, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L

Hives, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hooper, B.

Strange, B.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Sudeley, L.

Joseph, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Trafford, L.

Long, V.

Trumpington, B.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Ullswater, V.

Mersey, V.

Wynford, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Young of Graffham, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
9.48 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 115NA to 115Q not moved.]
Clause 33 agreed to.
Clause 34 [Guidance and consultation about promotion of economic development]:
Lord Jenkin of Roding Lord Jenkin of Roding moved Amendment No. 115R:
Page 40, line 46, leave out from second ("to") to end of line 49 and insert ("persons and bodies appearing to it to be representative of persons subject to non-domestic rates under sections 43 and 45 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 as regards hereditaments situated in the authority's area and to such other persons carrying on commercial, industrial or public undertakings in their area as they consider appropriate;").
The noble Lord said: We come now to the clause sidelined and accurately described as:
"Guidance and consultation about promotion of economic development".
It may be for the convenience of the Committee if at the same time we discuss Amendment No. 115S.
The arrangements for consultation of, if I may use a compendious phrase, the representatives of industry and commerce on the economic development plans of a local authority are, for some reason which I have to confess I do not understand, markedly different from those spelt out in a Bill we considered in the last Session which became the Local Government Finance Act in relation to consultation on the levels of expenditure and the national non-domestic rate.
The Government would acknowledge, I believe, that commerce very much welcomes the clarification of the powers of economic development which are contained in this group of clauses. This has been an area of great uncertainty and, as I indicated in a brief intervention a moment ago, a good deal of controversy and acrimony.
So far as concerns Clause 34, representatives of industry and commerce very much welcome the fact that local authorities will now have to draw up an economic development programme in a specific document. The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, complained a few moments ago that it would be difficult and that they had to react quickly. He asked how they could do that. All that is wanted here is a framework. As any businesman would argue, if a local authority starts spending significant sums of money, it must have objectives and a clear framework within which to make plans.
Secondly, the representatives welcome the fact that, as the clause provides, the expenditure is to be attributed to specific proposals in the programme. Perhaps most important of all, they have to set out what the expenditure is intended to achieve. One of the lessons that I learnt in government is the setting of objectives. It is widely practised in industry. One cannot decide whether one has achieved one's purpose unless one has spelt it out at the beginning and can therefore test the results against the objectives. In all those respects, therefore, Clause 34 seems a great advance on what has gone before.
However, when we come to the provisions dealing with consultation I must say that I share the view that the clause is flawed. Everything that has been said on both sides of the Committee in discussing Clause 32 and the following clauses is that economic development in a local authority area must be carried out in partnership between the public and private sectors. Part of the objection to the way in which some authorities use their powers is that they seem to do so, as it were, in the teeth of the private sector, ignoring and in some cases virtually thrusting it aside. As I understood it, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, argued that that was not the right way to do it and that local authorities must have their powers in order that they may collaborate effectively with the private sector. One of the more encouraging features of developments in the last two or three years is that that has become very much the pattern in most local authority areas.
If that is the case, the plans when drawn up must clearly be the subject of effective consultation with the local business community. The sums of money involved may be quite substantial. Perhaps more than in some other aspects of local government spending, they have a direct and immediate impact on the conduct of business by firms in their area. The case for consultation is particularly strong in relation to economic development. If we are talking about the development of the local economy, businesses may have a great deal of advice and wisdom to offer to local government in deciding the best way forward.
Given that fact, it is perhaps not unreasonable that one might have expected to see the consultation clause drawn up closely in parallel with what is now Section 134 of the Local Government Finance Act which provides for consultation on expenditure generally and on the national non-domestic rate. Those provisions were drawn up in the light of experience with the statutory rates consultation. That was part of the Rates Act of 1984 which I introduced and took through the other House.
However, Clause 34 does not follow the Section 134 provisions in three respects. First, under Clause 34, there is no duty to consult; it is discretionary. That seems to me to be quite inexplicable because economic development involves the business community perhaps more than other areas of local government spending. Secondly, unlike Section 134, it does not spell out that the consultation should be with bodies representative of industrial and commercial undertakings in their area. That seems to be the normal way. Chambers of commerce and chambers of trade may be involved and, in a large city, there may be branches of the CBI or other employer organisations that have a great deal to offer. This clause simply suggests that the local authority should consult with those who appear appropriate for such consultation.
Thirdly, the clause does not provide, as does Section 134, that the practice of consultation should be underpinned by guidance from the Secretary of State. In short, these clauses are far too permissive.

1233
They enable authorities to make their economic development programmes simply:
"available to commercial [and] industrial … undertakings in their area as they consider appropriate and to such other persons as they think it desirable to consult".
That is simply not acceptable to the business world, which is very anxious to collaborate with local authorities, who recognise that this partnership for economic development has very great value. There are some marvellous examples to be found around the country. However, this clause does not give the necessary and appropriate degree of protection.
There is a reference in the clause to guidance but it relates to the purposes of the expenditure and not to the method, timing or manner of consultation. Section 134 of the Local Government Finance Act sought to spell that out with greater particularity.
Somebody might ask: "What is wrong with using the Section 134 power to consult?" The fact of the matter is that a local authority would not be bound to bring an economic development programme as such within the ambit of the consultations or to distinguish spending under this head from the generality of an authority's spending when it is setting its budget.
I think that business might reasonably have expected that there would be a parallel power or duty to consult with the same kind of people. If the local authority wishes to consult more widely then by all means let it do so; no one will quarrel with that. But there should be a duty to consult with those who are representative of the business interests in their area and that might well be additional to the generalised power contained in Section 134 of the 1980 Act.
The present proposals in fact do neither of those things. The two amendments with which we are now dealing are intended to amend the Bill so that the duty to consult in relation to economic development is, if I am allowed to use the phrase, mutatis mutandis, the same as the power to consult on rates and expenditure. For the life of me I cannot see why it should be different.
Local authorities have now become very accustomed to the statutory consultation procedure on expenditure and on rates. I cannot see why they would object to the idea of having the same kind of procedures operating in relation to their economic development plans. I therefore hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will perhaps undertake to look at this matter again and come back on Report with something that reflects more clearly the wishes of bodies such as the Association of British Chambers of Commerce and others which have been pressing the Government to make this change. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I rise only to welcome what the noble Lord has said about the co-operation between local authorities and the private sector. I
1234
hope that he will be in his place for the rest of this evening and on Wednesday afternoon when we discuss Part V of the Bill. It is our view that Part V of the Bill creates very major obstacles to the kind of collaboration with the private sector, and indeed with the voluntary sector, which I believe that he and we all wish. I hope that he will support the amendments that we shall put forward to improve collaboration between local authorities and the private sector.
10 p.m.
Lord Ross of Newport: I have no objection to these amendments. However, I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, that to oblige authorities in some areas to discuss with chambers of commerce that are totally moribund is a bit much. I set up an enterprise agency. I was advised by the industries involved in the enterprise agency—I wanted it to be taken over by a chamber of commerce—that no such thing should happen. The chamber of commerce was so decrepit that it was not worth consulting. I am a non-domestic ratepayer. To say that we have to consult people whom we know have very little to contribute is not very clever. They may be stronger in some areas but that is not my experience.
What is wrong with the trade unions and work councils? Can they not be consulted too?
Lord Jenkin of Roding: Perhaps I may respond to the noble Lord. The trade unions are a different case. This clause is concerned with the consultation with the representatives of industry and commerce, and of employers. Section 134 of the Local Government Finances Act 1988 states:
"A relevant authority shall consult under this section persons or bodies appearing to it to be representative of persons subject to non-domestic rates".
One has obviously to have different words because people will be affected by the economic development plans of the authority. But that provision seems perfectly adequate to relieve a local authority from any obligation to consult a completely moribund chamber of commerce or chamber of trade. It would have to find out who was representative of the people who were interested and consult them.
This provision imposes on the authorities a reasonable duty. It is a good deal clearer and more specific than the very vague words which are in the clause at the moment.
Lord Hesketh: These two amendments bring us to Clause 34 of the Bill, which provides for local authorities to decide before the beginning of each financial year whether or not they are going to undertake any expenditure under the economic development power. If they decide to do so then they are required to draw up a programme of their proposed activities and consult those carrying on commercial, industrial and public undertakings in their area and anyone else they wish to about their proposals. We feel that the opportunity to consider a programme of activities and to discuss it with those whom it will affect will be a useful exercise for local authorities and should lead to a properly planned and well-focused use of the new power. In

1235
fact, we suspect that in many cases local authorities already undertake such preparatory work, and by putting this on the face of the Bill we are merely asking them to build on current good practice.
The amendments address a particular aspect of the consultation programme—who should be consulted? As it stands, Clause 34(3) says that local authorities should make their programme available for consultation to,
"such of the persons carrying on commercial, industrial and public undertakings in their area as they think appropriate and to such other persons as they think it desirable".
The onus is on the local authority as being best placed to decide who should be consulted as representative of the area's interests in economic development.
The amendments align the consultation process more closely to that of the consultation procedures that are to take place on the non-domestic rates under Section 134 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 to which my noble friend Lord Jenkin drew our attention. Thus it widens considerably the categories of those who are to be consulted. The amendments would require authorities to consult all those considered to be representative of the non-domestic ratepayer. This would include not only members of the local business community, who must surely have the main interest in economic development, but also other important non-domestic ratepayers such as health and education authorities, which are not involved in commerce and industry.
During the Committee proceedings in another place the question of who should be consulted was raised on behalf of the chambers of commerce. I understand that this amendment has been tabled with the same point in mind. I would be the first to recognise that a good, well-organised chamber of commerce would be the ideal forum to use to discuss proposals for promoting economic development in an area. It would have the local knowledge plus the business expertise to see exactly what would be in the best interests of the area.
The clause as drafted leaves it to local authorities to decide who they should consult as representative of the business community. I am sure that in those cases where it is appropriate they will consult their local chamber of commerce. Nevertheless, the noble Lord has a good point, though I am not quite sure that these amendments as drafted would achieve what he is aiming for. I should like to take away his suggestions to see what solution might be arrived at to ensure that chambers of commerce will be consulted as a matter of course on local authorities' proposals.
It would also be opportune for me to say a few words about the relationship between this consultative process and that required under the Local Government Finance Act 1988. There is obviously scope for overlap here, although there will in fact be more detailed guidance in regulations on the non-domestic rate procedures. If local authorities did want to combine the two exercises, I can see no reason why they should not as inevitably some of the same expenditure plans will be under consideration with the same people. Again, it is for local authorities
1236
to decide what is most appropriate for their circumstances. I assure the Committee that any circular we may issue on the proposals will remind local authorities that it would be sensible housekeeping to combine the two exercises at the same time, so far as they are able. I hope that with those reassurances my noble friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I am indebted to my noble friend for his forthcoming reply. The idea that the consultation might proceed in parallel is very good. I should like to take advice on that. I am grateful for his undertaking to consider whether there is some way in which the point can be met, and no doubt we shall be able to return to this matter on Report. With that, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 115S to 115U not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 34 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Ross of Newport: I regret that I did not give notice that I wished to speak on Clause 34 stand part. I apologise for doing so at this late hour. I draw attention to what I believe is a total nonsense in Clause 34(2) where it reads as follows:
"It shall be the duty of a relevant authority, before the beginning of each financial year, to determine whether they will take any steps in that year for the promotion of the economic development of their area".
As I said earlier, closures happen very suddenly and a local authority may have decided that it did not intend to play any part in economic development. I believe that subsection (2) is wrong. I do not propose to pursue that now, but I give notice that I wish to raise this matter on Report and perhaps the Government will consider it in the interim.
Lord Hesketh: I believe that I can put the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Ross, at rest, which would prevent him having to think about it as we approach Report. What he has in mind is the unforeseen event such as the closure of a major employer in a locality. In such a case local authorities may quite properly wish to help in a number of ways. They might wish to support retraining for redundant personnel or fund redevelopment of a vacant site for other industrial purposes. They may wish to encourage other business interests in the area, and that too could be done in a number of ways. I cite in particular one example which was mentioned in another place where the council as a rating authority remitted payment due from an undertaking in respect of non-domestic rates. I believe that Clause 34 as drafted does not prevent that.
The duty imposed by Clause 34(3) is a duty to draw up a programme of proposals which it would like to undertake and consult on with those whom it feels to be representative of the local business community. This does not imply that some activity which is required during the course of the year cannot take place as the authority would still have satisfied the requirement to consult on the proposals that it had in mind at the beginning of the year.
Lord Ross of Newport: I am grateful for that assurance. I shall not be raising this matter on Report.
Clause 34 agreed to.
Clause 35 [Amendments of existing power to incur discretionary expenditure]:
Lord Hayter Lord Hayter moved Amendment No. 115V:
Page 42, line 19, after ("(4AA)") insert ("Subject to subsection (4AB) below,").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is associated with the other amendment with the rather frivolous number of 115ZZ. That amendment explains what we are trying to achieve. We want to persuade the Minister that transitional protection should be available for the local authorities who are losers in the amount of the Section 137 money that they can spend after the new system is in operation. Under my proposal, they would be able to spend up to the old limit for three years thus enabling them to control their funding programmes more sensibly.
Those Members who are involved with voluntary organisations—which I represent today—will know that Section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972 was of great importance to them. The discretionary funding power enables local authorities to incur expenditure which in their opinion is in the interests of their area. However, expenditure under that power is limited to the product of a 2p rate.
Section 137 is so important because it enables local authorities to fund new projects outside their statutory powers. One of the great virtues of voluntary organisations is that they are able to identify gaps in the current provisions and to highlight those needs. They can also devise new ways of delivering services. In other words, they are often ahead of the legislative framework within which local authorities function.
I shall not elaborate; but, for example, the information technology centres provide training in new technology. They were started 10 years ago by a voluntary organisation with the help of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham. The organisation has been taken up by the Government and today there are more than 100 such centres.
The economic development about which we have been talking for a long time this evening was not at first a statutory function of local government but it is now. Therefore, the Government have accepted it. Both those examples show how important Section 137 is to the voluntary sector. It would be most unfortunate if in any way the Bill undermined the ability of local authorities to exercise their discretionary power.
My concern is shared by many voluntary organisations. It is that perhaps inadvertently Clause 35 could have that effect, particularly in the short term. For that reason, I propose the transitional period of three years. I believe that it would be a prudent step to take and one which would bring a great relief to a number of voluntary organisations.
Clauses 32 and 35 introduce many changes, as we have already heard. It will take a great deal of time before those changes improve the situation; some
1238
may well make it worse. Not surprisingly, the changes are causing great uncertainty and confusion in voluntary organisations and in local authorities which are concerned that they may have to cut funding to the organisations because of the overall reductions in their spending limits.
Therefore, what is needed by the local authorities is more time. They need time to examine all the different powers which are available to them and to make absolutely certain that they are not using Section 137 when they should be using another power. They need time to clarify the precise nature of the work which the voluntary organisations are carrying out so that they can apportion their grants between all the relevant powers available to them. They need time to compile their community charge registers so that they can calculate the number of adults in their area and work out the Section 137 spending limit—and that is a sensible suggestion! They need time to build all those processes into their budget-making cycle. And they need time to give the voluntary organisations ample warning to make alternative arrangements or to give staff notice if it turns out that the new limits mean that the local authority cannot continue to fund them.
Without sufficient time local authorities must make rushed decisions on inadequate information and with no consultation. The victims of that process will be the voluntary organisations. Therefore we are asking for more time.
I remember that when we discussed the community charge Bill I saved the Government a lot of money by abandoning the transitional arrangements for the City of London and several London boroughs. Now in return, and in a more minor sphere, I ask the Government to give to the voluntary organisations that transitional arrangement under this Bill. I have been advised by, among others, the National Council for Voluntary Organisations. I can assure the Committee that it is anxious about the position. I hope that the Minister will be able to relieve that anxiety. I beg to move.
10.15 p.m.
Baroness Stedman: I support these amendments so ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hayter. In many parts of the country the new proposals to replace Section 137 money will not create problems for voluntary organisations but some authorities, particularly the inner-London boroughs and some of the shire district authorities, who fund a large number of voluntary bodies will have problems. There will be problems especially when one tier of local government decides to fund projects which are the responsibility of another tier of local government. I am thinking, for example, of some cases of sheltered housing, some aspects of transport and, indeed, crime prevention.
Discretionary funding power is extremely important. It gives to authorities the power to be flexible, to innovate and to be able to respond quickly to the changed circumstances in their areas. A clear case was made by the noble Lord, Lord Hayter, for this transitional protection to enable the voluntary organisations to know where they stand and to be able to adjust their plans accordingly.

1239
The impact of the changes on the parish councils will vary considerably. Nationally, the spending limit will be broadly as it is with the 2p rate limit, but the local councils—the parishes—who will suffer most will be those with high business rates. Under the Section 137 powers they will lose out in terms of actual income. That in turn will have an impact on those voluntary organisations which are funded by the lower tier authorities. The London boroughs and the shire district councils with high rateable values now but low populations will suffer the most. For places like Brighton, Harlow or even Leicester, the change from a high rateable value-based calculation to a population-based calculation will hit them hard.
The Government have said that they do not want the changes to Section 137 to result in cuts. If the Government want to guarantee that that does not happen they should support these amendments and accept them for the transitional protection that they give to the voluntary organisations.
Lord Hylton: I support these amendments so well moved and explained by the noble Lord, Lord Hayter. I speak as chairman of a local charitable foundation in a rural area. Some years ago now we invented a new type of person to meet a particular need. That person is called the village contact person—a kind of miniaturised CAB, scaled down to what is needed in a village. This is particularly useful when one lives on the borders of three district councils, three counties, one health authority and one police area with overlapping and conflicting boundaries and catchment areas.
This new invention has been able to point perplexed citizens in the right direction to obtain assistance where needed. The concept has been accepted by the local authorities in question and it is even beginning to be studied and imitated in other areas. Transitional protection is needed and I urge the Government to accept the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It is sometimes said that in times of economic hardship the rich are uncomfortable, the middle class suffer and the poor starve. At times of fiscal uncertainty and uncertainty in public expenditure, central government are uncomfortable, local authorities suffer and the voluntary organisations starve. I hope that the Government will look sympathetically at these important amendments, which are not enormously costly and which were so well moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hayter.
The Earl of Balfour: I wish to raise a matter that concerns me very much. Clause 35(9) applies to Scotland and that is why I looked at it rather carefully. What intrigues me here is that a purely English Act is amending a purely Scottish Act. At the top of page 42 the Scottish Act is amending the English Act. From what I can gather the idea of this clause is to try to bring the legislation north and south of the Border into line, and the idea arose from the problems of the Lockerbie air disaster.
As I understand the situation, as legislation exists in a different way north and south of the Border, English local authorities could not contribute to the
1240
fund unless they were sponsored by someone in England. Under Section 137 of the English Local Government Act 1972, the people who can begin a voluntary fund are,
"the Lord Mayor of London or the chairman of a principal council or by a committee of which the Lord Mayor of London or the chairman of a principal council is a member".
As I say, I am not familiar with English legislation. I am not quite certain whether a parish or community council would be regarded as a principal council. Under Section 83(3)(c) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, the people concerned are the,
"chairman of a regional, islands or district council, a chairman of a community council".
In England and Scotland community councils are rather different. In Scotland they have no statutory functions, and, so far as I know, in England they have functions.
So far as I know, there are Lord Lieutenants in England and Scotland. I do not know whether they have different functions. If this is the case then it is rather nice to know that they are being brought in equally on both sides of the Border. Another qualified body is that of which,
"any of these persons is a member".
I believe that in law there is a difference between a person being a member of a body and a committee member of a body. I think there may be a difference in legislation.
I realise the principles that an attempt is being made to achieve in this clause. It is very good because provision on both sides of the Border should be the same, and so far as I am concerned that should also apply to England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland. The clause has been drafted in such a peculiar way. When I have been in Scotland, on many occasions I have had tremendous help from the officials of my own East Lothian District Council.
However, we cannot make head or tail of the clause. Today I have managed to get some information; but I wonder whether the drafting of the clause is such that it will lead to confusion. What will happen with a disaster or charitable fund or a development fund of some kind which is set up, for argument's sake, south of the Border and to which the Scots would like to contribute, or north of the Border to which English people would like to contribute? When one reads the clause as it stands in regard to the position of the two countries, one becomes lost.
Lord Hesketh: The purpose of these amendments is to insert a new subsection (4AB) which would provide that where the financial limit on the new per capita basis for calculating the annual limit of local authority expenditure under Section 137—set out in subsection (4AA)—is less than that obtaining in the financial year commencing 1st April 1988, the former limit shall continue to be the limit for a period of three years from the commencement of these provisions. I think it may assist the Committee in considering the merits or otherwise of the amendment if I first explain how the new financial limits were arrived at. The change to a per capita limit is of course intended to bring the Section 137

1241
power in line with the way in which the community charge is calculated. It will bring to the expenditure under this power the same benefits as the community charge will bring to local authority expenditure generally. It will relate more closely to the needs of the area than a system based on rateable values which may give a distorted spending limit in relation to the needs of an area's population.
The precise sums that we have proposed for the limits take into account a number of important factors. First and foremost the limits reflect the parallel proposals in Part III of the Bill to introduce a new general power for local authority economic development activity, which we have already discussed. That new power will, as the Committee knows, not be subject to any general financial limits. It is worth noting that economic development activity has in recent years accounted for a significant proportion of expenditure nationally under Section 137. In fact, the Widdicombe Committee's research revealed that in 1984–85 economic development accounted for about two-thirds of Section 137 spending. We have no reason to suspect that the proportions have changed significantly since then. The removal of this large amount of activity from Section 137 to a new general power not subject to annual financial limits makes a real difference to the figure appropriate for the Section 137 limit.
Secondly, we have been concerned for some time about the extent to which Section 137 powers have been used by some local authorities for certain peripheral activities that appear unconnected with their functions. We recognise the importance of Section 137 powers for local authorities to be able to respond to local circumstances for which they have no specific powers. By nature the power gives local authorities a degree of competence over and above that provided specifically by Parliament. That is why annual expenditure is restricted by a financial limit.
Most local authorities do of course use the power, not as a means of extending their powers but to respond in a limited way to particular local needs. This is supported by information collected centrally by the Department of the Environment which shows that in 1984–85 average expenditure under Section 137 was only some 32 per cent. of the total national headroom available. Moreover, in that year only 21 out of 511 local authorities spent more than 80 per cent. of their limit. In 1986–87 a similar picture emerges, with only 26 authorities of the responding authorities spending more than 80 per cent. of their available headroom. Again, I stress that much of this was on economic development which will in future be outside Section 137.
In the light of these considerations we have proposed that the national aggregate headroom for Section 137 should be regarded as some £200 million for principal authorities. This provides for a limit of £5 per head of adult population in all areas of the country. Bearing in mind what I have already said about economic development activity being removed from the scope of Section 137, and the fact that fewer than five per cent. of authorities have
1242
spent anywhere near their limits, I can only suggest that we have the proposed limits about right.
There will of course be some local authorities who will lose some Section 137 headroom under the new arrangements, and this is the thrust of this amendment. This reveals however the disparity between the two arrangements. Under the existing arrangements an area with a high rateable value would have a high Section 137 limit irrespective of the level of population making demands on the power. The areas which may lose headroom under the new arrangements will almost certainly be those which previously benefited from an artificially high limit because of a high rateable value. Our proposals will remove the anomaly.
Nevertheless, we are prepared to look closely at any local authorities who think that the new limits will cause them particular difficulties. I can assure Members of the Committee that, although the proposals have been public for over a year, no local authority has asked for any transitional arrangements. No such representations have been made to date. We believe that the Bill as drafted already provides sufficient flexibility to provide transitional arrangements if any should be needed.
I also suggest that the transitional arrangements proposed in the amendment are not suitable. They allow spending to continue at the 1988 level for three years and then impose a sudden change. Any transitional arrangements should surely allow for a smooth change rather than simply postpone a sudden change. I therefore suggest that the amendment is not appropriate. The proposals in the Bill relate headroom for spending more precisely to need. Local authorities have to date not asked for any transitional arrangements. If they do, their case will be considered and provision can be made under the Bill as it stands.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Hayter: I am much obliged to the Minister for his thoughtful and very full explanation of the Government's attitude towards this proposal. However, I think I made it clear that I was thinking more of the voluntary organisations than the local authorities. I think therefore that I should consult with the voluntary organisations to ascertain what they feel as a result of the Government's statement. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 115W:
Page 42, line 20, leave out ("different") and insert ("higher").
The noble Lord said: This is the First of two sets of amendments which are concerned with the actual limits for expenditure proposed as a replacement of the old Section 137 powers. I remind Members of the Committee that this is the amount of money which can be spent and which has been spent—I would almost say from time immemorial—for many years by local authorities, not in accordance with any particular powers but in accordance with their rights to spend money in the interests of their neighbourhood.
When I say "many years", the original figure used to be the old sixpenny rate but with decimalisation it became a 2p rate. It is certainly true that the original Section 137 power included provision for the Secretary of State to vary the figure by order either upwards or downwards. But to the best of my knowledge it has never been varied downwards. When the Widdicombe Committee came to look at the figure, it undertook an inquiry, especially in the light of the abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan counties. The committee came to the conclusion that the figure set in the 1976 Act was about right.
A considerable number of local authorities spend very much less than their Section 137 powers will allow. I am sure that noble Lords from Scotland will forgive me if, for the sake of simplicity, I use the English example rather than the Scottish one contained in the 1973 Scottish Act. About 20 per cent. of local authorities spend 80 per cent. or more of the amount allowed by their powers. That fact, and the research carried out, led the Widdicombe Committee to conclude that the level set out was about right.
The committee then suggested that the level should be varied for the new single-tier authorities which were to be set up after the abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan counties. But the committee wanted to ensure that the total amount available, especially regarding voluntary organisations about which we have been talking, did not decrease.
As I said, the Government have never actually reduced the figure, despite having the power to do so. We should now like an assurance, preferably on the face of the Bill although we should be happy to hear it from the Minister, that the Government do not plan to use the powers they will be given to reduce the amounts of money involved, either in real or money terms, unless there were wholly unforeseen circumstances. I hope that the Minister will be able to give such an assurance and so enable me to withdraw the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: Amendment No. 115W concerns the financial limits for expenditure under Section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972. That is the discretionary spending power available to all local authorities, including parish councils, to incur expenditure on anything which they consider to be in the interests of their area or to all or some of their inhabitants but for which they have no specific powers. Annual expenditure is subject to a financial limit currently based on the product of a 2p rate. That is to be replaced by a financial limit calculated on a per capita basis to be consistent with the community charge.
Amendment No. 115W concerns specifically the power of the Secretary of State to vary the financial limits under Section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972. Subsection (7) of Clause 35 inserts a new subsection (4AA) to Section 137 so that the Secretary of State can make an order to specify a different sum for a particular description of authority. Amendment No. 115W proposes that the Secretary of State should be empowered only to specify a higher sum.
1244
The amendment limits the flexibility of the Secretary of State to vary the financial limits. Let me reassure the Committee straight away by saying that I can see no reason under present circumstances for the power to be used for a general reduction in the financial limits under Section 137. The Secretary of State has had the power to vary Section 137 limits up or down since 1972 and has never used it. I think that that is proof enough of our good intentions.
The Committee will, however, be aware of a particular case which arises from the passage of the Bill through another place which will require the Section 137 limits to be altered. That is the decision to change the limits in the London boroughs and metropolitan districts only to reflect spending under Section 48 of the Local Government Act 1985 which in any other parts of the country would be authorised under Section 137.
We shall be discussing that aspect in more detail when we discuss a later amendment. Very briefly, however, we propose to make an adjustment to Section 137 limits of those authorities who are within Section 48 scheme areas broadly equivalent to their expenditure under Section 48 which otherwise would have had to score against their Section 137 limit. That is administratively simpler than our original proposals and reflects our wish not to place unnecessary administrative burdens on Section 48 support of voluntary organisations.
If Amendment No. 115W were accepted, that approach would not be possible. Local authorities who administer Section 48 schemes have welcomed the Government's new approach and it would be a pity if we needed to look for an alternative solution which would certainly have additional administrative consequences for the land districts of those sectors. That is just one example of the need for flexibility in such matters and I would not wish it to be jeopardised by an amendment such as this. For those reasons, we resist the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am reasonably satisfied by that reply. I am glad to learn that there are no foreseeable circumstances under which the Secretary of State would exercise his power to make a general reduction in the limits. I am also interested by what the Minister said about the Section 48 position. That may enable us to cut short the debate on Amendment No. 116A. Without further ado, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 115X:
Page 42, line 23, leave out ("£2·50") and insert ("£4·00").
The noble Lord said: I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 115Y and 115Z. The amendments again, refer back to Widdicombe's research on the scale of Section 137, or Section 83 of the Scottish Act, spending. As I hinted earlier, it was indicated that the average expenditure under those powers was only 32 per cent. of the ceiling. So we do not in general have local authorities pushing against that ceiling. Twenty-one authorities were spending more than 80 per cent. of the permissible limit. If we do our sums correctly, and work back to

1245
the position when Widdicombe did his research, we would come to a rather higher figure than that which has been provided by the Government in Clause 35. The calculation which was the basis of Widdicombe's recommendation was that there should be permitted expenditure in 1984–85 of about £3·70 per head of population, which was equivalent to £4 at current prices—in other words, current prices when the Widdicombe Report was produced. Consequently, if we consider it in the light of inflation from that time, we should have a figure on page 42, line 23 of £4, in line 25 of £8 and line 28 of £4, rather than the figures which are at present on the face of the Bill.
I hope that the Government will feel that they ought now, in the middle of 1989, to give a full uprating of Widdicombe's figures. It was very detailed research, rationally thought out, and I have indicated the results if he were reporting now. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: Perhaps I may make a break from precedent and apologise to my noble friend Lord Balfour who raised a lengthy and complex technical matter not entirely to do with the amendment which we were previously discussing. I suggest that perhaps I may write a letter to him covering his fine point. I apologise for not having answered him on the last amendment.
These amendments concern the financial limits for expenditure under Section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972. The amendments seek to replace the financial limits proposed for each description of authority set out in Clause 35 with higher limits. These higher limits are those recommended by the Widdicombe Committee. Those limits were based on existing spending power without any adjustment for the introduction of the new economic development power. Our lower figures allow for the fact that most of what is now spent under Section 137 will in future not count against the limit. As this represents over two-thirds of the Section 137 limit a reduction of just three-eighths of the Widdicombe Committee's proposed limits seems very reasonable.
The limits proposed by the Government would provide £5 per adult for principal authorities. This will be shared equally between district and county councils in areas where there are two tiers of administrative authority. This will of course remove the existing disparity between single and two tier authority areas. At present, London and the metropolitan areas are at a theoretical disadvantage compared to other areas in the country because they have not had the benefit of two tiers of Section 137 expenditure since 1986, although the provisions of Section 48 of the Local Government Act 1985 have largely compensated for this.
The new per capita arrangements with £5 per adult available across the country will ensure that all principal authorities are put on an equal footing. There will be a further sum of £3·50 per adult for parish and community councils. However, as we have explained in another place, we think that an
1246
adjustment to take account of the continuing powers under Section 48 is appropriate.
We remain firmly of the view that the figures we have proposed are correct. While I do not wish unnecessarily to go over the same ground again, I think some points are worth re-emphasising. First, it should be noted that when the original 2p rate limit was introduced, it represented a significant increase over previous limits. To date, the total available nationally under the limits has never been approached. I feel that the rates proposed in the Bill continue to represent a similar level of generosity, particularly when one considers that economic development expenditure—which in recent years has accounted for some 67 per cent. of Section 137 spending—is being removed totally from Section 137 limits to a new power that will not be subject to any general financial limits. I can see no need or justification for increasing the limits when less than 5 per cent. of authorities spend anywhere near their limits, even including the present substantial economic development spending.
We recognise of course that Section 137 is an important power and that many local authorities use it very sensibly, often to support the voluntary sector. I think this Committee is at one in seeking to ensure that the invaluable work carried out by voluntary organisations is not jeopardised. I can reassure the Committee therefore that there is absolutely no reason to suspect that local authority support for the voluntary sector will be jeopardised by the Government's proposals.
There are many functional powers which can be used to support voluntary organisations. Section 137 powers should in fact only be needed in very few instances. Our experience has revealed that if authorities considered the full scope of their available functional powers they would probably relieve considerable pressure on their own Section 137 limits.
I think therefore that there is no case at present for increasing the limits proposed in the Bill which, as I have explained, are in excess of the usage made by nearly all local authorities. If the position should change, however, the Bill provides for the Secretary of State to vary the limits by order. The position will of course be kept under review, and I am sure that if problems arise they will quickly be notified to us. I think the Bill as drafted provides an adequate degree of flexibility to suit such changing circumstances. I hope that the Committee will be able to resist the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh.
10.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It is certainly true that the removal of the economic development expenditure from the Section 137 expenditure makes a substantial difference in the short term to the amounts of money which local authorities are going to require. It is also true, as I made clear in my own introduction of the amendments, that most local authorities do not come anywhere near the ceiling and that the average take-up is only 32 per cent. of the ceiling.
However, I think the Minister is ignoring the fact that in the longer term there will be considerable

1247
pressure for local authorities to do more and more of their work in conjunction with voluntary organisations. This is not a pressure which we are in any way resisting. That means that much of the expenditure which would in the past have come under other powers will now probably come under the Section 137 expenditure, or Section 35 as it will be now.
I think that in the longer term there may well be more pressure against the upper limit than has been anticipated either in the calculation of these figures or in the Minister's reply to this amendment. However, I concede that there is power to raise the limit afterwards, and I think it is probably better if we leave the matter there. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 115Y to 115ZZ not moved.]
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick moved Amendment No. 116:
Page 42, line 42, at end insert—
("(10) After subsection (4B) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
("( ) It is hereby declared that the power of a local authority to incur expenditure under subsection (1) above includes power to do so for the purpose of undertaking or promoting twinning or linking arrangements with a local authority outside the United Kingdom, including activities for—

(a) the promotion of educational, social and cultural links;

(b) the promotion of economic or trading links;

(c) the promotion of humanitarian aid and technical assistance; and

(d) the encouragement of understanding and goodwill between the peoples of different localities.").

The noble Lord said: This amendment has been moved to facilitate local authorities in their desire to twin or have a relationship with overseas authorities, mainly in the promotion of educational, social and cultural links, economic or trading links, humanitarian aid and technical assistance and the encouragement of understanding and goodwill between the peoples of different localities. Quite a number of these twinning arrangements, partnerships, or whatever one wishes to call them, exist at present and have existed for some time to the mutal benefit of the peoples of both the areas involved.
Local authorities have invariably established twinning links at the social and cultural level. This provides an excellent platform on which to build prospects for economic twinning. Local authorities will of course have a certain knowledge of the key personalities and the organisations involved and will have a knowledge of how things get done in their twinned locality. Training arrangements have proved to be a good means of establishing transitional working relationships between companies. Local education authorities fulfil a strategic training function and are well placed to co-ordinate such activity. Executives with experience and an awareness of European business practice will play a vital role in the 1990s.
It is now accepted that mergers and takeovers will not be as dominant a consequence of 1992 as was
1248
originally thought. Alliances between companies will be commonplace. Local authorities, through their civic twinning, language resource and training responsibilities, are well placed to provide the most favourable climate for such alliances to occur.
There is a fear that in the early years of the operation of the single European market there may be a significant increase in unemployment. There is also a fear that small companies will be particularly affected. Local authorities are well placed to provide a framework of support for local economies dominated by small firms as they struggle to come to terms with the new order.
The amendment is tabled to suggest a proper power to twin towns under Section 137 expenditure. The notes on clauses, explaining the new direct benefit testing introduced by this Bill, referred to town twinning as an activity that would cease. The Government should explain the provision further and think again in the light of the good work undertaken to the benefit of local government here and links abroad, particularly in the developing countries.
The benefits gained are educational, social and cultural links and programmes of activities, which are usually of mutual benefit, though some activities may benefit one partner and some the other. Most links are within Europe but an increasing number are worldwide. Economic and trading links are usually beneficial to both parties but individual initiatives may bring benefits to one or other of the parties. Local authorities spend money on exhibitions, seminars, missions abroad, reception of visitors, pump-priming of new arrangements. Examples are links between Cardiff and Xiamen, and Cheltenham and Weihai. Salford has an arrangement with Khartoum to provide technical assistance to trade and material help, Birmingham with the Gambia on a similar basis, East Sussex with Addis Ababa and Strathclyde with Kampala.
I recall that before I became leader of the council in Manchester the city was twinned, after the war, with Leningrad. That arrangement is still in being and has been of great benefit. Mutual visits were made—business, educational and cultural. Twenty-five years ago 16 year-old schoolchildren from Leningrad visited Manchester. Such visits were unheard of in those days. It was unfortunate that the youngsters were harangued by a group of people who were anti-Soviet which cancelled out the goodwill of the visit. However, as a result of the twinning, Manchester arranged for dancers of the Kirov Ballet to perform. The botanical gardens of Manchester and Kirov exchanged plants. There were also business contacts.
I do not want to go into the subject in greater detail tonight. We have had a long day. I believe however that the amendment is worthy of serious consideration. I should like to think that the Minister might be sympathetic towards it. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: As noble Lords will be aware, Section 137 is a discretionary spending power. In using it, local authorities must be content that expenditure is in the interests of their area or any part of it, or all or some of its inhabitants.

1249
Furthermore, the power encompasses expenditure on contributions to the funds of charities and other non-profit making public service bodies for their work in the United Kingdom, for public appeals by civic heads in connection with a particular event affecting UK residents, and, as it presently stands, for the purpose of promoting economic development.
The use of Section 137 was looked at by the Widdicombe Committee of Inquiry into local government, which found that misunderstandings about the precise scope of Section 137 were not uncommon. The Government considered that some changes in the formulation of the section would go a long way to resolve those misunderstandings. In particular, we were anxious in drafting the clause to make it quite clear that one of the tests that must be satisfied before a local authority could embark on expenditure under Section 137 was that the benefits arising therefrom should clearly be in the interests of the area or its inhabitants, or part of it or some of them. Additionally, it needed to be made clear that the power could be used only where authorities were certain that no other relevant powers existed. We think that Clause 35 achieves that clarification.
So, in considering any amendments to Section 137, we would need to look carefully at any suggestions to bring other types of activity within its scope. Would they be strictly only in the interests of the area or its inhabitants and would no other powers be available to the local authority to carry out those things? I think in the case of the activities listed in this amendment the answer is most definitely no. The amendment is clearly designed to widen not only the type of activities carried out under Section 137 but also the geographical coverage of the power so that money could be spent not only for the benefit of those outside the area of the authority in the UK but also for those overseas. That was certainly not the original intention of Section 137 and was not the intention of the Widdicombe Committee, which reaffirmed the principle that,
"local authorities should continue to have a financially limited discretionary power to spend in the interests of their area".
The purpose of Section 137 aside, such an amendment is still not necessary. The Government fully recognise that town twinning and its associated activities are valuable tools in widening horizons and promoting international friendship, primarily at a local level for the benefit of local people. In recognition of that, every local authority already has adequate powers to spend any money that is necessary to launch, encourage or support twinning arrangements.
As regards the encouragement of understanding and good will between people of different nationalities and localities, local authorities may, under Section 176 of the Local Government Act 1972, meet the costs of making and receiving official visits to and from overseas and incurring necessary incidental expenditure. Again, local authorities have powers under Section 144 of the 1972 Act to use advertisements to encourage people to assist their area for recreation or conferences and they can
1250
provide or contribute to facilities for conferences or exhibitions.
Moreover, the new economic development power in Clause 32 of the Bill can also be used to some extent in the international context where the power is being used for providing economic development. As noble Lords will be aware, local authorities support the work of the regional development bureaux that are scattered around the country and which promote the interests of their areas abroad. The work of the boards has often proved useful in attracting foreign investment to a particular locality and there is nothing in the new power to prevent that type of support continuing.
The list of powers available is extensive, but I think those that I have quoted to the Committee give a flavour of the flexibility that already exists for local authorities. That is why the Government resist the amendment.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I am grateful to the Minister for that detailed reply. His answer appears to go a long way towards allaying some local authorities' fears about the Bill. There is one small point that I should like to raise with him, although, given the lateness of the hour, he may not wish to answer it tonight. He referred to the boundaries or periphery to which certain parts of the permission to spend may be restricted. Perhaps he will take this point on board and give us the Government's view at a later stage.
The Widdicombe Report has been mentioned. Did that committee cast its mind forward towards 1992, which is a much wider area than was originally envisaged in local government? I do not expect an answer now. That is just one point. Having heard what the Minister said, I should like to look at it, as no doubt will the people involved. In view of the further point that I have made, beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 35 agreed to.
11 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 116A:
After Clause 35, insert the following new clause:
("Review of section 48 spending.
.—(1) The Secretary of State shall, within two years of the coming into force of this section, consult the local authority associations, organisations representative of voluntary organisations and such other bodies as he considers to be concerned, with respect to the impact of the provisions of section 35 above on any funding scheme established under section 48 of the Local Government Act 1985.
(2) The results of any investigation under this section, together with any recommendations which the Secretary of State may consider appropriate in relation to any Order under section 137 (4AA) of the Local Government Act 1972 as amended shall be laid before Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: I think I can be fairly brief in speaking to this amendment because the Minister referred to it when responding to my Amendment No. 115W. I realise that there must be further thinking by the Government on this matter. They accepted an amendment from Sir George Young at

1251
Report stage which seemed to imply that Section 48 spending by metropolitan boroughs would have a secure future. The purpose of this amendment is to build on the agreement reached in another place, in the hope that the Government will be able to undertake a review after a short period, as the amendment proposes, in order to ensure that local authorities have an opportunity to fund voluntary organisations in London and in the most deprived parts of London where working with voluntary organisations is of the utmost importance.
I sensed from the Minister's remarks earlier that he would not be unsympathetic to such a proposal. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: The purpose of this amendment is to place a requirement on the Secretary of State to consult, within a period of two years of the coming into force of the section, the local authority associations, voluntary organisations and others considered appropriate, about the impact of the provisions in Clause 35 as regards the funding of schemes under Section 48 of the Local Government Act 1985.
The amendment further proposes that the results of any such investigation and any recommendations considered appropriate in relation to any other orders under Section 137 (4AA) of the Local Government Act 1972 should be laid before Parliament.
I can sympathise with the noble Lord's desire to ensure that the impact of the Government's proposals is kept under review. There is no need, however, to do so in the form of this amendment.
I think there is little doubt that we are at one in seeking to ensure that the Government's proposals do not have an adverse effect on voluntary organisations who receive funding under Section 48. We recognise the importance of this power and are fully committed to ensure that voluntary organisations are not unfairly hindered in their activities.
We shall be discussing with the relevant authorities the reductions that we shall be making to Section 137 limits to reflect Section 48 spending which would otherwise be authorised under Section 137. Once we have agreed the appropriate sum we will of course be keeping the position under close scrutiny. I am sure that if any difficulties are encountered, local authorities and individual voluntary organisations will be very quick to make representations to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State has the power to vary the limits by order for any particular description of authority. This power is there to be used and will be used if it is necessary. These powers provide an important level of discretion and flexibility for local authorities. We do not wish to see that jeopardised, and the Government will be prepared to respond to changing circumstances if the need arises.
I do not think, however, that it is necessary or desirable to place a requirement on the Secretary of State to conduct a review within two years of the introduction of the provisions. The two-year period
1252
is arbitrary. We believe that it is far better for the position to be reviewed if and when the need arises.
If the purpose of these amendments is to ensure that changes can be made to the provisions and if the introduction of the Bill has an adverse effect on the voluntary sector, then they are not necessary. As I explained when speaking to the earlier amendment, any changes necessary can and will be made under the provisions of the Bill as it is presently drafted. On that basis we resist the noble Lord's amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That sounds quite hopeful. The Minister said that the Government are negotiating now with the local authorities. Can he tell us whether the negotiations are likely to be concluded before we come back to this matter at Report stage?
Lord Hesketh: The answer to that question is yes.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am delighted to hear that reply. If there is anything further that we need to say when the negotiations are concluded, we shall do so. In the meantime I think we accept that scrutiny is as good as review, although I am not quite sure that I completely understand the difference. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Baroness Strange Baroness Strange moved Amendment No. 116B:
Before Clause 36, insert the following new clause:
("Discretionary spending on advice services.
.—(1) Section 142 of the Local Government Act 1972 (provision of information etc. relating to matters affecting local government) shall be amended in accordance with this section.
(2) In subsection (1), after the word "otherwise" in the third line, there shall be inserted "(a)", and after "authority" in the seventh line, there shall be inserted "; and (b) information, advice or other assistance about their rights and responsibilities.".")
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of the amendment is to make specific provisions for funding of advice services such as the citizens' advice bureaux by local authorities, should they so wish. At the moment local authorities have no specific powers to fund such services and have to rely on more general powers, such as Section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972. They also have to depend on Section 142 of the 1972 Act, which is a general power to fund information but limited in its application.
Money advice about increasing debt problems often involves the advice worker in time-consuming negotiations with creditors.The Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 recognises the need for disabled people to be accompanied at meetings and permits the use of representatives to ensure that they have access to the full range of services.
The amendment seeks to amend Section 142 so that it is appropriate to the needs of the present day. Other local authority powers allow them to fund advice in specific areas. For example, Section 69(5) of the Weights and Measures Act 1985 allows counties—but not districts—to fund consumer advice. Other provisions cover housing advice and

1253
advice to prevent children from being taken into care, but this does not cover all the subject areas that a citizens' advice bureau will cover.
The amendment is likely to be welcomed by local authorities in view of other provisions contained in Part III of the Bill, in particular as they will need to be more rigorous in future about identifying the powers that they are using when they fund voluntary organisations. Advice services have always created something of a dilemma for local authorities seeking to fund them simply because there has been no specific power available. Local authorities have had to divide their funding advice services between different powers. The amendment aims merely to clarify the position and to spell out that Section 142 is available to local authorities wishing to fund local advice agencies.
For many people caught up in some difficulty, and unable to decide or indeed to know what they ought to do, local advice services are like the Pickwick, the Owl and the Waverley pen—they come as a boon and a blessing to men.
The amendment is simply an enabling amendment. It does not commit local authorities to any increased expenditure. It merely gives them the powers so to do should they so wish. I beg to move.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I wish briefly to support the amendment of the noble Baroness. She has covered all the points required. It is a very worthy amendment because of the breadth of help that such advice centres give to different sections of the community. We should like to think that the Minister is sympathetic to the amendment so ably moved by the noble Baroness.
Baroness Seear: We on these Benches would like to support the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: I am in some difficulty with the amendment. I agree with the principle that the local authorities should have the freedom to make judgments about their local advice-giving services, and to fund them. I have seen no difficulty in the past. I should like to plead for the right for a local authority to make judgments about the quality of that advice-giving service, and to make up its own mind about whether or not it wishes to fund and to what level.
I can see nothing in the Bill as drafted that prevents a local authority from making that judgment about advice-giving centres, and to make grants as appropriate. Therefore I am not absolutely certain what is being provided by this amendment. From a superficial reading of it, it seems that one is asking for powers specifically to grant aid to advice-giving centres. But there are many organisations which come to local authorities for grants. It seems to me that it should be left to the local authority to make a determination about whether it wishes to grant aid based on its judgment about the quality of that service. Therefore, I am in some difficulty because I cannot see in the Bill as drafted what precludes a local authority from fund-aiding its CAB, its law centre or whatever. Therefore I need to be convinced by the Minister that the amendment is necessary.
Lord Hesketh: The amendment seeks to insert a new clause into the Bill. Section 142 of the Local Government Act 1972 would be amended so that, in addition to the provision of information on request from members of the public, local authorities would be able to make arrangements for providing information, advice or other assistance about their rights and responsibilities.
Let me straight away assure the noble Baroness that I have great sympathy for the views that she has expressed. The provision in the 1972 Act that she seeks to amend dates back to the Local Government Act 1948 when it was thought to be an adequate power to fund such things as the citizens' advice bureaux. Our views have developed since then, and we believe that this is a convenient point at which to review them. I shall be glad to take away this amendment to see if we can develop a suitable response to the problems raised by the supporters of the amendment.
I hope with that assurance that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Strange: I thank my noble friend very much indeed for his kind and thoughtful words with which I am delighted. I shall look forward very much to seeing what he brings forward at Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 36 agreed to.
The Earl of Balfour: In Clause 47 I should like to make quite certain that the "n" in the formula is intended to be a power and not a multiple. Let me give a simple example. Let us suppose that the value of "r" was 10. Then the figure within the brackets would be 1·1. If "n" is a power, and let us say it is 3, then the answer to what is below the line is 1·331. If it is a multiple it is 3·3, which is quite a difference.
I go one stage further and again assume a simple figure. Let us suppose that "x" is 100 and "n" is a power from the figures I have just given. The answer then is 75·1. But if it is a multiple then it is 30·3. I should like to make quite certain that "n" is intended to be a power and not a multiple. It is a purely mathematical point.
Lord Hesketh: It is certainly true that my noble friend Lord Balfour has one over on me here! The noble Earl may not be aware that there is a slight confusion which is that Part IV of the Bill is being dealt with on Wednesday, which appears somewhat illogical. The reason for doing this is for the benefit of the Opposition as well. Because of that, I can understand why the noble Earl feels quite logically that we should be dealing with Part IV, but we have rushed off to Clause 64, which is Part V, because it was felt for the ease of the progress of the Bill in terms of certain other matters of logic to return on Wednesday to Part IV. I hope, in the light of that explanation, that the noble Earl will understand why I am unable to answer his question now.
The Earl of Balfour: I am sorry to confuse the Committee.
11.15 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick moved Amendment No. 116C:
Before Clause 64, insert the following new clause:
("Commencement of Part V.
.—(1) The Secretary of State shall, within three months of the date of Royal Assent, by order made by statutory instrument specify the days on which this Part is to be brought into force, in accordance with the requirements of this section.
(2) No day shall be appointed for the coming into force of sections 65 or 66 below before a day six months after the date of the order.
(3) No day shall be appointed for the coming into force of sections 67 or 68 below a day one year after the date of the order.
(4) The provisions of section 164(2) below shall have effect subject to the provisions of this section.").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendment is to provide adequate transitional arrangements. It is accepted that whatever amendments are negotiated, either within the Bill or through undertakings relating to regulations to be issued under the Bill, the Government's intention is to ensure that some companies currently owned by local authorities, or in which local authorities are substantially or marginally involved, will fall within specific categories. Parts III, IV and V of the Bill are inextricably interlinked. It is the Government's intention that many companies will be caught by the new financial control regime. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that time and effort are not wasted by categorising companies which are in the process of being restructured in the light of the legislation.
The amendment anticipates that it will be the intention of the Government to introduce a statutory instrument specifying the dates on which various parts of the legislation will be brought into force. It is suggested that controlled companies should not be brought within the scope of the legislation for at least six months after the relevant date and that influenced companies should have a minimum period of grace of one year.
Taking these in reverse order, it will be appreciated that many of the influenced companies will probably be caught only by means of a technical accident. Local authorities will be anxious to disentangle both these and other influenced companies to ensure that there is absolutely no question of the companies being affected by the provision in Part IV of the Bill before the company has been restructured, reduced in size or subjected to such other action as may be appropriate to ensure that it is outside the limits of borrowing controls.
The situation in relation to controlled companies may be somewhat different by virtue of the numbers involved and the scope for adjustment. But, again, there is no doubt that local authorities will wish to consider the need or desirability of restructuring these companies. The minimum six-month period is proposed from the date of the order introducing the statutory instrument to enable the appropriate action to be taken. It may be that, in both categories where government are satisfied that changes are being made to the constitution of a company which will affect the impact of any part of the Bill, the Secretary of State should be enabled to extend the period of grace
1256
proposed in the amendment. Those are the points which I wish to make in relation to the amendment. I hope that the Minister will be sympathetic.
Baroness Lockwood: I should like to support my noble friend's amendment and at the same time attempt to elicit more information from the Minister. The restrictions which the Bill would impose on some controlled companies are causing a number of them to look at their structure and decide whether they need to remain a controlled company and whether they should become an influenced company. They will need plenty of time to change their constitution and structure if they are to become an influenced company.
Can the Minister give more information about the difference between a controlled company and an influenced company? The exact difference is not made clear in the Bill. I particularly have in mind the Yorkshire mining museum which at present is a controlled company but has already been advised by the Minister in another place that it might be advisable to consider restructuring. But would restructuring mean for such a company that the restrictions and controls imposed upon it would relate only to the borrowing controls? Would all other financial controls be removed from such an influenced company?
Would an influenced company still be eligible for a share of local authority provisions through the European Community? Would such a company be able to continue to take advantage of the services of a local authority such as specialised legal, financial, administrative and personnel services? More information on these matters would facilitate the decisions of present local authority controlled companies on what their future position should be.
Lord Hesketh: As this is the first amendment to Part V it might be of assistance if I begin by explaining the thinking that underlies the proposals of this part. I hope that the Committee will understand if this takes a moment or two.
Local authorities can use companies in various ways. A local authority may own a company and control it in the same way as a holding company owns and controls its subsidiaries. A local authority may have a half share in a company as a joint venture with the private sector. A local authority may have a minority interest in a company. Finally, a local authority may have a more complex relationship with a company which gives it substantial influence over it without actually controlling it.
At present there are no rules on the way in which a local authority should behave in relation to companies in which it has an interest, other than the basic fiduciary duty to which any local authority is subject. I should explain that company law does not provide these rules because company law is concerned to make companies responsible to shareholders and to protect those who deal with companies. It is not concerned with questions of responsibility of shareholders to others over what they do with their rights in a company.
That is the area we need to address. A local authority that is a shareholder or has other rights

1257
over a company has more or less unrestricted discretion as regards how it uses those rights. For example, I cite the appointment of the auditor of a company controlled by a local authority. Like any other company, the auditor of a company controlled by a local authority is appointed by the shareholders; that is, by the local authority. Since it is the local authority that is controlling the company, it is in a sense appointing its own auditor.
Contrast that with the position of the local authority's own auditor who is appointed by the independent Audit Commission. We think that on this point the public are entitled to expect guarantees that the auditor of the company controlled by the local authority is genuinely independent. That is one example of the kind of question on which we felt it necessary to set out a framework within which the rights of local authorities over companies are to be exercised.
The proposals in Part V, therefore, make no change to company law. They provide rules on how local authorities shall use their rights and influence over companies that are so closely connected with them that it is right to treat the companies as part of the local authority sector.
The first step is therefore to define what companies are so closely connected with local authorities that they should be treated as part of the local authority sector. This task falls into two parts. First, there are those companies where the local authority has formal rights which enable it to control the company. Here the task is to define what those formal rights are. That is done by Clause 65.
Secondly, there are those companies over which a local authority does not have formal rights of control but has the means to exercise a dominant influence. Here the task is to define what should be regarded as giving such influence. That is done by Clause 66.
Having defined what companies are to be regarded as part of the local authority sector, it is necessary to provide powers to establish the rules to apply to local authorities in exercising their powers over these companies. That is done by Clause 67.
Clause 67 also deals with the way in which companies in the local authority sector fit into the new system of capital finance for local authorities. There will be in addition companies over which local authorities do not have control or a dominant influence. Two aspects of such participation call, in the Government's view, for regulation. The first is the question of companies in which local authorities may participate. The second is how to deal with some questions such as the making available of information about that participation. Both these questions are addressed by Clause 68.
I hope that this explanation of the basic scheme of Part V will help the Committee to see how the various clauses fit into our overall scheme of proposals. The new clause which is the subject of Amendment No. 116C is concerned with the programme for bringing Part V into effect. The new clause would require the programme to be specified in an order within three months of Royal Assent and make it impossible to bring the rules on controlled
1258
and influenced companies into effect for six months after that order, or the other controls for a year after that order. Since Royal Assent will not be before 1st October, and since there would be problems in bringing some aspects into effect part way through a financial year, the new clause would effectively postpone Clauses 65 and 66 to 1991 and the rest to 1992.
In so far as this amendment is probing the question of our proposed timetable for implementing Part V, it may help if I explain what we intend. We hope to send to the local authority associations in the course of next month a draft explaining our intentions as precisely as possible. Like the document which we have already sent about Clauses 15 to 17, we envisage this as a draft of a circular explaining the whole proposed scheme including the way in which the order will complete it.
We shall then hold consultations with the local authority associations on the basis of that document to resolve any points that they wish to raise. We hope that these consultations will at least have started before the next stage of this Bill in your Lordships' House. Thereafter we will proceed to draft the order and shall again consult on the text of the draft order. Assuming Royal Assent later this Session, our aim would be that the order should be made by about the end of the year and would come into force on 1st April 1990.
In so far as the new clause is trying to postpone the introduction of the proposals, we do not think that that is acceptable. We see these proposals as, in part, complementary to the proposals in Part IV, and we think that they should desirably come into effect together. I hope that the indications on our proposed timetable that I have given will be helpful.
The differences between a controlled company and an influenced company were set out in our initial consultation document last year. They will be spelt out in our forthcoming consultation document which should be produced within the next month. On the basis of what I have previously said, these are the reasons why we wish to resist holding up the timetable as proposed in Amendment No. 116C.
Lord Dean of Beswick: The Minister has given a long and detailed reply. I intend to withdraw the amendment is tabled at a later stage, which is what I believe he was saying, will he give an undertaking —
Lord Hesketh: I was referring to the consultation document.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I believe that there is some misunderstanding on my part as to what the Minister said. When he refers to a controlled company and an influenced company, am I over-simplifying it by thinking that the controlled company is one where the local authority has the controlling shares and an influenced company is where it is the minority shareholder?
Lord Hesketh: A controlled company can be where the local authority has the majority of the shares. It may also be where it has a majority of the business.
Baroness Lockwood: Before my noble friend decides what to do about the amendment, can the Minister assure me that the specific questions that I posed will be included in the consultation document? Can the Minister say whether the process of consultation will be completed before we come to the Report stage of the Bill?
Lord Hesketh: The order that will be the eventual outcome of the consultations will not be ready until December.
Baroness Lockwood: But the noble Lord said that a consultation document would be issued within the next month. Will the consultation document cover the specific points I put to him in my earlier remarks?
Lord Hesketh: Indeed, it will.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My noble friend and colleague Lady Lockwood expressed far better than I could our worry about the consultation document. We shall look at what the noble Lord said. If action needs to be taken we shall take it. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
11.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 116D:
Before Clause 64, insert the following new clause:
("Promotion of economic development by companies.
.—(1) The following provisions of this Part shall have effect subject to the provisions of this section.
(2) A company shall be an exempt company for the purpose of sections 65 or 66 below in relation to the area of a particular local authority where—

(a) the authority has exercised its powers under sections 32(2) or 32(3) above (or under any other enactment for the purposes of economic development) in relation to that company; or

(b) the principal aims of the company include the protection or promotion of employment or training in the area concerned; or

(c) the company is a company established for the purpose fulfilling one or more of the functions of the authority; or

(d) the company is a company which is in receipt on behalf of the authority of funding from the European Regional Development Fund, or any other source, for the purposes of the protection of employment or training in the area.

(3) The Secretary of State shall, in exercising his powers under sections 65(1), 66(1) or 67(1) below, have regard to the likely effect of such exercise on the protection or development of employment or training in the area.").
The noble Lord said: With Amendment No. 116D, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 116E, 116F, 119A and 119B. These amendments are tabled in the hope of eliciting further information about the provisions of Part V of the Bill. We are grateful for the extensive exposition of the structure of Part V which the Minister gave in response to the previous amendment. However, it is still not clear that there are not conflicts between Part III and Part V of the Bill. Indeed, that is one of the reasons why we asked the Government to take the two parts in succession.
I shall give one example. When we were considering Part III earlier this evening the noble Lord said that none of the restrictions applies to training. The Minister in another place said that there was nothing
1260
in the Bill to restrict spending money on training. That may well be so, but it is not clear from the Bill that that is the case. It sounds as though the promotion of training through the formation of both controlled and influenced companies, which is after all a common and effective way of encouraging training, is brought under the scope of Part V and will be subject to all the restrictions which we have been told are involved in Part V.
The impetus behind Part V still seems to be that the use of controlled and influenced companies is somehow wicked and is an attempt by local authorities to get round other expenditure controls, in particular capital expenditure controls. Where we see in Part V the restrictions on controlled and influenced companies and the restrictions on the links that they may have with the council, we cannot help but think that these restrictions apply to companies where training is the principal or just one of the objects of the association with a company.
I turn now to Amendments Nos. 116E and 119A. One of our difficulties with the Bill is that so much of it is left to regulation that we really cannot tell on what basis there will be criteria to exempt individual companies or categories of company. We could deal with this problem by listing a whole series of types of company or individual companies and then ask whether they are exempt. I do not think that that is a sensible way to tackle the provisions of the Bill.
We would prefer it if the Government could give us some basis on which we can understand what kinds of companies will be exempted. Does the noble Lord have any exemptions in mind, and do they relate to individual companies or to categories of company? Have any of the exceptions been discussed with outside interests? We have heard about the consultation paper which the noble Lord will issue within the next month. Will it cover this point? Will the consultation on categories of companies to be exempted be discussed with the local authority associations before directions are made? What will be the form of parliamentary scrutiny? Will they be reported for affirmative or negative resolution?
There are exemption powers under Clauses 57 and 58, as well as those contained in Part V. But why do they appear in two different parts of the Bill? Is there any significance in the fact that they are in different places? Moreover, are the Government clear in their own mind that they are working in the same direction in the two parts of the Bill?
There are a number of other questions which one could ask. For example, will the Minister agree to an automatic exemption when both the local authority and the company certify that the control which has been identified is either accidental or unimportant to either side? Further, will the directions given for exemption be on the basis of common criteria, will they be in categories of companies or will there be some kind of consultation on the classification of types to be exempted?
All of those points may be covered in the consultation paper to which the noble Lord referred. I do not know whether they will be. But, if they have not been covered, or if they are not to be covered in

1261
the consultation paper, we would very much like to hear his assurance that they will be.
I appreciate that I have asked a considerable number of questions at, possibly, a high speed. I did so because it is late at night. Of course I appreciate that the Minister may not be able to respond to every single point. Nevertheless, I hope that he will be able to give us some help so that we may be able to understand the thinking behind the exemption policy and therefore have a better judgment than we have at present as to whether this policy is reasonable and acceptable. I commend the amendments to the Committee.
Lord Hesketh: These amendments would introduce a new category of "exempt company" which could never become subject to the controls over controlled or influenced companies proposed in Part V. Such companies would be those where the local authority had given assistance to it as part of its economic development programme; the company's main aim was promoting employment and training in the area; the company was established for the purpose of discharging a function of the authority; or the company was in receipt of grants from any source to promote employment of training in the area.
The amendments would also require the Secretary of State in using his powers under Part V to have regard to the employment or training in the area. Finally, the amendments would remove the Secretary of State's power to exempt categories of companies or specific companies.
This is an interesting set of proposals. In order to explain why the Government must advise the Committee not to accept them, I propose to take each element separately. I shall deal first with the proposal that a company could never be subject to the rules on controlled or influenced companies if it came into the categories listed in the new clause. There are two distinct points here: the first is what the new clause actually does; the second is what it might have been intended to do.
What the new clause actually says is that a company which has, for example, been assisted under the economic development power can never be subject to the rules on controlled or influenced companies. In other words, no matter how great the degree of control or influence exercised by the local authority, the rules shall never apply. A company which was 100 per cent. owned by the local authority could never be subject to the controls, provided a grant of £1 had been made to it under the economic development power.
We do not think that such a position can be sustained. The proposals of Part V are intended to make sure that the rules for local authorities apply to companies which are properly regarded as part of the local authority sector. We do not think that it is reasonable to say that the rules shall not apply to a company which is clearly under the control or influence of a local authority just because it has received assistance under a specific power.
1262
Therefore, the amendment means that local authorities would be free to set up a company as a wholly-owned subsidiary to compete in any industry or trade, and that company would be outside all the controls which apply to local authorities, including those on capital finance. We believe that the new clause is therefore a charter for municipal socialism on a grand scale. We find that that is unacceptable.
It may be that the clause had a limited or more limited aim, and I should therefore address it on that basis, rather than simply confining myself to what it actually would do. First, it may be that the clause is intended to ensure that local authorities can participate in companies to which they have given assistance for purposes of economic development.
There is here a fairly basic difference between the Government and the Opposition. Like them, we can see no reason why local authorities should not give assistance to private sector companies in the form of equity finance; but, unlike them, we do not think that when they do so they should also take part in running the company. We do not think that local authorities are well placed to do so. So we think that there should be restrictions on their taking voting shares and on appointing directors of normal private sector companies. The objections do not, however, extend to non-voting equity or appointing someone to attend and observe what the directors are doing, without the right to vote. The provisions that will be made under the Bill will therefore enable this to happen.
Secondly, it may be that the clause is intended to ensure that local authorities can play a proper part in local enterprise agencies. Again, we are clear that local authorities should be able to do so. However, where the local authority controls, or has the power to dominate, a local enterprise agency, we think that some at least of the controls appropriate to the local authority sector should apply.
Thirdly, it may be that the clause is intended to ensure that a local authority can use a company to facilitate the discharge of its functions. There can be no objection to that, and we are clear that the provisions to be made under this part will do so. What the clause would also do, however, and what is unacceptable, is to say that where a company is used for that purpose the controls of the local authority sector should never apply, even if the local authority has 100 per cent. control. That cannot be right.
There is also one effect of the clause 'which I doubt the noble Lord intends. Because it would take those exempt companies out of Clause 65, it would have the effect of bringing them into the controls under Clause 68. I am not sure whether he intended that.
Finally, the new clause has a separate provision requiring the Secretary of State to have regard to the effects on employment and training. We have had those questions very much in mind throughout our development of these proposals. The Department of Employment has been consulted at all stages. We believe that our proposals are entirely consistent with the Government's other policies in these fields, and thus the provision is unnecessary.

1263
I turn now to Amendments Nos. 116E and 119A, which would remove the power of the Secretary of State to exempt companies. On the question of whether it is reasonable to give the Secretary of State a discretionary power, I must point out that any such power must, according to the general principles of administrative law, be used rationally and in accordance with the general purpose of the legislation. This is no arbitrary power for the Secretary of State to do as he likes. He must have good reason for granting an exemption, and he must have good reason for refusing an exemption if a local authority or a company asks him to grant one; and that reason must be one that is relevant to the general purposes of the legislation to establish a framework of regulation for local authority interests in companies.
On the question of whether the mere fact that we are seeking a power to adjust the definitions at the margin shows that our definition is inadequate, I must say that to oppose such a power shows a misunderstanding of how wide a variety of cases involve local authority participation in companies. There is bound to be a number of cases where, despite the greatest possible subtlety in the definition, the circumstances which point to the fact that a company ought to be regarded as controlled or influenced by a local authority are outweighed by other circumstances, special to that one case, which point decisively to the other conclusion.
Let me give some instances. We have already made it clear that we would intend to use these powers to exempt the various local groundwork trusts from being regarded as within those definitions. The reason for this is that the trusts have been set up in a variety of ways. Some are probably within the definition of a controlled company, some are probably within the definition of an influenced company, and some are probably within neither category. All, however, are substantially dependent on department grants, and while they are there is little likelihood of their being used to circumvent the rules appropriate to the public sector. We think that it therefore makes sense to put them all on the same footing—outside these definitions. The power to exempt will ensure that we are able to do so.
Again, there is the National Housing and Town Planning Council. That is a body where membership is open to both local authorities and private persons. By chance, at present the number of local authorities is greater than the number of private persons who are members. In theory, the local authorities could combine to control the company. In practice, in the circumstances of that company, we accept that this is so unlikely that we can disregard the possibility. On the other hand, it is not impossible that a similar number of local authorities, which shared a common purpose, could get together to set up a company to avoid some of the controls to which, as local authorities, they are subject—say, those that we shall later discuss on capital finance.
A third example is the Sheffield Combined Heat and Power Company. This is a praiseworthy attempt to promote energy efficiency. Because of the geography of Sheffield and the location of the site
1264
owned by the city council, it seems that it will be inevitable that, to begin with, the majority of the company's business will be with the city council. We think it likely, however, that this will be a transitional situation, and we are likely to agree to the company being exempted during that transitional period. We must, however, be able to distinguish between that sort of case and the sort of case to which I have already alluded where a company is set up as a device to provide, outside the rules that would otherwise apply, some capital asset for the local authority, and for the local authority alone.
We therefore think that we need a power to distinguish between those where all the circumstances of the case point to the fact that a theoretical power of control or influence will never be used, and those where it might. We want to be able to exempt bodies such as I have described, but we do not think that it will always be possible to lay down in general legislation every detail that will be relevant to the judgment whether a company is properly treated as part of the local authority sector or not. For these reasons, therefore, we think that we need the flexibility given by the exemption powers that these amendments would delete.
I apologise to the Committee for taking a considerable period of time, but I wanted to cover the amendments in some detail. I urge the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that detailed explanation, which was necessary even at this late hour of the night. I was particularly flattered that he should describe my amendments as "municipal socialism on a grand scale". I shall not let him have my copy of that great book by Bernard Shaw, The Common Sense of Municipal Trading. However, if I can find another copy in the bookshops I shall certainly be glad to inscribe one to the noble Lord personally so that he can understand the benefits of municipal socialism on a grand scale.
The Minister has been good enough in discussing this group of amendments to give some practical examples of exemptions that there might be. We are grateful for those because they help us to understand the way in which the Secretary of State's mind is working. Perhaps I may draw the Minister's attention to one outstanding example of collaboration between a city council and the private sector and see whether I can take him along with me a little way on that issue.
There is the example of the National Exhibition Centre in Birmingham. I do not know whether the Minister has been briefed on that, but he will know that the National Exhibition Centre in Birmingham is an extremely successful enterprise in which Birmingham City Council has played a major role since the start in 1973. There are now 125,000 square metres of exhibition space, either funded directly by Birmingham City Council or funded by loan stock underwritten by the city council.
The situation is that it is absolutely essential that the National Exhibition Centre should be extended and there should be at least another 20,000 square

1265
metres of exhibition space. In the longer term, to maintain the comparison with the other major European exhibition centres, say in Hanover, Frankfurt, Milan or Paris, the space probably ought to be of the order of 200,000 square metres. But it will take a long time and will involve investment of such a long gestation period that the private sector finance will probably not find it attractive unless there is either a contribution from Birmingham City Council, as there has been in the past, or loan stock underwritten by Birmingham City Council.
There may well be start-up losses which will undoubtedly, if the initial investment is anything to go by, be recouped. But the problem at the moment is that any investment by Birmingham City Council in the National Exhibition Centre could be counted against its capital allowances. Therefore it could cause the city council to lose the ability to do other things which it considers necessary in the form of capital investment.
I know that Birmingham City Council is in negotiation with the department about this matter and I appreciate that the Minister may not be able to give me an immediate reply. I should like to propose to him something quite modest. I understand that he is now the only Minister in the House in the Department of the Environment. Would he be prepared to meet me and Sir Dick Knowles, the leader of Birmingham City Council, before the Bill comes to a later stage, so that we can discuss the future of the National Exhibition Centre?
Baroness Blatch: Does not the noble Lord agree that if the Birmingham exhibition centre is to work in either the short, the medium or the long term, there is no reason why it should not attract private finance? If it is not going to work in either the short the medium or the long-term, should the Birmingham City ratepayers or community charge payers be left to pick up the bill?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The answer is that, historically, it has worked by dint of public investment in the first place when private investment was not available. The public investment has proved to be justified. The first 125,000 square metres of the Birmingham international exhibition centre is profitable. It is a successful example of municipal trading. What we are now looking for is an assurance that it can carry on to the next stage to enable it to continue to compete successfully in the international exhibition centre market. So the answer to the noble Baroness is that there is every reason to suppose, first, that it needs public investment and, secondly, that public investment works. That has proved to be the case from historical fact.
Lord Hesketh: I am pleased to say that I think I can go a little further than the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, who very kindly suggested that we should have a meeting. The Secretary of State has agreed to meet Birmingham City Council to discuss this matter. I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, kind as he is to me, will consider that an even better proposition than a meeting with just me. That was the case as of this morning. I have no doubt it will be the case as of tomorrow morning, although the date may have to slip by a week or so.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am not entirely surprised to hear that, but the Minister will know that Mr Ridley, the former Secretary of State, agreed to meet Sir Dick Knowles last Wednesday. However, he was not able to do so. When the meeting was cancelled no further date was set. If Mr Patten is able to meet Sir Dick Knowles, that will of course satisfy us entirely. We are very pleased to hear that news. However, I hope the general point is well-established that this is one example of a joint venture—I could produce many more, and the Minister has produced examples himself—despite the misgivings of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has proved successful, but which continues to need a public sector involvement. Like the National Exhibition Centre, these joint ventures may be involved in the economic development of an area, they may be concerned with training or many other aspects of the economic and social life of our cities and districts.
However, in order to survive they must not only not be discouraged by legislation but they must be encouraged, and local authorities must be encouraged to work through them. That is in conflict with the provision that local authorities will lose their capital allocation if they put money into these companies. That is the fundamental point which we have to bear in mind. Nevertheless, I think we have made some progress in understanding the Government's position, and particular progress as regards the assurance that there will be a meeting between the new Secretary of State and the leader of Birmingham City Council. I hope I shall not have to ask for further meetings with others who have expressed great concern about these matters. We shall await the results of these meetings and of the negotiations that are taking place before we decide what we have to do at a later stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 64 agreed to.
Clause 65 [Companies controlled by local authorities and arm's length companies]:
[Amendments Nos. 116E to 116G not moved.]
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 117:
Page 71, line 21, after ("above") insert—
("(a) may be limited in time and may be made conditional upon such matters as appear to the Secretary of State to be appropriate; and
(b)").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 117, I should like also to speak to Amendment No. 120.
Clause 65(1) gives the Secretary of State a power to direct that a company under the control of a local authority may be exempted from the controls imposed by Part V. Amendment No. 117 is intended to clarify the scope of the exemption power. Amendment No. 120 does exactly the same in relation to the power to exempt companies that would otherwise be classified as subject to local authority influence.
This power has been generally welcomed as providing a useful element of flexibility. We have already shown our good intentions in this direction, but we feel that as it stands the clause may not allow us to address the full range of possible exemptions that the Secretary of State may wish to make. As drafted, it clearly permits a once-and-for-all exemption for a company or type of company. There may however be cases where a once-and-for-all exemption might not be appropriate, but an exemption qualified in some way might be.
One example might be where a local authority had set up a company to take over an activity previously carried on by the authority with the intention that in due course the company would be sold to the private sector. It may therefore only be controlled by the authority for a limited period while it was building up the private sector involvement and divesting itself of the local authority interest. Where such a clear programme existed, it might well be appropriate to say that that company could be exempted from Part V for the period planned for that transition. If the only possibility was a once-and-for-all exemption that would not allow the matter to be reconsidered if, for any reason, the transition to the private sector did not proceed. That might make it difficult to give such a once-and-for-all exemption.
Similarly, there might be a situation in which the status of a company was such that, although it was technically a controlled company, its independence from the local authority could be virtually guaranteed. While those conditions prevailed, an exemption might be guaranteed on condition that the company's status did not change.
It can be argued that the clause as presently drafted conveys such a power, but it can be argued with equal or greater force that it does not. These amendments will clarify the situation and will allow the Secretary of State to cater for both these and other types of situation when he considers that it would be helpful to grant an exemption subject to a time limit or certain conditions being met.
I commend this amendment to the Committee as a useful addition to the flexibility of the exemption power. I beg to move.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The sense of what the Minister has said is understood and accepted. However, will he take on board some of the anxieties of the National Federation of Housing Associations? I understand that assurances have been given by the Secretary of State in respect of the powers of direction which would be used to exempt registered housing associations from the provisions of these clauses and that discussions are taking place. Nevertheless, the federation is concerned.
Can the Minister say whether Amendments Nos. 117 and 120 have any implications for the promised exemptions for registered housing associations? In particular, I should be concerned if the exemptions were subject to a time limit or conditions, as that is not part of the undertakings given by the government spokesman to the national federation.
The provisions of the amendment could be used in a positive fashion to exempt organisations which,
1268
although not registered housing associations, are vital to their work. For example, care and repair organisations are established by housing associations, often in partnership with local authorities, to assist elderly owner-occupiers to remain in their own homes and to carry out necessary renovation work. For such organisations registration with the Housing Corporation has been unnecessary and it would seem cumbersome for them to have to register in future simply to avoid the provisions of Part V of the Bill. Similar considerations apply to some of the consultancy schemes which have been established to assist in the management of special needs projects.
There is another area where the National Federation of Housing Associations would welcome the positive use of the provisions in the amendment. That is where registered housing associations and voluntary organisations enter into partnership for the management of special needs and other housing schemes if, inadvertently, for some reason the voluntary partner was held to be a local authority-influenced company.
The Minister will have sensed from the tenor of my remarks that we are seeking clarification, not commitments. The Minister could help both the National Federation of Housing Associations and me in this respect. I shall be grateful for the Minister's comments.
Lord Hesketh: I shall certainly cover the point about registered housing associations. They will be exempted while they are registered. We do not propose any other conditions. I do not have to hand an answer to the point raised by the noble Lord about care and repair.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Here comes the answer now!
Lord Hesketh: Care and repair organisations would be covered by Part V of the Bill only if they are controlled or influenced companies. So, if they are not controlled or influenced companies, they will not be covered by Part V.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I am grateful to the Minister. Those outside the Committee will read what he has said.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
12 midnight
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 117A:
Page 71, line 23, at end insert ("and may provide that the company or companies covered by the direction are to be exempted from some or all of the provisions of this Act which would, but for the direction, apply to them."
The noble Baroness said: The amendment seeks to deal with the serious and uncertain effects of the Bill on the public library service. This part of the Bill applies new controls on companies which are either controlled or influenced by local authorities. Clause 65 allows the Minister to exempt any company or class of companies from the provisions. I ask that serious consideration be given to exempting those public library regional systems which happen to have the status of companies.
Although each local authority charged with public library responsibilities acts separately, all the local authorities in England and Wales band together into regional library systems. They do so principally to provide inter-library lending services, thus saving local authority expenditure and maximising the use of books and other materials for the benefit of the total population.
That is an essential feature of the British library scene. The need for access to materials outside the stock of any single public library authority was recognised in the present legislation governing public libraries in England and Wales (the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964). Section 3 of that Act laid on the Government an obligation to designate those regions. That was not simply a power to do so, but a statutory duty.
Unbelievably, successive governments over the last 25 years have simply ignored that statutory duty. Some of those regions still have no legal status at all. That presents problems because it means that the officers running the systems are personally liable for their financial affairs. It was to overcome those difficulties that, in the absence of action by government, two of the systems made themselves into companies. Those are London and South Eastern Library Region, known as LASER, and the North Western Regional Library System, NWRLS—not such a convenient acronym.
The Government argue that, since those companies are performing functions that would otherwise have to be discharged by each local authority separately, they should be governed by the provisions of Part V of the Bill. That presents problems and provokes questions to which the Government have so far provided no answer. In LASER, for example, there are 42 participating local authorities, and getting the agreement of each to every act of borrowing would present major organisational problems and cause long delays. It would need the full council to give permission for every sum of borrowing and those amounts could sometimes be as small as £147.
The principal control introduced by the Bill on companies controlled by local authorities is control over borrowing for capital expenditure. The interlending system these days is highly dependent on computerised facilities and the regional systems will therefore require from time to time to acquire expensive new computer systems. The library regions have no capital reserves for those purposes. The borrowing required for that purpose would have to be allocated between participating authorities and it might well, at any point in time, dwarf any borrowing for library purposes which each local authority then had to undertake. Borrowing is normally only required for library purposes for the construction of new library buildings.
Increasingly, interlending systems have international connections. The European Commission is actively promoting the development of such systems as part of its programme for the encouragement of information technology usage in the Community. The European Commission is likely
1270
to make grants to at least some of the regional systems to meet part of the cost of the acquisition of new facilities. How is any contribution from the Commission to be dealt with under the provisions of the Bill?
The best course would therefore appear to be to exempt from the provisions of the Bill those regional library systems which are companies. Since, however, the Government so far show no signs of accepting the need for exemption, I suggest that it would be useful to amend the Bill in order to allow the Minister to exempt for some purposes but not for others. At present he has to exempt for all purposes or for none.
That would allow the Minister to free regional library systems from the complex procedural requirements on authorisation of borrowing, but still ensure that such borrowing had to occur within total local authority limits. Amendment No. 117A would do that.
I do not know whether the amendment that the Minister recently moved would have any effect on what I have been speaking about, but I hope that he will look favourably on this amendment. I think that the present provision will raise a very serious difficulty for local authorities which have these regional library systems which are companies and will have a very bad effect on the possibilities of the general public borrowing from them through the inter-library lending service. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: This amendment would increase the flexibility of the power of exemption given to the Secretary of State. Instead of making the question simply whether or not the company is exempted, it would allow exemptions from some controls but not from others. The flexibility which the amendment would give would have its advantages. However, we think that there is already sufficient flexibility built into Part V, and that to add a power to vary the extent to which controls apply case by case would be wrong.
Clause 64(4) gives power to prescribe, in the order which will lay down the details, different rules for different cases. Where it is appropriate for the rules to apply differently to some companies, provision can be made in the order. The order will be a statutory instrument subject to debate in both Houses of Parliament. That seems to us to be a better way of making any such variations for different classes of company than using a direction by the Secretary of State.
Directions will simply exclude companies entirely from the scheme of controls. If there is no direction, and they meet the definitions, the authorities concerned will be bound by the appropriate set of rules set out in the order.
Regarding public library regional organisations, if these organisations are part of the public sector by being controlled by the local authorities, then these companies should be controlled as part of the public sector. The organisations proposed by the 1964 Libraries Act would have been treated as part of the public sector. If the company is borrowing on behalf of the local authorities who are all members, then

1271
the borrowing itself should be treated as part of the borrowing for the local authorities concerned.
It is for those reasons that we resist the noble Baroness's amendment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Before my noble friend replies, is the Minister saying that although he resists the amendments, what they seek to achieve is capable of being achieved by other means? In other words, in the order-making process if the orders that are made are made in such a way that they will meet the points that have been raised by my noble friend, I imagine that she will be satisfied. But what if what was a very reasonable case based upon real fears will not be achieved? Frankly, it is nonsense for the Minister to talk about the Secretary of State having flexibility, if a desire for that flexibility to be exercised sensibly and moderately is pointed out to him by a genuine case and he has to make out a case against it.
Lord Hesketh: The noble Lord, Lord Graham, is correct in his assumption.
Baroness David: I shall have to read what the Minister said and consult my friends in the Library Association. They are extremely worried about what may happen and they feel that there may be a total collapse of this service if flexibility is not there. They have one other proposal which the Minister might consider. It is that the Minister could use his powers to exempt all companies with a turnover below a certain threshold—a de minimis provision—so that companies under the multiple control of local authorities would be exempted provided their borrowing requirements fall below a certain figure. Perhaps the Minister can consider that possible alternative when he is thinking about these proposals and write to me.
There is great anxiety about what could happen. I shall certainly read very carefully what the Minister has said and consult with the people who have advised me. I shall probably come back with some proposal at the next stage of the Bill. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 118:
Page 71, line 40, leave out ("736") and insert ("736A").
The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment, I speak also to Amendment No. 119. Both amendments are purely drafting. Their purpose is simply to make changes to Clause 65 so that references to sections in the Companies Act reflect accurately the revisions to the Act being made by the Companies Bill which has recently completed its Committee stage in another place. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 119:
Page 71, line 42, leave out ("subsections (4) and (5)") and insert ("the following provisions").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 65, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 66 [Companies subject to local authority influence]:
[Amendments Nos. 119A to 119F not moved.]
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 120:
Page 73, line 10, after ("above") insert—
("(a) may be limited in time and may be made conditional upon such matters as appear to the Secretary of State to be appropriate; and
(b)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
12.15 a.m.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 121:
Page 73, line 14, at end insert ("the condition in any one or more of the following paragraphs is fulfilled").
The noble Lord said: With these amendments we come to the question of whether there is such a close business relationship between a company and a local authority that, taken with the personnel links that we have already partly discussed and to which we shall return, we should say that the company is subject to the influence of a local authority. I believe that it will also be convenient to consider Amendment No. 123A.
Amendment No. 121 is a very straightforward drafting amendment. It might be argued that the present wording permits the inference that all the tests have to be satisfied before a close business relationship is held to exist. This is certainly not the intention. The possibilities are manifold and subsection (3) covers them: any of the possibilities listed would constitute a close business relationship. This amendment makes that clear.
Amendments Nos. 123 to 128 deal with one of the tests of whether there is a close business relationship between a local authority and a company. The situation in question is where the local authority has provided half or more of the capital employed by the company. Normally, of course, where more than half the capital is provided in the form of voting equity, the local authority will control the company and Clause 65 will apply. However, there may be circumstances in which the local authority will have provided half or more of the capital without taking the corresponding votes. If that is coupled with a significant personnel link, we think that the company should be treated as under the influence of the authority.
The problem is to define precisely what constitutes providing half or more of the capital. There was a flaw in the original definition in the Bill as introduced and an amendment was made at Committee stage in another place. However, a problem has become apparent after further consideration of that amendment. We had noticed it and a number of local authorities have also drawn it to our attention. We are grateful especially to Kirklees and Tameside for their help in this respect, even though the proposals in our amendments are not exactly what they would wish to see.
The problem with the Bill as it stands is that it requires a comparison to be made between the capital provided by the authority and whichever is the less of two sums. One of those two sums is

1273
basically the company's borrowing. If no borrowing is outstanding, then that sum is nil, and the test would be satisfied in the local authority had provided even £1 by way of capital. This is clearly unsatisfactory.
We have therefore decided that the right way to proceed is to divide the test that is in Clause 66(3)(c) of the Bill into two. The first of the new tests will be introduced by amending the existing paragraph (c). This will make it deal with the case where the local authority has provided share capital or capital grants which amount to half or more of the net assets of the company. Where a local authority has provided half or more of the risk capital of the company, we think it reasonable to say that there is a close business link.
Amendment No. 125 then introduces paragraph (cc) which sets out a test to cover cases where the local authority has guaranteed borrowings of the company from third parties. Here one compares the capital for which the local authority is responsible, either directly or (through the guarantee) indirectly, with the total assets of the company.
We think that these amended tests now give a clear and workable definition of the type of relationship where the local authority is providing the bulk of the company's capital.
I should tell the Committee that the local authorities who have been in touch with us have raised some further points. First, they have suggested that we should concentrate on finance provided rather than assets, because this would take better account of any losses incurred by the company.
We have considered this carefully, but have concluded that we should not adopt this approach, because the tradition of local authority finance is against allowing the capitalisation of revenue expenditure. This is to prevent one generation of ratepayers or chargepayers running up deficits to be paid for by future generations. Given this tradition, we think that we should stick by our approach based on the actual assets.
Secondly, they have suggested that the tests in Clause 66 should refer to "more than a half" rather than "half or more". We have not yet reached a conclusion on this point. We can see the case for allowing partnerships that are precisely 50–50, but we are not sure whether the tests as at presently drafted will stand in the way of such partnerships. We shall consider the case further, and if necessary return to the question later.
Thirdly, I should mention Amendment No. 123A which reflects the concern by these authorities that paragraph (c) as amended will be restrictive. We do not think that it will be restrictive. My officials will be glad to discuss this further with those concerned. For these reasons I commend the amendments, except Amendment No. 123A, to the Committee.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 122:
Page 73, line 21, at end insert ("or, if there is no such account, as estimated by the authority for the period of twelve months
1274
preceding the date of the estimate or for such part of that period as follows the formation of the company")
The noble Earl said: On behalf of my noble friend, I beg to move Amendment No. 122 and at the same time I speak to Amendment No. 129. Clause 66 defines the two tests for determining the personnel and business links that must be established for a company in which a local authority has an interest to be classed as a local authority influenced company for the purposes of these provisions. Amendments Nos. 122 and 129 deal with the latter of these: the business association test. That test is satisfied when a company has over half of its business with local authorities under various definitions which are set out in Clause 66.
Subsection (3)(a) deals with the case where such a business link is represented by the aggregate of payments made to a company from local authorities within a period of 12 months. A business link test is satisfied when these payments represent not less than half of the company's turnover as shown in its most recent audited profit and loss account.
Similarly, under subsection (3)(c), as drafted, one of the factors that the business link test is required to take into account is the net assets of the company. Subsection (4) provides that the net assets should be determined on the basis of the most recent balance sheet of the company on which the company's auditors have made a report.
Amendments Nos. 122 and 129 provide for cases where a profit and loss account or balance sheet is not available for the previous year simply by requiring that where audited accounts do not exist the local authority should estimate for the preceding 12 month period or for that part of the period that follows the formation of the company. Where balance sheets do not exist the relevant comparison should be made on the basis of an estimate made by the local authorities concerned for the period in question.
These are important technical amendments. I therefore commend the amendments to the Committee.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Can the Minister say what kind of consultation took place at a later date on these matters? I know that wide consultation took place earlier when the Bill was conceived. However, the Government have introduced these amendments at a late stage in your Lordships' Committee.
The Minister has made out the case that the basis for the amendments is sound. Can he say what consultation has taken place with those involved in local government on the appropriateness of these technical amendments?
The Earl of Arran: We have not consulted further because we believe that the amendments are entirely logical as they stand.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: So people outside the Committee will be seeing the amendments for the first time. There has been no consultation and no explanation whereby everyone can understand that the Government are doing them a favour. After such people have read what the Minister has said it is

1275
possible that we shall come back at a later stage with amendments to his amendments.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 123:
Page 73, leave out lines 32 and 33.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Chairman of Committees: If Amendment No. 123A is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 124.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 123A:
Page 73, leave out lines 38 to 41 and insert ("exceeds one-half of the aggregate of the company's nominal share capital, the company's liabilities on capital account, exclusive of shareholders' funds, and capital grants received by the company.").
The noble Lord said: If the amendment is agreed to I shall be speechless and so will the rest of the Committee. The Minister has already said that he cannot accept the amendment. However, will he confirm that he has either told us that he will be happy to have consultations or that these are already on course? There is no point in making out a technical case merely for the Minister to read out what his advisors have told him. Neither of us will be any the wiser. I believe that in referring to Amendment No. 123A earlier this evening he said that he would be willing to have consultations with the appropriate people. Will the Minister confirm that?
Lord Hesketh: The noble Lord, Lord Graham, is correct. I said then and I repeat now that my officials will be glad to discuss the matter further.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: On the basis of that offer which I understand to be genuine and sincere, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendments Nos. 124 to 126:
Page 73, line 38, leave out ("whichever is the less of").
Page 73, line 39, leave out from ("company") to end of line 41 and insert—
("(cc) the aggregate of—

(i) grants falling within paragraph (c)(1) above,

(ii) loans or other advances made or guaranteed by the authority or by a company under the control of the authority, and

(iii) the nominal value referred to in paragraph (c)(iii) above,

equals or exceeds one-half of the fixed and current assets of the company").
Page 73, line 45, leave out ("or") and insert ("and").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 126A:
Page 73, line 46, leave out paragraph (e).
The noble Lord said: The amendment refers to the whole concept of a business relationship. It would remove from the category of business relationship the proposal in Clause 66(3) that such a relationship
1276
would exist where the company intends to enter into a transaction which, if completed, would give rise to such a relationship. The whole concept of the intention of entering into a transaction which would give rise to a relationship is a complex almost metaphysical idea.
Clause 66(3) is a long subsection extending for more than half a page. It sets out all the circumstances in which a business relationship is thought to exist between the company and the local authority. They then form the criteria for determining whether the company is an influenced company. They are supplementary criteria to the 20 per cent. of voting rights which are the subject of subsection (1) of the clause.
All of these conditions in subsection (3)—whether the aggregate of payments to the company exceed half its turnover in a 12-month period; the grants and loans made by the company; whether the nominal value of the shares held by a company equals or exceeds one-half of the net assets of the company and its liabilities on capital account—are clear enough, even if sometimes companies do not actually work that way and they exist to provide services or to assist local employment.
However, paragraph (e) is altogether more metaphysical. It states:
"the company intends at that time to enter into (or complete) a transaction and, when that is done, there will then be a business relationship between the company and the authority by virtue of any of the paragraphs (a) to (d) above".
I presume that what the Government mean is to stop people making transactions which would then lead to paragraphs (a) to (d) of subsection (3).
That is a bit tough. For example, let us suppose a cleaning company is bidding for contracts under the compulsory competitive tendering procedure of the Local Government Act 1988. If the company is set up in order to go in for contract cleaning one of the major sources of revenue is likely to be local government because these are contracts which will be let systematically over a period of time and it is a matter of chance whether a significant part of the company's turnover is with local authorities or health authorities or with the private sector.
What is the intention? Does the intention only come in when the local authority wishes to award the tender? It is unclear how we are to interpret the idea of intention. In a large company the contracts which could give rise to this condition could be made by middle ranking management. The directors of the company may know nothing about it and suddenly find themselves, because of the activities of their staff, an influenced company. It seems to me to be extremely complicated from the point of view of companies, quite apart from the local authorities.
Under Clause 70(1) a company which does business with more than one local authority will become an influenced company where, if the various segments of business were added together, they would fall within the rules in subsection (3) in relation to any of the authorities concerned. Therefore, to return to our example, a cleaning company which tenders for work in different parts of the country could easily become influenced without even noticing that it was happening.
What does the Minister think the effect will be on the 1988 Act? Was it the Government's intention when the 1988 Act was introduced that those tendering for this kind of work should be subject to the restrictions of influenced companies? In effect, we are suggesting in this amendment that this subsection is unworkable. Contract law depends on the completion of the process of offer and acceptance, not on intention. It is up to the Government to explain how the concept of intention fits into the Bill. Unless they can do so they ought to take out this paragraph and think about it again. On the face of it, it seems to be contrary to the original intentions in the 1988 Act. Much as we dislike some parts of the 1988 Act, it is wrong that those who try to abide by it should be drawn into the morass of metaphysical legislation which is implied by paragraph (e). I beg to move.
12.30 a.m.
Lord Hesketh: The amendment would delete the last of the tests of whether there is a close business relationship between a local authority and a company. I should like to take the Committee through the arguments which have convinced us that this provision is necessary. I start by drawing the Committee's attention to the proposals in Clause 67 about the ways in which the rules proposed for companies, subject to a local authority's influence, would be brought to bear. By definition we are dealing with a situation in which the local authority lacks any power of control over the company: otherwise, the company would be a controlled company. We therefore must approach the question by concentrating on the transactions between the company and the local authority.
As the Committee will see, Clause 67(3) proposes that local authorities will be under a duty to impose certain conditions in any transaction that they may have with a company which meets the definition of a company subject to local authority influence. In a situation like this it is necessary not only to look at the position as it is, but also as it will be when any transaction being considered is complete. If one does not consider transactions which are not yet complete, then the point in time at which a condition can be applied may have gone, and may not recur for many years.
Consider the case of a company which meets the test for a personnel link, and with which a local authority is going to sign a long-term contract, which will constitute practically all the company's business. When this is signed, the company will clearly meet the test in paragraph (a), and will therefore be a company subject to local authority influence. But unless the conditions are attached to that contract when it is signed, there will be no opportunity to attach the conditions for the duration of the contract. We therefore think that it is essential that one should take into account not only situations already in existence, but also those where, when a transaction under negotiation is completed, the test will be met.
There is one further point which I should make. We have been asked how the proposed application of
1278
the capital finance controls to influenced companies will be applied to those which meet the business relationship test only through this forward-looking test.
The answer is that it would not be a good idea to treat as part of the local authority sector for the purposes of the capital finance controls, a company which is within the definition only because of this forward-looking test. The order under Clause 37(5) will therefore make it clear that only those companies where a condition has actually been attached to a transaction under this requirement will be treated as part of the local authority sector for these purposes. Companies therefore that meet the test for influenced status only by reason of the test in paragraph (e) will be treated differently for capital finance purposes until the transaction in question is completed. For these reasons we oppose this amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: If the Minister were to read his own reply in the cold light of day he would realise that the Government have become so clever that they have caught themselves coming back. It is all very well to say that there are only fleeting occasions when you can catch companies of this kind. If that is the case then what we are doing is revealing a profound over-complexity in the Government's thoughts. If they are reduced to the concept of intention in order to catch influenced companies and to place restrictions on them, then they have allowed their overpowering desire to control every aspect of local government activity to get the better of them. I am sorry to hear that reply. It is not appropriate to divide the Committee. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendments Nos. 127 to 129:
Page 74, line 1, leave out from ("subsection") to ("to") and insert ("(3) above—
(a) the reference in paragraph (c)").
Page 74, line 3, after ("and") insert—
("(b) the reference in paragraph (cc) to the fixed and current assets of the company shall be construed in accordance with paragraph 77 of Schedule 4 to that Act,
and, in either case, the reference").
Page 74, line 5, at end insert ("or, if there n no such balance sheet, as estimated by the local authority for the time in question").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move these amendments en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 129A:
Page 74, line 8, after ("of") insert ("and was appointed by").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I also wish to speak to Amendment No. 129C. It is a very simple point. Subsection (5) says that a person is associated with a local authority if he is a member or an officer of the local authority. The amendments say that if the membership or the status as an officer is not relevant to his position in the company—in other words, he was not appointed by the

1279
company—the restriction should not apply. Widdicombe made a link between restrictions and responsibility; but the Government appear to be saying that even if the councillor or officer is acting in a purely private capacity, he will influence whether the company is in turn influenced and whether it is subject to all the local authority capital controls. That is not what Widdicombe intended and it is not what common sense intends. I hope the Government will feel that they have gone too far on this occasion. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: These amendments would restrict the categories of those who are regarded as associated with a local authority for the purposes of the tests whether a company is under the influence of a local authority. Amendment No. 129A would limit the category of those who are members of the authority and involved in the company to those appointed by the authority. Amendment No. 129C would do the same for officers of the authority.
These amendments have a very understandable purpose. They aim to exclude from the reckoning of those associated with a local authority members and officers of the authority who play a role on the governing bodies of a company, but who were not appointed to their position by the authority. At first sight, this proposal sounds very reasonable, but it does not take sufficient account of the way in which companies are set up, nor of the facts of company law.
Let us consider first those who are officers of a company which may be subject to local authority influence. The directors of such a company will normally be appointed by the company itself in a general meeting. It is, I agree, possible that the appointment may be given to some outside body—such as the local authority—but there is no need for that to be done; and usually it is not.
The effect of the noble Lord's amendment therefore would be that no member or officer of a local authority would be regarded as associated with the local authority if he was appointed director by the company general meeting, even if the meeting's intention clearly was that he would speak for the interests of the local authority.
Turning to the question of those who are members of the company and have a vote at the company's general meeting, the position is similar. It is very common, particularly in companies set up by local authorities, to make the membership of the company technically quite separate from the local authority. A typical example would be that the directors of the company and the members of the company are the same group of people, and recruit themselves by co-option. A new person is brought in by the directors voting to admit him or her as a member, and then for the enlarged membership to elect him or her as a director. The local authority as such plays no part in the process. But if the existing members and directors are largely members or officers of the local authority, and the new member and director is one or the other, I have no doubt that he or she will be linked with the local authority.
The noble Lord's amendment proceeds on the false assumption that the qualification that he seeks
1280
to introduce is one which it is not possible in practice to introduce. We think that if a member or an officer of a local authority is involved in a company which is at the same time financially dependent on the local authority, the conditions necessary for the local authority to have influence are fulfilled and the company should, in the absence of other indications, be treated as subject to that influence. That is why we resist the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It would not be so bad if the position of being an influenced company did not then start to lead this company to be subject to the capital controls on local authorities. Despite the tortuous argument advanced by the noble Lord, it is difficult to see why so many members and officers of local authorities should be excluded. After all, they have other interests. They are human beings. They take a part in their local communities and get involved in undertakings which may be purely voluntary and charitable and concerned with enterprise. To exclude them simply on the basis that they happen to be members or officers of local authorities seems to be starving to an unacceptable extent the voluntary sector and starving the sector of companies co-operating with local authorities. We may wish to return to this matter at Report stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 129B:
Page 74, line 8, at end insert ("who is a member of a political group within the meaning of section 15 of this Act, another member of which is Chairman of a decision making committee or sub-committee, or Leader or Deputy Leader of the authority.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 192D and 130A. These amendments seek to restrict the definition of persons associated with an authority—that is, in respect of members, their spouses, business partners and political nominators—to those who are members of the majority party (that is the significance of Clause 15 of the legislation) or, in a hung council, the current coalition or administration.
It seems to us to be quite inconceivable that members of minority parties who are members of the board could be acting for the council or pursuing its ends. It is only a peculiarly conspiratorial view of local government which leads central government to think that this is the way such arrangements may work.
In my area, in Haringey, where the Conservative Party has been in opposition now since 1971, there have been Conservative councillors who played an active part in local activities—and a very valuable part—for many years. They have inevitably been involved in dealing with the council in order to promote those activities. Such activities could be dealing with housing, local enterprise or voluntary activities. Why not? Why should the council be restricted by its dealings with those companies when the Conservative councillors involved in a Labour area are clearly not associated, and would be

1281
horrified if it were so suggested, with the policies of the council as a whole.
Therefore we suggest that to make such restrictions apply to all members of the council, whether they are in opposition to the majority who are in control of the council, is going too far. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: These amendments are directed to the test of whether there is a link between the personnel associated with the local authority and the personnel in the controlling organs of a company. Amendment No. 129B would limit those regarded as linked to the local authority by virtue of membership of the local authority to those on the controlling political group of the authority. Amendment No. 130B would limit those regarded as linked to the local authority through holding office in a political party represented on the council likewise to those linked to the controlling political group on the council.
Amendment No. 129D would say that members should only be regarded as linked to the council for the period since the last ordinary election of councillors. It would also have the effect that officers would cease to be regarded as being associated with the local authority as soon as they cease to be in office.
Amendments Nos. 129B and 130A assume that members of local authorities are always divided into two camps so hotly opposed that the one not in control will never share any aim with those who are in control. This appears to be wide of the situation of many local authorities. It is not at all common for local authorities to have, at least on some subjects, policies which are supported by the overwhelming majority of members of the council, including those in political groups which do not hold any committee chairs.
The effect of this amendment would therefore be that where there was such general agreement, the local authority could arrrange matters so that a company that would otherwise be regarded as subject to its influence would be excluded from the category. They would do this by arranging it so that sufficient of the members of political groups, who did not hold committee chairmanships, represented the authority in the company that the thresholds for the test were never met.
It seems to us unjustified to build such a loophole into the definition. We do not think that whether or not a company is in the local authority sector should be determined by whether there is all-party support for what it is doing, with it being outside the local authority sector if there is, and inside if there is not. For this reason the Government must recommend that the amendment be rejected.
I turn now to Amendment No. 129D. This would shorten the period during which a councillor remains regarded as associated with the local authority to the period since the last ordinary election of councillors. It would also mean that officers were not regarded as linked with the authority once they have left the authority's service.
1282
I must address first the question of why there should be any period at all after someone has ceased to be a member or an officer of an authority that they should be regarded as associated with the authority. We think that it is common sense to regard such an association as continuing for some period. We must remember that we are here considering only those companies which have close business relationships with the authority. That means that the business of a company is very closely bound up with the authority. In those circumstances, it is realistic to think that a former member or officer will not be in touch with his former colleagues. We think not.
We also have to remember that in some cases there may be a temptation to use a company as a means of avoiding some control to which the local authority is subject—particularly in the field of capital finance. Regrettably, the experience of the past decade shows that we cannot ignore such cases if we wish to have an effective form of control over the proportion of the available capital in the economy taken up by local authorities.
A local authority seeking such a form of avoidance might well regard a company in which recent past members of the authority played a significant role as a convenient solution. Even more so, it might be able to invite officers to resign from the service of the authority and take up an equivalent position with the company. We therefore think that some control of this kind is essential for both members and officers. We cannot therefore accept Amendment No. 129B, and we resist the other amendments.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: In the light of the Minister's last comments I invite him to look at the position in the Conservative-controlled London Borough of Bexley which is doing what Ministers in his department have urged it to do; namely selling all its housing stock to a new company formed for that purpose. As I understand it, the director of housing, the principal projects officer of housing, a senior officer in the finance department, and one other whose position I do not know, propose to be the managers and even the directors of that new company. I invite the Minister to look at the famous City of Westminister where the senior officers of the cleansing department tendered successfully for the cleansing contract. Ministers continue to refer to allegations of abuses by Labour-controlled authorities. They forget that it is above all Conservative-controlled councils which involve themselves in such deals.
Our amendments would not go as far as any of the things which the Minister has alleged. It is only because of his conspiratorial view of local government that he allows himself to say the things that he does. What is so terrible about a council having the overwhelming support for its policies as he says, of members of other parties? Why is that such a wicked thing? Why should they not then agree, if that is the wish of all their electors and not just the majority party, to do things which they consider to be to the benefit of the ratepayers?

1283
It is only the view that "Marsham Street knows best" under all circumstances, even if there is overwhelming support locally for a policy, which leads the Government to resist an amendment of this kind. I am sorry to find that kind of resistance. When the Minister reads what he has said, he will not like it much. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 129C to 129E not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 129F:
Page 74, line 31, leave out paragraph (f).
The noble Lord said: This is a relatively simple point and one which can be readily understood. Do we have to have spouses (husbands and wives) in the category of association? In Clause 66 we already have two kinds of criteria for a company to be influenced. One of those criteria is if 20 per cent. of the voting rights are held by persons who are associated with a local authority and the other is if there is a business relationship relating to over 50 per cent. of the company's turnover. Subsection (5)(f) proposes that the spouse or business partner of a person who is a member of a local authority should also be considered to be associated.
The Minister has resisted the idea that there might be members of minority parties who do not agree with the council's policies. Will he also resist the idea that there might be spouses who do not agree with the opinions of their partners who may be directors of the company or have voting rights at a general meeting through holding shares? Why should we assume that the spouses of local authority members have the same views and are prepared to act on behalf of their local authority as though they were the members themselves? Spouses do have different political views, and even if they do not, they may well have an independent attitude towards the public work that they undertake.
We are talking about public work, not about a vast conspiracy to defraud the Government of their rights. It is deeply insulting to the spouses of members of local authorities to assume that they are simply puppets of their spouses. I hope that the Government will realise that this is a very offensive—
Baroness Seear: Sexist.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Baroness says "sexist". I am not sure that I could say that. Clearly "spouses" works in both directions. I think it is offensive to both men and women; I agree with the noble Baroness. It is offensive to both men and women to assume that their actions and opinions will be the same as those of the women and men to whom they are married. I hope that the Government will look favourably upon this amendment.
Lord Hesketh: This amendment again addresses the question of who should be regarded as associated with the local authority for the purposes of establishing a personnel link between a company and an authority. The amendment would delete any link through the spouse of a member of the authority.
1284
Ever since legislation has addressed the question of councillors' pecuniary interests, the law has regarded a pecuniary interest held by a councillor's spouse as being as significant as an interest held by the councillor himself or herself. In this we think that the law is merely taking a commonsense view of things. We therefore think that it is appropriate to reflect this long-standing provision when we come to consider who should be regarded as closely associated with the authority.
We must remember that the pesonnel link is only one of the two tests to be considered. Both must simultaneously be considered. We are therefore only dealing with companies where the company's business is predominantly associated with the local authority. In such cases we think that it is necessary to consider whether, if a councillor's spouse is concerned in the running of the company, there is likely to be an influence on the company from the authority. We think that there is, which is why we are resisting the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Even if that were true, which it is not, what does the Minister think about the possibility of enforcing a provision of this kind? Who are the thought police who will spy into the marital relationships of councillors and officers of authorities? Is this not an open invitation to live in sin in order to avoid the conditions of Clause 66 of the Bill? Who in their right minds will enter into the holy estate of matrimony if they are to be accused of not just loving and honouring but of agreeing with every single thing that their spouse says? The situation is absurd. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Chairman of Committees: If Amendment No. 129G is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 130 or 130A.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 129G:
Page 74, line 34, leave out paragraph (g).
The noble Lord said: Again, we are back with the thought police. I ask how anyone could have written down this provision seriously without cracking up. The proposal is that office holders in a political association specified on the nomination papers of a local authority—councillors—are considered associates of that authority. So if some member of a ratepayers' association is an office holder of the ratepayers' association and perhaps the only ratepayer councillor on the council—this could be the assistant minutes secretary of the ratepayers' association—because there is one ratepayer councillor, the association is considered to be associated and the whole of the company is brought into all the restrictions of the influenced category. It is farcical. We are getting to a stage where I ought not to be laughing; it is extremely serious.
Why is the paragraph not more restrictive? It could easily be more restrictive. It could relate only to the political party of the majority in control of the council, for example. That would be very easy to achieve. But it is farcical to apply the provision to

1285
every single office holder of every single political party or organisation which succeeds in getting one councillor elected on a local authority—it could well be the Monster Raving Loony Party—so that the person then becomes an associated person which makes a company an influenced company. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: In addressing Amendment No. 129G, it will be difficult not to comment at the same time on Government Amendments Nos. 130 and 131; but I quite understand the noble Lord's wish to debate these separately.
This amendment would leave out another one of the possible ways in which an association would be established between those connected with a local authority and those involved in running a company. This one is where the people concerned hold office in a political party represented on the council.
I remind the Committee that we are considering only cases where a company meets the business relationship test; that is to say, where the business of the company is predominantly bound up with the authority. In those circumstances, it seems common sense to say that if an office-holder in a party represented on the council holds votes on the board of the company, or at a general meeting of the company, there is a probability that an influence over the company's activities can be exercised.
I also remind the Committee that we have to consider the likelihood, given the experience of the past 10 years, that some local authorities will seek ways of avoiding controls—particularly controls over capital finance. We think that it is important to ensure that there is a proper system of control over local authority capital finance, as part of the general system of controlling the demands which the public sector makes on the economy. We should not therefore be quick to allow arrangements with clear possibilities for avoidance.
We therefore think that we need to consider the case where a company whose business is predominantly bound up with the local authority has as a director or member the chairman or other office-holder in a party linked to the council.
We therefore advise against accepting Amendment No. 129G. However, we think that the definitions in paragraph (g) can be improved. These improvements are contained in Amendments Nos. 130 and 131. They stem directly from amendments put down, but not moved, by the Opposition in another place. We think that they will be an improvement, and in due course, I shall commend them to the Chamber. I cannot however commend this amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I think it would have been better if the Minister had cut the Gordian knot and removed the subsection as a whole, rather than seeking to amend it. However, I shall listen carefully to the Minister's arguments on Amendments Nos. 130 and 131. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amndment No. 130:
Page 74, line 34, after ("holds") insert ("a relevant").
The noble Lord said: Thse amendments deal with the test of whether there is a personnel link between a local authority and an influenced company where the link is established because a person holds office in a political association or other body to which any elected member of the authority affiliated himself in his nomination papers.
On Report in another place, Opposition Members moved an amendment to Clause 66(5)(g) so that such links should be limited to local political organisations. The Government can see some merit in this, and there is certainly force in the argument that the holding of an associaton office in one political party in, say, Hertfordshire should not count as a link with a London borough simply because both local authorities have members who stand for the same political party.
Amendments Nos. 130 and 131 therefore make it clear that the personnel link under Clause 66(5)(g) will only be established in the following circumstances. In the case of a political association or body which is active only in the area of the authority, the holding of any office will be deemed to be relevant in establishing the link. In every other case, including where the political association is based outside the area of the authority or is also active in another area, the office held is only relevant for the purpose of establishing a link with the authority if it is a branch or other part of the association or body which is active in the authority's area.
Amendments Nos. 130 and 131 will therefore limit the criteria for establishing a personnel link by virtue of holding office in an apolitical association to those cases where the association is active in the authority's area. We believe that that fully meets the concerns of the Opposition in another place. I therefore commend the amendment to the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It is better than nothing.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 130A not moved.]
1 a.m.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 131:
Page 74, line 36, at end insert—
("(5A) For the purposes of subsection (5)(g) above, an office in a political association or body is relevant to a local authority in the following circumstances—

(a) if the association or body is active only in the area of the local authority, any office in it is relevant; and

(b) in any other case, an office is relevant only if it is in a branch or other part of the association or body which is active in the area of the local authority.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 66, as amended, agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 131A:
After Clause 66, insert the following new clause:
("Registered and Unregistered Housing Associations.
Nothing in this Part shall apply in relation to a registered or unregistered housing association.").
The noble Lord said: We have already had reference to the subject of registered and unregistered housing associations in relation to an earlier amendment. There appears to be a distinction between the Government's proposals relating to registered housing associations as compared to unregistered housing associations. I should like to move the amendment simply to give the Government an opportunity to say what their position is in relation to unregistered housing associations and to confirm what was said earlier about registered housing associations. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: New subsection (1A) would exempt "independent voluntary association companies". New subsection (1B) defines a voluntary association company by reference to Section 137 of the 1972 Local Government Act. New subsection (1C) defines independence by two tests, one of which would require that the company receives no financial assistance from the local authority and the other that any financial assistance is not given for the purpose of avoiding restrictions.
I believe there is very little between the movers of the amendment and the Government as to the substance of what we want to achieve. Such differences as there are concern the most effective way of achieving what we want. Perhaps I may remind the Committee that the definitions that we propose for what is to be regarded as a company subject to local authority influence requires that the company meets two tests simultaneously. The first is that there is a close business relationship and the second that there is a substantial overlap between the people associated with the authority and the members of the company's governing organs.
The two main forms of the business relationship test would be that the company derives half or more of its turnover or half or more of its capital from a local authority. The Committee will therefore see that that test addresses the same points as paragraph (a) of the proposed new subsection (1C). Paragraph (a) of the amendment would exempt a company that receives no financial assistance from the local authority. Before the tests set out in the Bill could be satisfied a company would have to receive not merely some financial assistance but more than half of its turnover or capital from the local authority. Paragraph (a) therefore seems to be aimed at exempting companies which could never come within the definition.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I think that the Minister is responding to Amendment No. 131B rather than to Amendment No. 131A, which is a new clause after Clause 66. It is very interesting to have the Minister's speech, which will appear in Hansard and will help the noble Lord, Lord Hayter, in moving Amendment No. 131B on Wednesday afternoon, but it is not strictly relevant.
Lord Hesketh: I apologise. I can only blame the late hour. I have some very much more relevant information.
This new clause would exempt both registered and unregistered housing associations. The considera-
1288
tions which apply to the two cases are different, and I must address each separately. On registered housing associations, I do not think that there is very much between the noble Lord and the Government on the substance. The differences are purely about the most convenient way of achieving our objective.
We have made it clear that we do not intend it to be possible for a registered housing association to be treated as a company subject to local authority influence. We shall use the power of exemption given by Clause 66(1) to exempt all registered housing associations from its scope. Since we do not think that there are any registered housing associations that are formally controlled by a local authority, this should ensure that no registered housing association is affected by the controls over controlled or influenced companies.
We have also made it clear that we shall use the powers to be given by Clause 68 to ensure that a local authority can participate in any registered housing association active in its area. We do not, however, think that it is appropriate to exclude registered housing associations entirely from Part V. We think that it is appropriate to retain, for example, the requirement in Clause 68(5) which will give a right to councillors to ask those appointed by the authority to the housing association about the activities of the association. Thus, for registered housing associations we shall ensure that Part V operates in such a way as to cause no problems to registered housing associations.
For unregistered housing associations, however, the position is different. I assume that the reference to an unregistered housing association is as defined in the 1985 Act. If noble Lords look at that definition, they will see that the only requirements that an unregistered association must meet are that it does not divide profits among its members and that it must include among its objects the provision of rented housing. I stress the word "include" because that is crucial to the reason why we do not want to exempt unregistered housing associations in the same way as registered ones.
Because the definition merely says "include", the requirement is satisfied if the appropriate object appears in the memorandum of association. The association does not have to do anything towards that object. It could devote all its activities to some completely different purpose—say, running a chain of greengrocers' shops. In such activities unrelated to housing, there would be no controls whatever such as apply to registered housing associations.
To exclude unregistered housing associations would therefore be to create a large loophole in the system of control. If a local authority wanted to use a company outside the controls of Part V, it would simply have to set it up as an unregistered housing association.
We think that the clause is unnecessary as it applies to registered housing associations since we have given undertakings that we shall use the powers in the Bill to ensure that there is no adverse effect on them. We believe that it is dangerous as it applies to unregistered housing associations since it would create a major loophole in the controls. That is why we resist the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am delighted to welcome the noble Lord into the group of the Ministers who read out the answer to the wrong amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, has the prize for that because not only has she been known to read the wrong answer, but no one noticed until afterwards.
On this occasion, we are grateful for both the half reply that the Minister gave to a subsequent amendment and for the full reply that he gave to this amendment. I am grateful for what he said about registered housing associations. I am not convinced that he has given an adequate answer on unregistered housing associations. That may be a matter to which we shall have to return. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Arran: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Electricity Bill
Returned from the Commons with certain amendments disagreed to with reasons for such disagreement; with an amendment disagreed to but with an amendment proposed in lieu thereof and with consequential amendments to the Bill; with an amendment agreed to with an amendment; and with the remaining amendments agreed to; it was ordered that the Commons reasons and amendments be printed.
House adjourned at seven minutes past one o'clock.

  FUNERAL EXPENSES AND THE PUBLIC TRUSTEE
  FUNERAL EXPENSES AND THE PUBLIC TRUSTEE
  DISCONTINUED DENOMINATIONAL SCHOOL PROPERTY: SALE
  DISCONTINUED DENOMINATIONAL SCHOOL PROPERTY: SALE
  LEEDS PRISON: TREATMENT OF ATTEMPTED SUICIDES
  LEEDS PRISON: TREATMENT OF ATTEMPTED SUICIDES
  HAVERIGG PRISON
  HAVERIGG PRISON
  PRISONERS: ETHNIC ORIGINS AND SENTENCES
  PRISONERS: ETHNIC ORIGINS AND SENTENCES
  POLICE COMPLAINTS PROCEDURE: REJECTION OF RECOMMENDATIONS
  POLICE COMPLAINTS PROCEDURE: REJECTION OF RECOMMENDATIONS
  SALMON TAGGING: PILOT SCHEME
  SALMON TAGGING: PILOT SCHEME
  SALMON NETTING
  SALMON NETTING
  BRITISH FILM INDUSTRY: FUNDING
  BRITISH FILM INDUSTRY: FUNDING
  NATIONAL ENGINEERING LABORATORY: CHANGE TO AGENCY STATUS
  NATIONAL ENGINEERING LABORATORY: CHANGE TO AGENCY STATUS
  MMC MEMBERSHIP
  MMC MEMBERSHIP